.
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

interesting, NaturalNews forms the bulwark of the sources presented by those against vaccines

would you object to posting your sources? if you'd like I can do the same

those haven't the strongest arguments, I've got some with stronger arguments

http://vaccinepapers.org/

this source for instance, focuses on the arguments and mechanisms themselves

other sources I use are researchgate, sciencedirect and even pubmed

which are scientific sources of information

what about WHO and the CDC?

they can be reliable, but aren't always reliable

okay I'll give you a fair chance and read over vaccinepapers

it'll take awhile, be warned

on one note, should people who got poor health be vaccinated? Or shouldn't they?

no, I understand medical exemptions

the source goes into detail how aluminium first causes immune activation in the body and what happens when that same process takes place in the brain, how that'll affect behavior