Yes I did watch it. Now go check those sources and see how the numbers he is giving are completely fucking wrong.
No, but it is not what he says it is. If I say "the CDC says 123 people were killed by vampiric niggers in 2012" and then show a screenshot of the CDC website showing 123 people died from e.coli, that's not proof of vampiric niggers.
The truth about AntiVax
Liam Phillips
Sebastian Ross
Look at the whole thing as eugenics in process. Immigration (invasion) creates pestilence, (toxic) vaccination lowers defenses, and (non toxic) vaccinations will secure the military who's gonna sweep up the remains. That is the bacteriological warfare side of it, accompanied by demoralization, censorship of rights, corruption of natural identity, financial ruin and after that starvation, war and finally death or enslavement.
Josiah Brown
They are pretty open about their lack of data (namely, their rejection of data from sources that aren't authorized or approved by their agency policy crafted at the top of Bureaucracy). Here's the Ministry of Truth article:
no evidence? or are they being ingenuous?
Evan Allen
An infamous case of forced vaccination, demonstrating that it has to be baldly forced by a government on its people. Something that takes away such rights should surely be scrutinized closely.
Wyatt Stewart
Is this all, nothing to worry about? Or would they rather continue injecting people with viral particles of a sexually transmitted disease that is contracted in Western countries by less than 1% of the population, through needlesharing, sex and contact with blood—such as between mothers and their children in the womb. Which is to say that if you don't envision your child sharing needles, having sex with anyone other than their longterm partner, or being a mother sharing her disease with her baby, then there is >99% chance that they will not come into contact with Hepatitis B. So why do they want to do things like mandate/recommend things like hepatitis vaccines for expectant women and bat these questions away like we're being impudent for demanding the right to not undergo a literal preparation to get these diseases. If you get a vaccine, you are 'preparing' to come into contact with that disease, but in fact to mandate and recommend widespread use of inoculations rests on insufficient grounds as it is nigh unlikely that one will come into contact with them in the first place. And when the vaccines are studied as with these they yield further concern and skepticism.
The profit motive is not a reductionist approach to explaining the behavior of the medical community here.
Owen Allen
...
Ian Ross
Availability is not the issue, it is efficacy as well. As the Ministry of Truth goes on:
They presume that this is true because they are assuming their theory in explaining itself. They are defining vaccinated individuals qua 'less likely to contract and spread X disease(s)' and thus it is true that unvaccinated individuals are more likely to contract and spread X disease(s) by their definition, one that begs the question by presuming the belief that vaccines are, on the whole, effective in resisting infection by communicable illnesses, like gods above men with an armor that cannot be penetrated, whereas the unvaccinated swine are mere mortals that can contract disease from one another. The idea is preposterous on its face, because the data clearly shows that vaccines are woefully ineffective in preventing contraction but into the near future, hence the need for booster shots. Furthermore, the statistics on the presence of disease in Western society demonstrates that these illnesses were mostly gotten away with by changes in lifestyle and technology over time and not by vaccination. Children today are vaccinated repeatedly to prepare their bodies for diseases they will never be in contact with, as demonstrated by the stats on how few people living certain lifestyles contract these diseases and spread them. Lifestyle is in fact usually neglected as a variable in so called 'scientific' studies that presume to have isolated a variable for statistical comparison when they have a cluster of variables including social ones.
Nathaniel Collins
(((Arthur Kaplan))) wants you to know that it is in fact a form of neglect NOT to vaccinate your child for these diseases—diseases they won't or shouldn't be in contact with in the first place—and thus you have no right to not vaccinate your child. Sounds awfully similar to another infamous fraudulent abuse of prophylaxis to deprive fellow men of their rights: forced infant circumcision.
Naturally this doesn't include other views, such as that vaccinating an infant is a form of neglect (if it could be clearly and verifiably established that some aspect of the modern vaccine schedule and its contents was injurious to the child/adult). But that would require an expertise in wordplay that only a (((Kaplan))) could muster.
Chase Garcia
It doesn't matter if it's forced or not. What matters if if works on the NPC's. The aim is to induce in pavlovian matter an unthinking unquestioning acceptance of any and all vaccines. See pic. related.
Brody Cox
Yes and no, some immortalized cell lines used for research (read: cells that either were cancer or were made like biologically immortal cancer cells) were derived from aborted fetuses.
The famous HeLa cell line came from some nigress who died in 1951 and is still a mainstay for research. "Made from baby parts" is about as accurate as saying HeLa cell derived polio vaccine is made from concentrated negro