Message from @Wretch

Discord ID: 624691428894834689


2019-09-20 19:34:54 UTC  

Google scholar in your language actually

2019-09-20 19:35:06 UTC  

. To date, one study has measured blood levels of total mercury in vaccinated infants and reports only a brief low-level exposure with rapid excretion of mercury. It is not yet known for sure how much (if any) vaccine-derived ethyl mercury in the blood crosses the blood–brain barrier.

2019-09-20 19:35:13 UTC  

so it was not conclusive

2019-09-20 19:35:14 UTC  

These follow scientific work standards

2019-09-20 19:35:17 UTC  

hahahahaha

2019-09-20 19:35:21 UTC  

no they dont

2019-09-20 19:35:34 UTC  

Then why are they on google scholar?

2019-09-20 19:36:02 UTC  

Do you want me to get something frim universities themselves?

2019-09-20 19:36:11 UTC  

And what is the difference from your founts

2019-09-20 19:36:21 UTC  

know liars

2019-09-20 19:36:26 UTC  

are you fking kidding me

2019-09-20 19:36:46 UTC  

they only put out what they want you to see

2019-09-20 19:37:19 UTC  

Ok, now you're starting to reduce your founts quality even more

2019-09-20 19:37:46 UTC  

I am sorry but I can't belive conspirational theories sites

2019-09-20 19:38:08 UTC  

http://humansarefree.com/2019/04/science-pioneer-99-of-modern-scientific.html “People just don’t do it,” Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong told Brietbart.com after making the shocking claim that less that one percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method.
According to Armstrong, “the goal of objectivity is one that is sought but seldom achieved because the bias of the researcher is always present. [One researcher, Mitroff] concluded that scientists [become] famous not by being objective, but by being advocates. This appears to be true. Advocacy is a good strategy for career advancement. However, I believe that it is bad advice for making scientific contributions.”
Armstrong stated that the forecasts from the world-recognized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violated all eight criteria.

2019-09-20 19:38:25 UTC  

“What’s happening now is, government research, universities — they’re asking for what I call advocacy research. They have something, they want you to prove it, make sure you prove it, [and when] you do, you keep getting paid,” he said in a separate article on Breitbart.com.
“Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”

2019-09-20 19:38:43 UTC  

less than 1% follows the scientific method hahahaha

2019-09-20 19:38:58 UTC  

that means over 99% is pseudoscience

2019-09-20 19:39:11 UTC  

done for MONEY

2019-09-20 19:40:42 UTC  

This is such a fascinating idea to consider; particularly as the base motivation for these “scientists” appear to be more focused on capitalism rather than accuracy. Armstrong argued that being politically convenient is more rewarding both financially and in terms of one’s career.
“[Scientists] cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want,” he concluded

2019-09-20 19:40:45 UTC  

This is such a fascinating idea to consider; particularly as the base motivation for these “scientists” appear to be more focused on capitalism rather than accuracy. Armstrong argued that being politically convenient is more rewarding both financially and in terms of one’s career.
“[Scientists] cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want,” he concluded

2019-09-20 19:42:21 UTC  

Then you are wrong and so am I

2019-09-20 19:44:03 UTC  

Because you are claiming that all science is a joke

2019-09-20 19:44:41 UTC  

If that is the case

2019-09-20 19:44:42 UTC  

Your founts are probably as wrong as mine

2019-09-20 19:46:12 UTC  

So either we both founts are real our both of ours are fake

2019-09-20 19:46:59 UTC  

Because excuse me, but it's easier for vaccines to be safe, that's what we see each and everyday

2019-09-20 19:49:08 UTC  

lol that is not what is the reality

2019-09-20 19:49:09 UTC  

I think the technician class should debate more with the common population to answer such questions like "are vaccines actually safe" because I agree, most scientists act like if you are a not so intelligent human being if you disagree with science likeyur doing, I belive your idea is wrong but your questioning self is a good part

2019-09-20 19:49:38 UTC  

your forgetting even they could not answer 1 of those 9 questions

2019-09-20 19:49:46 UTC  

Read the history about vaccines first

2019-09-20 19:50:07 UTC  

Yeah, you bombed me with so many questions that I may not have technical knowledge to awnser

2019-09-20 19:50:23 UTC  

If I say what is on my knowledge you would discredit it

2019-09-20 19:50:38 UTC  

So I pointed out founts for you that respond the main question

2019-09-20 19:50:44 UTC  

how the heck did the measles vaccine stop measles if it was bottomed out before the vaccine was even introduced ?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552285797038948364/624693950783029278/Vaccine-graph-us-deaths-1900-19651-1024x636.jpg

2019-09-20 19:51:04 UTC  

The USA isn't the only country that vaccines exist

2019-09-20 19:51:14 UTC  

On my country vaccines really helped

2019-09-20 19:51:17 UTC  

in fact every disease was in decline before any of their vaccines

2019-09-20 19:51:22 UTC  

But most articles about it are on my language

2019-09-20 19:51:39 UTC  

So stop ignoring what I say