David Icke - "Don't take the H1N1/Swine Flu vaccine"

meglome

constance tench wrote: »

i think you misunderstood me, i was talking about the golfing trips provided to doctors by the pharmaceutical industry

I'm not saying this can't or doesn't happen. However doctors get to choose from approved medicines which have usually gone though lot's of testing and studying beforehand. But what I don't get is why we would listen to David Icke on medical matters or in fact on almost anything.

Martyr

King Mob wrote:

So then why shouldn't we trust doctors?

Did you watch the film?

I noticed you never commented on it.

I made it clear, as did CT that it's unreasonable to believe all doctors in the world have the best interests of people in their mind.

Asking for evidence? ha..its very well documented online and it should be no problem for you to simply search for the information.

But I doubt you're even the slightest bit interested when there is a link to CBS 60 minutes video on swine flu from 1976..evidence is not your priority here.

King Mob

Martyr wrote: »

Did you watch the film?

I noticed you never commented on it.

I made it clear, as did CT that it's unreasonable to believe all doctors in the world have the best interests of people in their mind.

Asking for evidence? ha..its very well documented online and it should be no problem for you to simply search for the information.

But I doubt you're even the slightest bit interested when there is a link to CBS 60 minutes video on swine flu from 1976..evidence is not your priority here.

No I haven't had the time to watch the documentary.

But just so we're clear. Your mistrust in doctors is based on stuff you read on the internet?
Do you have any solid evidence that the swine flu vaccine is dangerous?
Why do you believe it is?

constance tench

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying this can't or doesn't happen. However doctors get to choose from approved medicines which have usually gone though lot's of testing and studying beforehand. But what I don't get is why we would listen to David Icke on medical matters or in fact on almost anything.

ritalin is an approved medicine for children with hyperactivity, and that's speed

maybe there is some truth in what he is saying,

just because a person does some foolish things their life, it does not mean they are a fool all their life.

forkassed

What if a doctor tells us not to take the vaccine

Martyr

King Mob wrote:

But just so we're clear. Your mistrust in doctors is based on stuff you read on the internet?

No, it's based on personal experience and those of friends or family and then information i've read online.

I'm not an idiot, I won't take the word of a doctor just because she/he is one.
I will of course take advice from a doctor, but i'll also research myself and learn about other peoples experience with drugs, treatments, find out if there is anything better, any alternative...i see nothing wrong in simply keeping an open mind.

Do you have any solid evidence that the swine flu vaccine is dangerous?
Why do you believe it is?

There's nothin in my posts to suggest that swine flu vaccine is dangerous, I simply said to keep an open mind, that's all.

Nor did I at any time defend David Ickes comments, I simply made a point of keeping an open mind on the matter, don't dismiss claims that the swine flu vaccine may be more harm than good.

And the CBS 60 minutes video is a good example of where people were misinformed by authorities, I kindly suggest you make time to watch it.

meglome

constance tench wrote: »

ritalin is an approved medicine for children with hyperactivity, and that's speed

maybe there is some truth in what he is saying,

just because a person does some foolish things their life, it does not mean they are a fool all their life.

So can I assume if Bozo the Clown says be careful of vaccines you will?

King Mob

Martyr wrote: »

No, it's based on personal experience and those of friends or family and then information i've read online.

I'm not an idiot, I won't take the word of a doctor just because she/he is one.
I will of course take advice from a doctor, but i'll also research myself and learn about other peoples experience with drugs, treatments, find out if there is anything better, any alternative...i see nothing wrong in simply keeping an open mind.

And that really depends on where online you're getting the information doesn't it?

Personally I like my information to be backed up by scientific evidence.

Martyr wrote: »

There is nowhere in my posts to suggest that swine flu vaccine is dangerous, I simply said to keep an open mind, that's all.

Nor did I at any time defend David Ickes comments, I simply made a point of keeping an open mind on the matter, don't dismiss claims that the swine flu vaccine may be more harm than good.

But you see there's no evidence that the swine flu vaccine is dangerous.
It's a lot of people making stuff up and being dishonest (like naturalnews and David Icke.)

Martyr wrote: »

And the CBS 60 minutes video is a good example of where people were misinformed by authorities, I kindly suggest you make time to watch it.

I will when I get time.

Martyr

King Mob wrote:

And that really depends on where online you're getting the information doesn't it?

Personally I like my information to be backed up by scientific evidence.

I've got information from books, journals, articles online, and peoples own personal experience - i actually value personal experience more than "scientific evidence" because as I said, you can't just take the word of a pharmaceutical company or scientist.Their evidence could be fabricated...don't ask for "evidence" because I don't have time to dig out information for you and go off topic.

Respected scientists who have in the past been critical of big pharmaceutical companies have had their careers destroyed, if you had done any research on the subject, you'd know this already.

But you see there's no evidence that the swine flu vaccine is dangerous.
It's a lot of people making stuff up and being dishonest (like naturalnews and David Icke.)

I will when I get time.

well, you would appear to have alot of time arguing with people on CT forum about producing evidence that CBS video is good evidence that you can't trust your government to look after you.

please watch it and tell us what you think.

constance tench

meglome wrote: »

So can I assume if Bozo the Clown says be careful of vaccines you will?

your assumption is wrong.

Ostrom

constance tench wrote: »

of course, always trust the doctor, but bear in mind that golf trips are provided to them by the pharmaceutical industry..

By the corporate 'fat cats' no doubt. I'm sure you're basing this on sound evidence too, right?

Will I take the vaccine? I would like to think that when the time comes to make that decision, I will have processed the opinions of respected medics, browsed any available articles (assuming anything makes it past peer review before august/september), had some time to browse opposing opinions from reputable medical, epidemological and immunological sources, and, with my limited knowledge of medicine, make up my own mind.

If one doctor told me not to take it, I would hope to be in a position to press him to develop his professional opinion further. If many more follow suit, then that is certainly cause for concern.

Phara is big business.....and....? What does that matter? They are hardly the only profit-driven interest with a stake in public welfare, why feel threatened by this? Its not a secret - accumulation allows private research, attracting the brightest minds with financial reward.

The most any of us can do is approach this with an informed baseline understanding as best we can, not buy into the kind of nonsense coming from non-professionals like Icke.

King Mob

Martyr wrote: »

I've got information from books, journals, articles online, and peoples own personal experience - i actually value personal experience more than "scientific evidence" because as I said, you can't just take the word of a pharmaceutical company or scientist.Their evidence could be fabricated...don't ask for "evidence" because I don't have time to dig out information for you and go off topic.

And personal experience can't be fabricated or based on false information? You can't trust anyone on the internet.

However scientific evidence is peer reviewed and verifiable.
If any data is fabricated it can be pointed out.

Martyr wrote: »

Respected scientists who have in the past been critical of big pharmaceutical companies have had their careers destroyed, if you had done any research on the subject, you'd know this already.

Or you know they could have simply been putting out bad science and then claimed it was because Big Pharma are out to get them.

Why believe those scientists and not others?

meglome

constance tench wrote: »

your assumption is wrong.

And why is David Ickes opinion any better?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Would people seriously take medical advice from David Icke?

It's easy to discredit the views of somebody like David Icke.
He's hardly been towing the line in society over the last 20 or so years.
So it follows that somebody who is seen as a crank or a Looney is an easy target for ridicule and his views will also be easy to discredit.

I personally enjoy listening to people like Icke. I don't have to pay anything to do so. So I'm hardly contributing to his budding cottage industry.
My personal choice to listen to him does not mean that I take everything he says at face value.

That’s one of the beauties of the internet, that you can choose to look at or listen to whatever you like and share it with whomever you like.

One of the negatives of the internet is people like you on forums who like nothing better than to make yourself look clever by taking the perceived moral high ground against what is an incredibly soft target.
If you think David Icke is a nutter that's fine, you're not alone there.
The fact that you're not alone in your views doesn't excuse the fact that you have taken up the majority of this thread with childish swipes at those who take an interest in "nutters" like Icke and took the liberty of assuming that those people are all ignorant and follow everything that Icke says just because he says it.

Perhaps you should get down off your high horse and take a look at yourself you pompous arse.
We can all see you don't agree with what Icke has to say, there's no need to repeat it in increasingly cringe worthy attempted witticisms.
I can appreciate that you believe yourself to be incredibly clever with a rapier wit, but that doesn’t make you any less annoying, so perhaps you should allow the rest of us discuss the topic properly without recourse to the methods you have thus far employed.

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

It's easy to discredit the views of somebody like David Icke.
He's hardly been towing the line in society over the last 20 or so years.
So it follows that somebody who is seen as a crank or a Looney is an easy target for ridicule and his views will also be easy to discredit.

I personally enjoy listening to people like Icke. I don't have to pay anything to do so. So I'm hardly contributing to his budding cottage industry.
My personal choice to listen to him does not mean that I take everything he says at face value.

That’s one of the beauties of the internet, that you can choose to look at or listen to whatever you like and share it with whomever you like.

One of the negatives of the internet is people like you on forums who like nothing better than to make yourself look clever by taking the perceived moral high ground against what is an incredibly soft target.
If you think David Icke is a nutter that's fine, you're not alone there.
The fact that you're not alone in your views doesn't excuse the fact that you have taken up the majority of this thread with childish swipes at those who take an interest in "nutters" like Icke and took the liberty of assuming that those people are all ignorant and follow everything that Icke says just because he says it.

Perhaps you should get down off your high horse and take a look at yourself you pompous arse.
We can all see you don't agree with what Icke has to say, there's no need to repeat it in increasingly cringe worthy attempted witticisms.
I can appreciate that you believe yourself to be incredibly clever with a rapier wit, but that doesn’t make you any less annoying, so perhaps you should allow the rest of us discuss the topic properly without recourse to the methods you have thus far employed.

I think I'll have to cry now. :,(

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

I think I'll have to cry now. :,(

There's that rapier wit once again, you sure showed me.

Ostrom

nullzero wrote: »

taking the perceived moral high ground against what is an incredibly soft target.
If you think David Icke is a nutter that's fine, you're not alone there.
The fact that you're not alone in your views doesn't excuse the fact that you have taken up the majority of this thread with childish swipes at those who take an interest in "nutters" like Icke and took the liberty of assuming that those people are all ignorant and follow everything that Icke says just because he says it.

This is not a moral issue,people will take him seriously. As to your latter point, its fairly self-evident.

constance tench

meglome wrote: »

And why is David Ickes opinion any better?

your assuming again..

let's not have our heads in the sand, that's my point.

Ostrom

nullzero wrote: »

We can all see you don't agree with what Icke has to say, there's no need to repeat it in increasingly cringe worthy attempted witticisms.
I can appreciate that you believe yourself to be incredibly clever with a rapier wit, but that doesn’t make you any less annoying, so perhaps you should allow the rest of us discuss the topic properly without recourse to the methods you have thus far employed.

The methods are an unfortunate necessity. If someone would argue his poition rather than taking it to the poster, then we might have a debate.

nullzero

efla wrote: »

This is not a moral issue,people will take him seriously. As to your latter point, its fairly self-evident.

Some people will believe anything, a quick glance at society makes that fairly self evident.
What difference does it make to you or I what another individual chooses to believe?
What I take issue with it people such as yourself who seem to think that because someone else doesn't share your views they should be either not allowed to have them or be ridiculed for having them.
So that would make it a moral issue.

If somebody was to post here saying that aliens live in their attic and that they believe in fairies, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.
In fact I'd take no interest and choose not to spend my time making that person look stupid.

Listening to the views of David Icke doesn't make you stupid, nor does it make you an idiot who blindly follows whatever David Icke says.
It is possible to take an interst in something and not be immediately sold on it and take it all to heart.

nullzero

efla wrote: »

The methods are an unfortunate necessity. If someone would argue his poition rather than taking it to the poster, then we might have a debate.

There is no reason to pollute a thread with such crap.
If that's how you feel there are Private Messages to get you point across to that person, every bloody Forum has them, it's unfortunate they aren't utilised to a greater extent, if they were the internet would have a lot less crap strewn across it.
Necessity? You're only seeking to necessitate your own egotistical drivel.

Martyr

King Mob wrote:

And personal experience can't be fabricated or based on false information?

Are you suggesting I imagined my own personal experience with doctors
or that my family and friends would lie to me about theirs?

I'd take the word of people I trust anyday over a big pharmaceutical company whos main priority is to make money.

You can't trust anyone on the internet.

But why would you trust a pharmaceutical company?
What makes you believe they care about you?

However scientific evidence is peer reviewed and verifiable.
If any data is fabricated it can be pointed out.

Reviewed by who? Maybe those reviewing the scientific evidence don't have all the evidence, or maybe they're being paid off to produce good reports on the data... but thats just ridiculous, isn't it? unimaginable because all scientists are good people, just like pharmaceutical companies are good loving, caring people who want nothing but the best for you.

Or you know they could have simply been putting out bad science and then claimed it was because Big Pharma are out to get them.

Why believe those scientists and not others?

I said to keep an open mind, nothing else.

Ostrom

nullzero wrote: »

There is no reason to pollute a thread with such crap.
If that's how you feel there are Private Messages to get you point across to that person, every bloody Forum has them, it's unfortunate they aren't utilised to a greater extent, if they were the internet would have a lot less crap strewn across it.
Necessity? You're only seeking to necessitate your own egotistical drivel.

You're right, that was out of order, I apologise

nullzero

efla wrote: »

You're right, that was out of order, I apologise

Fair play.

bug

I can't see anything evidently wrong with this video. It's an opinion, and nothing I haven't heard in conversation over the passed few weeks. Although that could be more a reflection on my social circles than anything else

Fear controlling masses isn't a new idea, and is always plausible, and well the man is right to be of a questioning nature, that much is welcomed.
The snippet regarding the fear aspect was IMO the most interesting aspect of that video.

Whether he has a right or not to direct people not to take a vaccine is a different issue. Hopefully the choice will remain with the individual and risk assessment.

Risk is generally based on weighing up evidence for and against. Empirical evidence is in short in supply it seems- to the general populace for either conpiratorial reasons,(which I would never dispell), or the fact that the microbiology of virii and mutations of such are so complex and random.

That and/or powers that be couldn't be bothered explaining it to us in an understandable way without treating us like idiots i.e. cover your mouth, wash your hands..ehm..., or don't really know themselves and no one will take the career risk of modelling it.
Scientists aren't designed that way, (or should i say trained), either. They are geared towards the paradigm and only use empirical information to expand that. It wouldn't be science otherwise.

I don't see anything way too odd about that conversational piece, other than the man himself.

King Mob

Martyr wrote: »

Are you suggesting I imagined my own personal experience with doctors
or that my family and friends would lie to me about theirs?

It's not impossible is it?

It's also possible that they and you are mistaken about certain facts isn't it?

Martyr wrote: »

I'd take the word of people I trust anyday over a big pharmaceutical company whos main priority is to make money.

But why would you trust a pharmaceutical company?
What makes you believe they care about you?

And again there's government and independent oversight.

And in the long run it is in the companies best interest to produce a product that is both safe and effective.
If they don't another company would swoop in and make a product that was effective and safe undercutting the first company.

Martyr wrote: »

Reviewed by who? Maybe those reviewing the scientific evidence don't have all the evidence, or maybe they're being paid off to produce good reports on the data... but thats just ridiculous, isn't it? unimaginable because all scientists are good people, just like pharmaceutical companies are good loving, caring people who want nothing but the best for you.

An independent board of experts review scientific papers before they are published in the journals. After that the paper in open to all manner of critical evaluation form anyone in the field.
Even if the entire journal was bought off there'd still be people to call them p on it.
Drug and medicine have to undergo further testing for safety and effectiveness. Which is equally as open.

And throughout both processes there are genuine people just like you behind it.
Doctors and scientists aren't evil.

Martyr wrote: »

I said to keep an open mind, nothing else.

I am keeping an open mind. That's why I'm looking for verifiable evidence.

bonkey

samson09 wrote: »

Lads, get back on topic, need I say more? (Rhetorical by the way)

Samson09 infracted for back-seat modding (although I appreciate the sentiment)

bonkey

I've watched the video. I think its mostly based on a load of ill-informed (or made up) rubbish.

I would, however, like to make a distinction that I think is important...

Lets say the time comes where I need to decide if I take the vaccine or not...and that I decide not to. I will have done what Icke recommends...but I can categorically say that I will not have done it based on Icke's recommendation.

Lets say, instead, that I decide to take the vaccine. Dies this mean that I agree with every single person and every single reason offered by anyone, anywhere, ever for taking the vaccine? No, certainly not.

It is important that we all remember this. Regardless of where you sit on the fence, there is an important distinction between someone who has reached the same conclusion as you, and someone you agree with.

meglome

constance tench wrote: »

your assuming again..

let's not have our heads in the sand, that's my point.

I wasn't remotely suggesting we should have our heads in the sand. What I'm trying to establish is why we would listen to David Icke's opinion over let's say a crazy man who talks to himself loudly in the street? Icke is not short of opinions but they tend to be lacking in evidence and usually any credibility. Personally I wouldn't rush to take this vaccine but then I don't take medicines for anything pretty much ever. However if I contracted swine flu that would presumably change things considerably.

Orifiel

What if Mr Icke is ...right. Has anyone considered that?

Those referring to his past, what if that was right?