Vaccine / Health Care Scam Exposed.

Wrong i worship... our... government.
the bill of rights... created mankind.

That does... prove to you that.... i do not know... our... nation.

blind faith in trusting what the pharmaceutical industry says is good

Please watch the video and check the link chaosx provided which has detailed information that has FACTS. Do you realize how much money the pharmaceutical industry is making off of you and me and everyone else by spreading fear of illness to trick us into taking more medicine, that only just keeps hurting us until eventually we kick the bucket sooner then later. Please check the video out and read the link and watch the video there there both short that chaosx provided with a open mind and heart. Listen i value every American in this country and wish them the best health , but let it be by there choosing of how they seek there own way about it.

I dare you to get a list of the founding fathers and then look up what religion each of them were... I'll give you a hint, you're gunna have a bad time.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Frazer identifies three camps in the politically charged debates about the religious disposition of the founding fathers. The "secularists"—a majority of historians and political scientists, together with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State—view the founders as either indifferent or antagonistic toward religion. The "Christian America" group—consisting of Barton and those who teach at sectarian schools like Patrick Henry College— view the founders as something akin to evangelicals. The third category—those who recognize "a significant degree of impact on the Founders from both secular and Christians influences"—consists of such diverse voices as Heimert and Marsden (4).

Frazer wants to situate himself in the third camp. To do so, he ascribes to the founders the term theistic rationalism, "a hybrid belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element" (14). The author demonstrates his command of intellectual history by recounting the philosophical influences of such figures as Joseph Priestley, Conyers Middleton, Samuel Clarke, Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, and Anthony Ashley Cooper (the Earl of Shaftesbury) on the founding generation. By the middle of the eighteenth century, Enlightenment rationalism had infected the colleges as well, especially Harvard and Yale. Patriotic ministers then preached the "fusion of liberal democratic theory with theistic rationalism" (81).

Frazer examines the writings and speeches of the founders, principally John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson. Frazer insists that Jefferson never claimed to be a deist; that Franklin, although he had little regard for St. Paul, believed in the power of prayer; and that (despite Barton's spurious claims) Adams was emphatically not a Trinitarian. Morris and Madison countenanced the possibility of miracles, but Wilson did not.

What united all of these "theistic rationalists," according to Frazer, was their conviction that "the various roads to God were paved with good deeds and acts of public morality, not adherence to certain beliefs" (174). Frazer maintains that Washington is the real prize in the contestations over the religion of the founders, concluding that the first president was a theistic rationalist. He candidly opens the final chapter with, "So what?" (214). The theistic rationalism evinced by the founders, he concludes, was played out in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The range of Frazer's knowledge is impressive, as is his prodigious research. Although he purports to take on both the secularists and the Christian America crowd, his conclusions strike a bit harder at the latter. "The fact that the Constitution makes no mention of God, much less the Bible," he writes, "is in itself a telling refutation of the Christian America claim that the document was based on biblical principles and was meant to establish a Christian nation" (218).

He won't look it up, but I will

666 It Has Begun

666 It Has Begun

RFID chips in vaccines and flu shots look up nano technology. Anything to sell a great evil, we are the resistance.

Case in point. He ignored everything we replied.

P. S. Please stop insulting flowers.

I swear it is like fighting with someone over religion

*** that. I don't have a medical degree, I don't have the time or literal decades to do the necessary research. I'll happily let well-accredited experts make my decision for me.

On the off chance I actually think my opinion is worth more than two puffs of cow methane, it's still going to be 100% based on the same verifiable data that a health care professional would use. I'd like to believe that you're genuinely suggesting that everyone actually take the time to read the literally thousands of research papers out there, but you aren't suggesting that at all. If you were, you'd stop this ridiculous campaign against established science. You idiot.

The irony here is that I'm the person who actually does spend most of his free time reading scientific research and watching critical analyses thereof. I have actually taught myself how to wade through something on PubMed to find what is actually being said because I don't trust anything that is simple enough for someone like you to understand it. If any data can be rendered into language suitable for the evening news or, worse yet, a sensationalistic YouTube video hosted by an ex-wrestler, I know it is incontrovertibly WRONG. Data doesn't come in soundbites. Ever. Not even that soundbite I just created is trustworthy.

It bespeaks amazing hubris that people with objectively limited education and intellect believe themselves to be more capable and reliable than the collective education and intellect of an entire scientific community. Skepticism has its place, but skepticism that is intractable is no longer useful and, at the risk of No True Scotsman, it's no longer actually skepticism, either. In order to be a real skeptic, you have to recognize when your hypothesis is wrong. And if your hypothesis is demonstrably correct, it behooves you not to demonstrate it well. This is the basis of science and science is a fancy word for literally all human knowledge. Even my degree that ostensibly prepares me to analyze the rhyme structure of a Shakespearean sonnet is still based in science and the scientific method.

Come, join the rest of human society and cast off the shackles of your egomaniacal ignorance.

Nothing but our own self doubt can stop us.

Three children per thousand (0.03%) in the United States are completely unvaccinated. Yet, the rise in anger and hostility toward these children and their families is becoming louder then ever before.

If you are reading this, then it is safe to presume that you’ve been in some type of discussion or debate regarding vaccination status.

While we may all agree that selecting any medical intervention or medicine is a personal choice, it seems at the mere mention of vaccination every Tom, *** and Harry has conjured up an opinion on the subject in a no-holds bar brawl.

In vaccine debates, you’ll most commonly witness juvenile name-calling and low blow attacks or criticism. Parents who choose an alternative schedule will be called ‘self-centered’, ‘stupid’ or ‘anti-doctor’ for not following the advice of their respected physician.

Some will go on to suggest that people who are unvaccinated be somehow labeled to distinguish them out amongst the group or advocate for schools to reveal the vaccine history of their students.

More will suggest that exemptions be revoked completely or at the very least become much more difficult to obtain – requiring an approval and signature from a licensed medical practitioner.

Others offer more radical opinions (if the above wasn’t radical enough), suggesting Child Protective Services be contacted if a parent chooses to decline vaccines…or that children should be placed in someone else’s care in hopes for better medical care and attention.

It can also be observed where physical harm was wished upon parents or their children if they refuse to vaccinate.

"Fine, so long as these parents are forcibly exposed to the illnesses themselves. And if their children either die, or are permanently injured, criminal charges should be laid. Then we'll see how much they still believe in their voodoo-science......"

Does the majority of trepidation and fear expressed against the small group of the unvaccinated stem from the various theories of herd immunity or does it go further than that …is it because there is a group that exists that does not believe, think, dance and act the same as the majority group does?

It's an issue I have with you, parent of the unvaccinated, not actually with your child. It's a feeling that you're not doing your part here; not holding up your end of the bargain. Vaccine efficacy depends, in part, on "herd immunity," and by choosing not to inoculate your child, you are failing the herd. I hold you responsible for the unnecessary illness of babies who were too young to yet be vaccinated. I definitely blame you for your own child's sickness - and I just have to remind you that it was preventable.

No human being should view another person as being a means to an end, no matter how desirable that end may seem to be.


The hazard of having an ideal such as forcible vaccination (barring acute medical reasons) and/or being combative (emotionally, mentally, socially, and physically) to those that resists such beliefs devalues the life of every human being.

The logic of sacrificing a few individuals (without consent) for the greater number of society is nothing novel. Because of this, we must be diligent to consider the devastation and revolting crimes that was born when such ideals were accepted as truth.

Voluntary consent married with adequate comprehension of each medical intervention is exceptionally fundamental as modern-day medicine develops and progresses.

A human body should never be perceived as a weapon in the arsenal of medicine against the war on viruses, cancer, or disease.

I laughed when you mentioned reality because there have only been a few posters who have woken up to a realization that the systems are broken our rights are being taken advantage of and away.

It does not take money .
There is reason .
It does not take rocket science intelligence to realize our medical systems and government that creates laws is broken and profiteering off of entire nations.
That is my opinion. Believe it or not.

There is no debate when it comes to an Us Vs. Them mentality.

This thread is the clearest proof.