And what is the difference from your founts

https://www.projectveritas.com/video/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/ google hahahaha

know liars

are you fking kidding me

they only put out what they want you to see

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

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

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.

“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.”

less than 1% follows the scientific method hahahaha

that means over 99% is pseudoscience

done for MONEY

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

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

Then you are wrong and so am I

Because you are claiming that all science is a joke

If that is the case

Your founts are probably as wrong as mine

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

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

lol that is not what is the reality

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

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

Read the history about vaccines first

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

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

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

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

The USA isn't the only country that vaccines exist

On my country vaccines really helped

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

But most articles about it are on my language

So stop ignoring what I say

And hear this, if it is to have a doubtful substance to protect against a deadly pathogen

It is worthy as we don't see the effect of such substance too often

no vaccines did not help it was better understanding of nutrition and hygiene along with better plumbing that stopped it

Medicine may be bitter and cause cancer, but it saved your life multiple times

you even know how you got polio???

you had to ingest feces

hmmmm

That is on your country, not everywhere have the luxury od having better plumping or better nutrition