you also tend to use the name of science. Clearly observable that you weaponize the word science

when claiming having the word science, you can call anyone not believing you 'anti-science'. Which is a fallacious tactic based on ad hominem, rather than a good argument

jesus dude

science tells u alot of things

It's not even subjective. Vaccines are necessary. You antivaxxers are just searching for attention and and early grave

what are you ignorant people talkinga about -- and hey do yous not read? must i , (myself, my personal opinion) be stated every few days,, and ..must i post the SAME link or INFO every few days?

-- me, ...idk ..perhaps maybe the common 5 or 6 , i dont have a problem with -- yeah ..those same 5 or 6 that were given when i was a baby/kid, a while ago. like measels, mump, smallpox, chicken pox, etc.
but eh? DO YOU KNOW **Children today receive more than 12 times as many vaccine doses than in 1940** https://www.naturalnews.com/040042_vaccine_schedule_immunizations_children.html

do you know, the SHITTTTTTTTTTTTTTT THEY PUT IN THEM NOWWWWWWWW

DO YOU KNOWWWWWWWWWWW none of them other ones are neededddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

DO YOU KNOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW there are TOO MANY now, that, they cannot have the capacity, smarts, know-how etc, to test WHICH ONES and the COMBINATIONS of whihc, ...cause 'problems' ..between WHICH 'peopleeeeeeee' -- i hope you understand that statement

.
THERE IS NOTHING TO REFUTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

YOUs are IGNORANT

you too! @WARDLE#2299 mr um "works in the medical field" SMFH at u ,

he left

.
ANYONE ELSE wanna refute/rebut what i said here? and make yourself look stupid? PLEASEEEEEEEEE come refute it

g ndkbanjbkifvgnjrao bnvg lokfasznjoibvfigaz njbnolkjlgf\

g mbfoijsdnlg;fasn

http://prntscr.com/nnituj

`problem: not all of these diseases had vaccines for them, not limited to the black death and Q fever. Plague too` Sure, the common cold doesn't have a vaccine. That's because it mutates too frequently. Science is still finding the best way to protect humans against diseases.

`you also tend to use the name of science. Clearly observable that you weaponize the word science
when claiming having the word science, you can call anyone not believing you 'anti-science'. Which is a fallacious tactic based on ad hominem, rather than a good argument` https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience It is a real thing which means they stand against the principles of science (observation & hypothesis testing) as well as the scientific method. You can show me NaturalNews, which admit themselves they are against the principles of science and the scientific community [aka they are anti-science], but anti-vaxxers still can't explain using facts and actual biological vocabulary to describe the alleged negative effects of vaccines.

@Lancelot

wikipedia isn't 100% reliable, therefore I'd give you a different source: https://www.corbettreport.com/the-weaponization-of-science/

is corbett report reliable

and even peer review isn't 100% of the time effective, as it's already demonstrated that there's a lot of influence on it

answer: no

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-corbett-report/

apparently `Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: The Corbett Reports is a right wing biased conspiracy site. Some featured topics are the New World Order, 9-11 conspiracies and of course false flag operations. There are many more. (D. Van Zandt 2/4/2017)`

even that source isn't correct to use, you can factcheck whatever you want.

please don't say "MUH GOVERNMENT CENSORS EVERYTHING"

you can't reject an entire community without cause and then say your sources are the only ones that are reliable

it's not just the government responsible for certain developments, there are influential individuals to name

and I'm telling you the word anti-science exists and has a definition

at the same time, I can dive deep

are you rejecting that?

there's a reason to reject these points of view, first of all there's a strawman and guilt by association

nice natural news article in <#551617059013001236>

they are against science

that's a fact, which they admit themselves

hence, anti-science

well, it's not a good source of information of course

which is the reason I follow different sources