/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15398217
If a schizoid website says so, who am I to disagree?

>>15398220
are you saying the data is false? this is common knowledge, anon.

>>15398217
>vaccination is one, but not the only measure that can be used to control disease
that was pretty easy.

>source: journal of AAP, Dec. 2000
so, which article in the journal? sounds made up.

>>15398217
Is that image a contest to lie the most in the least amount of space? I am impressed.
>can science explain this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Considering vaccines are used in many countries without good sanitation or clean water systems with the same effect on the respective diseases observed in the first world. Oh, and the title is irrelevant to the graphs because both things can be true.
1. Proper water sanitation can reduce diseases in general by 90%
2. Vaccines also work

Real question is: Why the fuck you lying?

>>15398266
what makes you think vaccines work?

>>15398305
They heckin showed taught us in schools and I saw it on le TV where scoyence man told me vaccine is le good hence it is le true.

>>15398266
>Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
do you just parrot things you heard? yes, correlation does not imply causation, but if there's no correlation at all, then it tells you there's no causation either

>>15398266
Correlation does imply causation if it's significantly high. Learn Math and Statistics.

>Jump out window
>Break legs upon impact
>Doctor tells me he doesn't know what caused my broken leg
>"Anon, your leg breaking is only correlated with impact. That doesn't imply impact caused your broken leg."
>Tell doc it's obvious the impact broke my leg
>She calls me a science denier
>Forces me to go on antipsychotics
I finally see the light. It's been years since my transition and I'm still on antipsychotics but I finally understand that my leg breaking was only correlated with impact.

>>15398266
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
yeah, I also think that positive PCR test doesnt mean shit

>>15398217
>>15398237
Well, I checked the source journal. The one article seeming relevant to this is "Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century" https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.106.6.1307

It doesn't have these graphs, though, but it does cite various CDC publications about "Vital Statistics of the United States". It does not cite "VITAL STATISTICS RATES IN THE UNITED STATES 1940-1960", but that seems to be where at least some of this data is from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf Pages 82, 84, and 85 have this exact data for Typhoid Fever, Diptheria, and Measles.

I have no clue why they've put "Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics, December 2000" as a source, since not only is that asshole-sourcing of the highest order, but it is factually incorrect too. The data seems real, though.

>>15398393
Not sure why you bothered with that. You could've checked even on google images for disease rates for each one in the past 100 years or just CDC data on the same. Medical advances in preventing death from symptoms, and rapidly increased access to said medical care, would easily explain prior declines in death rate too.

Either way easy enough to compare how effective vaccines are between vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups or countries. Like TB for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302895/
Or covid https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
or measles https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5332946_Measles_vaccine_efficacy_during_an_epidemic_in_1998_in_the_highly_vaccinated_population_of_Poland

But you know antivaxxers. If it doesn't agree with them it must be conspiracy.

>>15398393
>The data seems real, though.
it absolutely is real, you can make a FOIA request to your own government asking for measles deaths or something. these data are not secret.

>>15398437
>it absolutely is real, you can make a FOIA request to your own government asking for measles deaths or something. these data are not secret.
And you didn't think to compare measles related deaths against those who have never been vaccinated for measles because... ?

You'll never get a nuanced discussion about vaccines on this website. It's all rabid supporters of either position with no in-between - either vaccines can't have any flaws because the science is settled and you're low IQ and an incel for asking questions or vaccines are used to inject 5G nanoparticles with which Joe Biden brainwashes America. Simple things that should be starting points for discussion, like the idea that injecting mercury into people probably has poor effects on their health even if it makes them immune to a specific disease, or the strong correlation between SIDS deaths and the infant vaccine schedule, are impossible to discuss without one of the aforementioned groups showing up and ruining the thread.

>>15399201
This is by design. Those posters are both there to slide discussions and turn people away from difficult topics that may impact trust in the regime.

>>15399201
>idea that injecting mercury into people probably has poor effects on their health
We haven't used thiomersal in childhood vaccines since 1999. Not based on any actual evidence of its harm, but purely to appease retards like you who refuse to give a shit about evidence. Case in point, you're so completely out of touch you're parroting BS from over 20 years ago.
>or the strong correlation between SIDS deaths and the infant vaccine schedule
And I'm sure you think nicholas cage films also cause drownings. Except SIDS has fallen since the 80s while vaccination rates only increased. Also hardly surprising as a lot of it had to do with accidental infant suffocation, and possibly still does.

Another obvious refutation is the simple fact ethnic demographics with the lowest vaccination rates in the US have the highest rate of SIDS. The only thing you can do from here is make up some bullshit claim you can't evidence that some hidden portion of SIDS cases are "so totally vaccines somehow anyway I swear" because you feel it's true

>>15399518
Vaccines are bad mkay?

>>15398437
>a FOIA request to your own government
kek>>15398437
>these data are not secret.
KEK!
People who trust the government = stupid AF.

>>15398217
b-but vaccines cause disease!

>>15399201
The majority here for the last two years have been against the mrna injections but are ok with well tested, proven vaccines. You just prefer not to see them and only look for the extremes.

>>15399518
>Not based on any actual evidence of its harm
>Uhm, can you provide me a peer reviewed study that injecting mercury into infants is bad for them? I don't believe anything unless the CDC allows me to. Time to go get my 4th covid booster.
That isn't how it works, you fucking retard. The burden of proof is on you to show that thimerosal is safe through placebo controlled trials before using them on fucking infants.

The only research that was ever done was on meningitis patients, in which every single one of them died during the study. Beyond that, they used a few animal models to hypothesize how the body metabolizes ethylmercury and found that a significant portion is converted to inorganic form, which has a half-life in the body (and brain) of months.

Fortunately, retards like you are easy to dupe, so they can just quietly sweep the issue under the rug and most people will bend over and take it.

>>15399562
>I admit I have no evidence and somehow I think this is a good argument
So how much mercury you got in your air supply? Seems like a whole lot from what I'm reading.

>>15398217
science's current explanation is that vaccines are responsible for all of the progress.
science is an irrational liar who only repeats what will make it the most money and cares nothing about truth

>>15399608
>No evidence
Yeah, I'm still waiting for your evidence that thimerosal is safe for infants. And that's a pretty hilarious insult from the guy literally arguing that injecting mercury is not harmful.

>>15398237
>>15398393
>>15398436
I'm glad /sci/ is getting more diligent about detecting fake news.

>>15398217
Not without lying, but atheist don't mind telling lies, they don't believe in "thou shalt not lie", only Christians are committed to honesty

>>15398436
>Medical advances in preventing death from symptoms, and rapidly increased access to said medical care, would easily explain prior declines in death rate too.
You mean better nutrition and widespread bathrooms/sanitation.

>>15398217
Change definition of a disease.
Get different epidimiological outcome.

Let me give an example for polio.
They changed how polio is defined.
From 1 day of partial paralysis in a limb to 60 days of paralysis.
Imagine how less it would be diagnosed just because of this strike of a pen.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-87hhrg84426/pdf/CHRG-87hhrg84426.pdf

>But the most incredible discovery is a change in the rules by changing the definition of “paralytic poliomyelitis” before and after the 1955 introduction of the Salk vaccine. It is like comparing a sneeze and pneumonia. “Prior to 1954,” Joan Beck, in reporting this same panel in the Chicago Sunday Tribune (Mar. 5, 1961), observes, “any physician who reported a case of paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a favor because funds were available to help pay his medical expenses (from a large voluntary health organization). At that time most HDs used a definition of paralytic poliomyelitis which specified “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.” Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. “In 1955, these criteria were changed. Now, unless there is paralysis lasting at least 60 days after the onset of the disease, it is not diagnosed as paralytic polio.

Also they """diferienciated""" afterwards into transverse myelitis, gullian barré syndrome, flacid myelitis, multiple seclerosis, encephalitis, chinese paralytic syndrom etc.

If you would obtain knowledge on what is considered a "pathognomic disease" and look up on diseases, then you would see, there is no gigantic list distinct disease, but only a small amount diseases, which will be renamed based on circumstances.

>>15399879
No sympathy for a disgusting, brain dead, narcissist.

>>15402299
Do you seriously not know the difference between mercury and organic mercury compounds? There is no vaccine which contains elemental mercury.

>>15399562
Vaccines do not work, and ar just an excuse to inject stuff into healthy children to make them a social burden by injecting them accumulating neurotoxic crap.
Vaccines do not work and can never be verified to work.
Let me give an example with measels.
The expression on the skin os not unique to measels.
But will be decleared as measels without further testing, just based on your vaccination status.
If a child has this symptom and is vaccinated, they do everything to not diagnose it as measels.
Like saying:
>erythrema multiforme
>idiopathic thrombozytopenia with purpura
>measel like disease
>scarlet fever
>an unkown allergy

Doctors are not able to distinguish the diseases.
They can only use circumstancial assumptions and circular reasoning.

Vaccines do not help.
It this whole discussion would be about health, we would look at the general health outcome of vaccinated vs. Unvaxxinated vs. Partial vaccinated persons.
But the whole over health outcome.
To be contaminated with aluminium will lower life and health quality and increase morbidity.

does it protect from infection?
No.
Does it doctors to relable diseases?
Yes.

>>15403848
He didn't ask a question about mercury vs. Organic mercury.
Also this is not even making any sense, because both forms are toxic to all organisms.

Why is it so absurd to not inject a child with a know to be toxic compound?
Or even question it?
How about we play a easy scientific experiment.
If a infant recieves 0.025mg of ethylmercury at the age of two months...
The child weight approx 5kg.
So 0.005mg/kg body weight dosage of ethylmercury.
How about you inject yourself with the proportional amount of ethylmercury, to prove that this toxic preservative is safe.
So if you would weigh 80kg you inject:
0.4mg of ethylmercury.
And if you turn out fine in the nex year, we have scientifically proven that ethylmercury is safe.

>>15398393
Now you should ask yourself how and why measels was so deadly back then?
Or almost every disease back then.
Was it because of sanitation?

Or maybe because we fucking stopped poisoning the shit out of people with:
>calomel (mercury)
>salvarsan (arsenicals)
>potassium antimony tatrate (antimonials)
> chocolate coated strychnin (rat poison)

>>15398393
Also what might impact the appearance of skin diseases:
>getting deliced with lead arsenate and DDT.

Also what you assume:
>diagnostic were correct and did not differ from our cureent dwfinition of each disease

Diseases were diagnoses by trend, not by their actual symptom pattern.
If its rendy to have
>tuberculosis then regular brochnitis, pneumonia and dry cough will be diagnosed as such
>if typhus is threndy, the same symptoms can be diagnosed as "typhus"

The illusion of doctors back then and now, could exactly pinpoint and diagnose a disease leads to the absolute retarded trust in "epidimiological" data based on disease names or ICD-10 Codes

>>15399543
>b-but vaccines cause disease!

Hmm we increase vaccination...
to get rid of pre WW2 diseases, which now would be easily treatable.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294419057_The_World_Incidence_and_Prevalence_of_Autoimmune_Diseases_is_Increasing

But instead we inject healthy infants with copious amounts of aluminium and sugar alcohols and residue of tissue cultures and their antibiotics and antimycotics, just to be sure.
While totally ignoring the fact, that we witnissing a wierd pandemic of yearly increasing autoimmune disease, which ruin the lifes of people, it does not kill them instantly, but it downgrades humanity.
Asthma, rheumatic arthritis, MS, Inflamatory bowel syndromes etc.

And the amount of autoimmune diseases which are "untreatable" but only "supressable" increases each year ~5% (depending on which expression of autoimmune disorder), and nobody wonders why, or even maybe raises the questions, that we increased the amount of aluminium, injected into children in the last two decades.

>>15398305
The fact that the neutralized virus is the same as a live virus, except it doesn't perform operations, and the immune system learns about it and makes chemicals that combat that specific virus more effectively, essentially the essence of a vaccine, as far as school taught me, and I'm pretty sure they were being legit because everyone in that went to my school heard and spoke the same thing, and it makes sense.

>>15398436
>Just check google images for valid medical information

3 year old

>>15399537
OK trustworthy anon.

Regardless, a government document is a powerful proof, and it should be regarded in combination with other documents for an assertive potent truth. Consider the fact that the water still runs and the electricity is on, we're in a healthy pretty truthful government in the USA.

>>15403999
>The fact that the neutralized virus is the same as a live virus
Could you please show a scientific experiment, that contrasts the effects of a virus and a neutralized virus.

Like isolating the virus, and infecting an animal with it, and then taking the neutralized virus and attempt infection but failing.

>and the immune system learns about it and makes chemicals that combat that specific virus more effectively

Could you please provide an experiment, which proves the learned specificity of an antibody?

Also you forgot to mention the adjuvants, such as aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, because without this no immune reaction would happen.

>>15404033
Damn you must hate drinking from soda cans I don't know that's just what I was told in high school I guess I never liked vaccines anyways

>>15404048
Do you understand the differences between injection, ingestion, absorbtion and inhalation?

Also do you compare aluminium hydroxide with the corrosion product of aluminium cans which is mostly inert aluminium oxides like Al2O3?

Aluminium phosphates and aluminium hydroxide are highly reactive, thats why they are used to """"tickle"""" your immunesystem. They will react, and then Al3+ is formed, which is also reactive, and then "mysteries" will happen.

>>15404085
insufflation used to be an roi too, no longer fashionable i guess

https://www.amazon.com/Turtles-All-Way-Down-Vaccine/dp/9655981460
science dissenters have broached this topic against the prevailing scientism before
prior to the covid vaccine disaster they were met with near universal ridicule and derision

>>15403826
"polio" was originally a condition caused by a specific type of enterovirus that caused nervous degeneration in a fraction of cases.
"polio" as diagnosed was probably more attributable to pesticide or other chemical exposure, which reduced as their respective industries distanced themselves from archaic solutions like arsenic and DDT, and as society became generally more hesitant to spray every fucking thing in the latest chemistry innovation of the month.
the polio vaccine almost certainly has little to do with the reduction in cases of diagnosed "polio" over time.

>>15405072
>"polio" was originally a condition caused by a specific type of enterovirus that caused nervous degeneration in a fraction of cases

What the fuck is the polio original condition?
Polio was known to be a typical alchemists disease before 1900s.
Because almost nobody but alchemists got this diesease.
Also back then, they had no """viruses""".
Polio myelitis is a descriptive term:
Its the inflamation of the anterior horn cells of the nerves.
Polio literally means the: "the inflamation of the gray nerve matter"

>>15405034
>no longer fashionable i guess

>>15398313

>>15398217
yes. the phenomenon is called government.

>>15405737
these.

>>15408525
Whats the technical name for that procedure?

>>15405737
It should be admitted that it's suspicious how it appeared in the late 19th century and only in developed countries, and now it's supposedly extremely rare to show these severe symptoms.

>>15411280
>>15405737
Polio virus don't real because of superficially similar damage described in the 18th century? The effort for that lie is almost impressive. Is this some kind of kool kids club I don't know about?

>>15411306
>Polio virus don't real because of superficially similar damage described in the 18th century

No the polio virus is not real, because:
>there is no existing isolation of it which isolates a specific nanoscopic agent, which causes a specific neuro(motoric) disease
This experiment or evidence does not exist.

What exists instead:
https://rupress.org/jem/article-pdf/51/5/777/1178818/777.pdf
>get bunny
>get corpse of person with neurological disease
>get nerves
>grind them up
>put them in solution
>inject solution directly in the testicles of rabbit
>if rabbits get sick "poliomyelitis virus is proven"
>but wierdly only testicle are swollen but none got sick with polio
"The testicle of the fourth animal was injected into the 4th ventricle of a fifth. No symptoms occurred in the final animal or in any an|real of the
series."
>inject solution into the brain of a monkey
>if monkey gets sick, its proof of "virus"
>but monkey does not get sick
>only slighlty irritated
"An emulsion of the brain and cord of this animal injected intracerebrally into a monkey produced no
symptoms. "

>take three more monkey and directly inject solution in brain after drilling hole
"Three of the animals, two of which died, showed other symptoms
including spastic leg conditions, salivation, convulsions and postural abnormalities."
>inject in another group
"Two died without showing symptoms at 21 and 30 days."
>must be the virus

So the proof of "polio beeing a virus" is based on injecting rabbit testicles into monkey brains.
While during the same period in which polio "spiked", they sprayed down the people with DTT, Lead Arsenate and Paris Green to "delice" them, and prevent "insect pests".
Especcially children.
And Arsenic is also in Paris green.
So neurotoxins.
And DDT is also neurotoxic.
>webmrel here:
>>15403910
And to say that this is not a coincidence:
They played the same shit in italy and the same pattern occured
>picrel

>>15411315
>This experiment or evidence does not exist.
The lack of effort in that lie is just fucking dumb.

>>15411335
then it might be easy for you to provide the experiment, in which they isolated the nanoscopic distinct and unique agent of cause.
Proved that it is the agent of cause, by creating the same exact disease in a new host, by transmitting the agent and only the agent, in the alleged pathway of transmission.

>>15411315
>then it might be easy for you to provide the experiment, in which they isolated the nanoscopic distinct and unique agent of cause.
So do you just pretend electron microscopes don't exist, or... ?

>>15411357
Electron micrsoscopes produce images of highly altered cells.
And just because you see a image of contrasted dehydrated, stained cells, does not mean you know cause and effect.
I know what EM is.
And I know the EM requires highly altering steps to cells, which raise questions about the validity of what you see.
But even if everything is fine, it is still required, to take what you see, and prove causation.

Electron microscopy requires a few things:
>contrast metals (so that the electron beams bounce of)
>fixation (since EM is always creating a still image)
>a heat resistant sample
>a dehydrated sample

EM works fine to look at dry, dead or inorganic matter, because the composition for example in minerals is self contrasting.
But in Biological matter it requires extensive preparation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nprot.2007.304

https://www.leica-microsystems.com/science-lab/brief-introduction-to-contrasting-for-em-sample-preparation/

For example to observe the structure of liver tissue you have to prepare it in the following way(s):
>dehydrate it (dry freezing is often used, sometimes with ethanol)
>staining it (heavy metals or even radioactive metals are used here. Uranylacetate or lead citrate)
>fixating it (often done with glutaraldehyde, paraffin, formaldehyde, osmium teroxide or epoxy resin)
>slicing up a thin part of the sample (<= 1mm in thickness)

And then you retrieve a image, which you have to interprete, and assume, that what you see is not just an product of cell altering.
And to prove that, you Isolate the particle in question, and conduct a experiment.

I know electron microscopy is nice, but it does not prove causality.
You require to optain the particle in question, which you allege all these beautiful attributes, such as:
>replication competence
>causing a specific disease
>and beeing the unique and only cause of the specific disease

>>15411365
>Electron micrsoscopes produce images of highly altered cells.
You know it isn't 2007 anymore right? There's been a lot of developments and we've recorded video of cells being infected by viruses. Not dead cells or anything. Contrast material and so on has improved a lot too. We can even do single virus tracking now https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00692

So I guess let me narrow my question. Do you just pretend electron microscopes stopped improving, or... ?

>>15411335
>The lack of effort in that lie is just fucking dumb.
Surely you can provide the experiment or evidence then.

>>15398318
this. disease death rate inversely correlates with global CO2 production.
(((they))) want to switch away from fossil fuels to """save the planet""" when in reality CO2 is the thing keeping death rates so low. you can already see the start of this. pandemics used to happen all the time, the black death, loads of people died. we started burning coal and fossil fuels and there hadn't been a pandemic since. we start switching to green energy, guess what, covid-19. yeah sure "coincidence". remove your catalytic converter, pull out your fillings, eat red meat. i leave my car idling 24/7, it's the least i could to do help.

>>15411380
>Surely you can provide the experiment or evidence then.
Yeah. If "seeing is believing" then look at any electron microscopy video of viral infections after 2011 in particular. Or methods on single virus tracking >>15411369

>>15411385
>there is no existing isolation of it which isolates a specific nanoscopic agent, which causes a specific neuro(motoric) disease
your link does not provide any sort of evidence for the above

>>15411369
This is not an argument.
In the 1900-1960s they declared a polio pandemic.
Based on the science given at the time.
So provide the source of your knowledge that this is was accurate back then.

>Do you just pretend electron microscopes stopped improving, or... ?

This does not matter.
You can have the most fancy meme Microscope in the world, if you cannot isolate the alleged particle you see, with what ever meme Technique you use, and prove via transmission, that this agent is the cause for a disease in a complex organism, then all you have is expensive images.
Which are only real images within the range of >= 3µ and are computer generated calculated imaged, based on laser scans.

Good for you that you enjoy this meme shit, which still is not proving causation, of the complex claim:
>a nanoscopic organism, with no metabolism
>highjacks your body
>and causes a highly specific disease

>>15411388
>your link does not provide any sort of evidence for the above
It describes the methodology and related so you understand what you're seeing. Are you unable to find any of the many videos of live viruses infecting live cells? Do you believe viruses exist and usually do as described, but only specifically poliovirus does not do what it is purported to do? Knowing what level you're operating at would make it a lot easier.

>>15411391
>You can have the most fancy meme Microscope in the world, if you cannot isolate the alleged particle you see, with what ever meme Technique you use, and prove via transmission, that this agent is the cause for a disease in a complex organism, then all you have is expensive images.
You can track a single virus infecting a cell. You can also take so many images so quickly that you can make videos from them too. How is that not what you want?

>>15411388
>>15411380
Dude, this mongoloid retard just deflects.
>see here we have expensive ways of creating nice images
>and it has virus written in it so it must contain virus
>just like a box with "contains unicorn farts" must contain unicorn farts, why would they lie?
>if it's written on it it is true!!!

>>15411393
Viruses don't exist. There are no scientific proofs at all.

>>15398217
what was in the needles anyway?

>>15411306
>>15411315
It isn't that isn't real, but that it rarely ever does anything more than flu like symptoms.

>>15411398
>You can track a single virus infecting a cell. You can also take so many images so quickly that you can make videos from them too
calculated computer generated and superimposed images and videos.

Also they never show it, they always use either large bacteria or create extremly artificial examples with so called: "virus-like particles (VLPs)"
Which are not viruses, but memes.

It's even noted in your source, that their claims are based on VLPs.

And still its not about a "in vitro, outlandish environment with antibiotics, stains and shit".
It's about the claim:
>in this world are non-alive nanoscopic replication competent particles
>which hijack you and squirt their genes into you
>and subsequently you get a specific disease
>based on the specific nanoscopic replication competent particle
>and thats why we have to kill all sorts of animals in farms, lock you down, inject you with crap

the claim:
>in this world are non-alive nanoscopic replication competent particles
>which hijack you and squirt their genes into you
Has horrific implication and gives a scary amount of power to those protecting this claim.

So there must be a instance in which it has been shown that:
>in this world are non-alive nanoscopic replication competent particles
>which hijack you and squirt their genes into you
>so we isolated this particle from a sick host
>so that we have only this particle and just this particle
>and gave it to a new host, and cause the specific disease

Unless this is not down, any "indirect" method of "see we got meme Pictures" is nothing but memes.
You can have a indirect proof, if you have proven it directly and verified, that the indirect proof shows the same information than the direct proof, so we verified that this surrugate method is valid.

So again :
>provide the experiment, in which they isolated the nanoscopic distinct and unique agent of cause, and verified it is the agent of cause

>>15411411
this kills the virus believer

>>15411411
>calculated computer generated and superimposed images and videos.
If I take 3 pictures representing RGB and superimpose them, is the resulting picture not real to you even though it would be the same as taking a regular RGB picture? I don't understand what you think the problem is.
>Unless this is not down, any "indirect" method of "see we got meme Pictures" is nothing but memes.
We've video watching viruses infect cells. Videos are just frames, or individual pictures, too. Is the video of someone kicking a football not real merely because you're stitching frames together?

>>15411417
>provide the experiment, in which they isolated the nanoscopic distinct and unique agent of cause, and verified it is the agent of cause

>>15411425
>provide the experiment, in which they isolated the nanoscopic distinct and unique agent of cause, and verified it is the agent of cause
SVT does that. You're continuing to claim it doesn't count for reasons that don't make sense, so I am asking why you're thinking about it like you are. What point is there providing experiments if your standard of what qualifies as an experiment isn't coherent? You'll just arbitrarily change standards and keep declaring victory. So please answer questions about why you reject SVT when you presumably don't reject regular photography or video >>15411417

>>15411429
>SVT does that.
no.

>>15411425
I really began to doubt pretty much everything once once I learned that science is completely wrong on another topic, which is denied by a massive amount of evidence (that is it doesn't work in practice at all) has a much more reasonable solution, yet "the scientific consensus" is adamant that it is so.

>>15411429
Okay, how do you know that the presence of the cell-infecting particle that you're observing is the cause of symptoms?

>>15411429
>So please answer questions about why you reject SVT when you presumably don't reject regular photography or video

Football exists in reality.
Players exist in reality.
Observed interaction of them in reality.
Both can be isolated.
If player kicks ball, ball moves.

Observed, and verified IRL.
See same shit in video.
Verified.

Also your meme microscopy is rarely ever used and in no circumstance, in which humans where then obligated and coerced into medical measures.
So it is irrelevant.

You deflect the simple demand to verify the causality of specific diseases in humans or animals by nanoscopic agents:
>provide the experiment of a diseases, in which they isolated the nanoscopic distinct and unique agent of cause, and verified it is the agent of cause, by isolating the agent, and inserting it in a new host and causing the same disease.

So please, go a head and show the experiment, that show that.

>>15411429
Also, you've said we're not in 2007 anymore. Are you suggesting that prior to 2007 viruses haven't been proved to exist?

>>15398217
Yeah, the medical industrial complex is a very lucrative racket.

Just wait until you learn cancer has had many cheap cures for decades which have little or no negative "side" effects. Or that the science already proves an autism-vaccine link, and money has already been paid to damages including autism from vaccines in court; it's all political, and the dumb useful idiots who buy into the big pharma lies are fucking insane so they don't care about the truth.

>>15403848
Lol, yeah organic mercury compounds are typically worse. In this case, it doesn't matter, since ethylmercury in the body breaks down into inorganic mercury compounds with multi-month half-lifes which have similar effects to elemental mercury.

It is clear you have no idea what you're talking about, which is why you keep dodging the point that thimerosal was never proven safe before it was injected into infants. You appear to have gotten a rather large dose.

>>15411436
>Okay, how do you know that the presence of the cell-infecting particle that you're observing is the cause of symptoms?
If you didn't see something fall over how do you know it fell over? In principle the answers are the same.
>>15411442
>Observed, and verified IRL.
So unless you personally see it with your own eyes without any instrumental aid, and independent of any other evidence like pictures or video, it doesn't exist?

>>15411489
>If you didn't see something fall over how do you know it fell over? In principle the answers are the same.
the burden of proof is on you. is that your best argument? really? no scientific proofs?

>>15403848
>>15411467
It's a complete lie. Mercury is essential, its deficiency makes people fat and gay. See Japan with obesity rates below Africa.

>>15411489
You keep deflecting.
Answer the question about the agent of cause of polio. Or any specific disease caused by a specific nanoscopic replication competent particle.

>>15411492
>the burden of proof is on you. is that your best argument? really? no scientific proofs?
You asked how we know things and I gave you the answer. We know viruses cause the conditions described the same way we know something fell over without personally seeing it.
>>15411505
>You keep deflecting.
If you can't explain why you've rejected my answer sensibly, then there's no reason to suppose any evidence would persuade you. So far as you've answered it seems your standard is either "I must personally see it or it doesn't exist" or "whatever is most convenient for me at the time".

>>15398217
Lead deficiency gives you aids, and make you a schizo. Schizos probably figured out that diseases kill predominantly kills them, thought the diseases are the rewson why people aren't as smart as them. so they came up with this to "improve humanity".

>>15398217
Lead deficiency gives you aids, and makes you a schizo. Schizos probably figured out that diseases predominantly kill them, thought the diseases are the reason why people aren't as smart as them. so they came up with this to "improve humanity".

>>15411523
>We know viruses cause the conditions described the same way we know something fell over without personally seeing it.
I, for instance, happen to know that there are unicorns in my garden without personally seeing them. Do you believe me?

>>15411523
>If you can't explain why you've rejected my answer sensibly

You answer is again a surrugate method of calculated observation in a non natural environment.
Your answer does not isolate a specific particle.
You answer contaminates the sample with other chemials.
You answer does not even use a "virus" but VLPs.

I request a answer to the question of a naturally occuring phenomenon.
>specific diseases, such as polio
A disease is a natrual phenomenon, of which the claim is
> non-alive nanoscopic replication competent particles
>which hijack you and squirt their genes into you

So this complex mechanism or phenomenon, I request a direct proof of causality within the natural world.
>isolate the nanoscopic distinct particle from everything else
>insert it in a host by the alleged pathway of transmission
>cause the same disease

This is not about "prove that viruses, or nanoscopic biological particles exist".
Its about the causal releationship of the phenomenon of specific disease.

I don't know how can this not be understood.

>>15398217
Vaccines are one of the biggest hoax.

>>15411494
You are a complete retard. Japan has low obesity rates because they have self-control. Maybe you could make a case for their high iodine intake.

Coal miners are full of heavy metals like mercury and they die young, stupid, and miserable.

>>15411532
You are a schizo

>>15411535
>I, for instance, happen to know that there are unicorns in my garden without personally seeing them. Do you believe me?
How did my answer imply I would believe you?
>>15411536
>You answer does not even use a "virus" but VLPs.
This is false. You have not read the article I linked to get you updated past 2007. Host cell methods and other things are explained in the article I linked.
>I request a direct proof of causality within the natural world.
You still haven't coherently explained your standard for that. It's a simple "yes or no" question. Do you only accept things you have personally seen with your own eyes as the basis of causal inference? If no, please explain your standard and why that is your standard.

>>15411382
10/10 own

>>15411554
>You still haven't coherently explained your standard for that
The standard is:
correlation != causation

>Do you only accept things you have personally seen with your own eyes as the basis of causal inference? If no, please explain your standard and why that is your standard.

No.
The standard is the application and replication of the scientific method.
>you observe a natural phenomenon
>you have a dependent variable (the phenomenon, in this case disease) and a independent variable is the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate (the virus)

>you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenomenon
IMPORTANT: Here you are required to have the independent variable at hand and be able to
- to manipulate it or
- add or substract it from the experiment to show it's CAUSAL effect
- if you cannot OBTAIN the independent variable, you cannot establish an causal releationship

>you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable, to demonstrate its influence or even cause of the phenomenon
>you conduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing other variables except the presumed causal agent, in any way
>to show that the conditions of the experiment do nor or only marginally interfere with the phenomenon
>the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
>either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
- either the virus is cause of disease, or the virus is not cause of disease

Write down the whole procedure, with protocol, with protocol for the controls, so that it can be repeated.

>>15399201
>either vaccines can't have any flaws because the science is settled
No one said this. It's just the right is clearly making schizo theories for their own narrative.

>>15411554
>How did my answer imply I would believe you?
Well, that's how you sound. You haven't presented any sort of evidence whatsoever for viral particles being a cause of any disease. Unless you do that, it's the unicorns in my garden situation.

>>15411540
dude, germ theory and free health care are literally replacement for medieval religious rituals, major pillar of civilization. essence: blame invisible nonexistent enemy, fight it for money.

>>15411581
>Well, that's how you sound.
I asked how my answer implied I would believe you, specifically, not about your general feelings. Please answer the question. How, specifically, did my answer imply I would believe you?
>>15411564
While that is helpful, I still don't understand where in that process you reject demonstrations from electron microscopy. Known virus, known cellular damage, etc. If the virus causes those signs in cells, then being infected by it would show the same signs. If there is no virus, then there should be no such specific signs. Accounting for potential false positives or other errors this is exactly what we see, and the evidence altogether satisfies your stated criteria.

>>15411589
>medieval religious rituals

You should investigate how and why "smallpox" was so deadly.

They literally poisoned the people with arsenic, antimony and mercury, when they had suspicion you might get "smallpox" .

Smallpox Inoculation in Britain, 1721-1830
"By the 1750s, purges
containing mercury and antimony were the standard medicines used in
p re p a ra tio n .^ As in the treatment of smallpox, writers gave more and more
precise instructions as to the form of medicines, most of which contained
mercury and antimony. Aethiop’s mineral, calomel, and James' powder were
45 m ost commonly recommended. Most writers advocated giving three or
four purges interspersed with smaller doses of calomel and antimonals.
Schultz described British practitioners giving calomel at night, which was
purged off the following morning. "

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2809&context=edissertations

And then before """vaccination""" you of course had to get "purged" of the devils small pox, by taking antimony.
Kek

>>15411603
Deflecting again. You don't have any evidence that a nanoscopic agent causes a disease. Everything else is irrelevant.

>>15411398
How many time do we have to repeat it to you, until you are able to isolate this "virus", and then expose a healthy individual to it, for him to get sick from the exposition, there is no proof of anything.

>>15411523
>You asked how we know things and I gave you the answer. We know viruses cause the conditions described the same way we know something fell over without personally seeing it.
You just admitted that your "proofs" are indirect, and weak.

>>15411543
Japan has low obesity rates because they have the highest intake of mercury. Subcutaneous fat isn't even energy storage, it's supposed to be responsible for thermoregulation. It has no mechanism to release the fat, it can at best die when you starve.

>>15411620
>Deflecting again. You don't have any evidence that a nanoscopic agent causes a disease.
A modus ponens and modus tollens argument for causation is deflection? I hope you aren't serious.
It's pretty simple, really. SVT evidences infection in a way you can see, and by modus ponens it is valid to argue the virus causes those effects when seen in people together as well. By modus tollens we can also infer we won't see them otherwise. Both inferences are fully justified by the evidence of the premise and their conclusions.

In order to reject the justification as qualifying, you need a standard of justification. So far, in spite of repeatedly being asked, you've been unable to explain why SVT does not count. All you have done is be factually wrong about electron microscopy due to being out of date with advances and make incoherent arguments implying that the video doesn't count since you can't personally see it with your own eyes.
>>15411630
>You just admitted that your "proofs" are indirect, and weak.
Relative to what? If you know of some way to make a posteriori truth claims without induction I'm all ears. Though you should definitely publish such an astonishing discovery.

>>15411645
See >>15411625

>>15411645
>A modus ponens and modus tollens argument for causation is deflection? I hope you aren't serious.
>It's pretty simple, really. SVT evidences infection in a way you can see, and by modus ponens it is valid to argue the virus causes those effects when seen in people together as well. By modus tollens we can also infer we won't see them otherwise. Both inferences are fully justified by the evidence of the premise and their conclusions.
>In order to reject the justification as qualifying, you need a standard of justification. So far, in spite of repeatedly being asked, you've been unable to explain why SVT does not count. All you have done is be factually wrong about electron microscopy due to being out of date with advances and make incoherent arguments implying that the video doesn't count since you can't personally see it with your own eyes.

>you've been unable to explain why SVT does not count
It's a indirect method which is never used for any claim which lead to public or national health measures.
Which does not show causation, but correlation.
It so indirect and novel, that it's not even used except in meme promotional videos
It show images and cgi of """"virus tracking"""" which does not show the fundamental causal effect in a complex organisms such as a human, which then expresses a complex disease.

You know you could end this discussion, with a evidence of:
>the nanoscopic cause of a of a disease
>in which they isolated the nanoscopic distinct and unique agent of cause
>and verified it is the agent of cause, by isolating the agent, and inserting it in a new host and causing the same specific disease

>>15411632
You might just be the most retarded person on this board. No matter how many times you shill this, it will never catch on.

Most of the mercury in fish can be traced back to human sources like coal mines, meaning they were mercury-free for most human history. In fact, humans had almost no heavy metal exposure for millions of years. The last 150 years have given us the most heavy metal toxicity in all of history, from coal mining, leaded gasoline, arsenic pesticides, mercury amalgams and vaccines, mercury in fish, etc. For the million years with no heavy metals, there was no obesity. That started only in the last 50 years.

Again, and I can't say this enough. You are an actual retard. You have no concept of cause and effect, nor the slightest capacity for logical reasoning.

>>15411604
>most of which contained
>mercury and antimony.

What?

>>15398227
He's saying it's true, are you dyslexic retard?

>>15411670
>It's a indirect method which is never used for any claim which lead to public or national health measures.
So? You asked about causation and viruses not about uncertainty analysis.
>Which does not show causation, but correlation.
The SVT methods directly show causation as you outlined you'd require. The modus ponens/tollens is an inference to causation.
>It show images and cgi of """"virus tracking"""" which does not show the fundamental causal effect in a complex organisms such as a human, which then expresses a complex disease.
If the premise is true the necessary conclusion is true. If you reject logic you're just admitting you're incoherent and only arguing whatever is convenient. You've sort of painted yourself into a corner on this one.

>>15411707
And how did they know the causality before the invention of SVT ?
Also could you please provide a source in which they took a polio infected host, with polio disease, then isolated the virus and demonstrated causality of specific disease with your Method?

You seem to be a big proponent, and defending this method, so then provide a paper, which specificly shows the causation of polio with your method.

>>15411725
>And how did they know the causality before the invention of SVT ?
Doesn't matter. If you won't even accept easily visible evidence you won't accept anything else.
>Also could you please provide a source in which they took a polio infected host, with polio disease, then isolated the virus and demonstrated causality of specific disease with your Method?
Not necessary. SVT clearly demonstrates causation of what happens to the cells when the virus infects it, so the premise of the modus ponens/tollens is true. Do you reject logic? Yes or no?

>>15411742
>Not necessary.

>>15411742
>Do you reject logic? Yes or no?

>>15398217
>can science explain this?
Yes, it's fake until the source is posted and we can judge how valid it is because antivaxxers have shown us during two entire years that they can't read past the title of a study and they are unable to recognize biases in studies.

If you think vaccines don't work or are more harmful than diseases, you need to get a better education and stop being brainwashed by conspiracy theories and schizoposts.
There's a moutain of evidence proving you wrong and you'll never be taken seriously outside of your echo-chambers.

>>15398217
>can science explain this?
yep

>>15411698
Cool it with the antisemitimzs you worthless cattle.

>>15411784
You are doing the god of this world's work, my frined.
poush more cattle to their early death, tikkun olam

>>15411772
If you think valid syllogisms are an excuse you are admitting I was right about your position being hypocritical and your standards being mere convenience. I warned you that you had painted yourself into a corner. Everyone can see right through you anyway but you've really shat the bed here and left no room for doubt.

>>15411803
>syllogisms
Syllogism != Science

>>15411812
Meaningless.

>>15411821
Syllogistic fallacies are common because of the hybris of men.
Thats why the scientific method exists, to not be fallacious.

You throw out science because of assumptions.

>>15411676
Why is there mercury in permafrost? Where did it vome from?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-arctic-permafrost-holds-a-crazy-amount-of-mercury-mdash-and-thats-bad-news/
Why do microbes metabolize it?

>>15411836
You misunderstood. Since you reject valid syllogisms, therefore logic, nothing you claim can have any meaning independent whatever you think is convenient. Effectively, your assertions are meaningless. You've reduced yourself to "I'm right because I'm right" and nothing else matters, so nothing you say can matter to anyone else either. You chose this solipsism. Rot in it.

Anyway I'm done beating up the mentally disabled it stops being fun when they stop struggling.

>>15411676
Why is there lead in neanderthal teeth? Where did it come from?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau9483
Where did all the heavy metals come from? Coal? Oil? Phosphates? All organic.

>>15411860
Because Nature is a symbiotic place in which organisms such as funghi and bacteria metabolise non natural form of mercury or arsenic into biological inactive forms so that nature then can flourish.
GFAJ-1 metabolize arsenic and Phosphorus into innert mineral forms.

>>15411862
>valid syllogisms
How to prove validity of syllogisms?

>>15411867
>bacteria metabolise non natural form of mercury or arsenic into biological inactive forms so that nature then can flourish.
On the contrary, they metabolize inactive anorganic mercury into organic methylmercury that most other organisms can use. Fungi can extract mercury from cinnabar in soil.
>GFAJ-1 metabolize arsenic and Phosphorus into innert mineral forms.
Some kind of bullshit experiment.

>>15411632
japs are major nicotine users. nicotine removes feeling of hunger for some time, is a cope.

>>15411873
Best source of mercury are energy saving lamps from the 2000s.
Just buy a box.
Break them and take a deep huff of the mercury vapor.
It does wonders.

>>15398217
$cience can sure explain this.

>>15412346

>>15412974
$cienc€

>>15398217
Yes

>>15412982
$¢¥€₪¢€

>>15413217
>$¢¥€₪¢€
perfect

>>15413217
Nobel priz€!

>>15413389

₪o₿€₤ ₽₹iz€

>>15398217
Yes. That graph shows the DEATHS from those diseases. Sanitation and prevention did reduce deaths a lot. Vaccines reduced the NUMBER of people who catch it in the first place.

>>15414530
Don't forget to take your weekly booster my friend.
You need to be taken care of.

>>15414530
daily samefag shill catch up comment

>>15411860
Lol, the whole purpose of that study was to create a new reason for people to be terrified of the climate change boogieman. Good chance it is completely manipulated or non-reproducible like most leftist "science."

But even if we take the results at face value, they could easily be explained by a volcanic eruption or type of mercury accumulation that is unique to permafrost. It doesn't at all provide support for your assertion that high mercury levels are a natural part of the human environment. Otherwise most of the mercury out there today wouldn't be traceable to coal mining.

>Why do microbes metabolize it?
Probably some evolved in a cinnabar rich environment. Humans did not. Where was all the mercury from 10000-150 years ago?

>>15411863
>Why is there lead in neanderthal teeth? Where did it come from?
You mean 1 study of 1 sample of neanderthal teeth? Where they claim to chart out lead exposure to the day based on that sample? Lol, your desperation is palpable. It is clear you consume enough heavy metals on a regular basis for all of us.

>>15414781
>>15411863
Lol, from your own study:
>Repeated lead exposures during childhood in the two Neanderthals **are the earliest such evidence in hominin remains.** The intensity of lead signals in prominent bands exceeds levels elsewhere in the teeth by a factor of 10.
>**These high and acute lead lines are indicative of short-term exposure from ingestion of contaminated food or water or inhalation from fires containing lead**
>Periods of lead exposure during the childhoods of these two French Neanderthals are remarkable, as biogenic lead bands were not apparent in the ~100-ka-old Belgian individual discussed above, and decades of research have shown that there is no safe level for lead in humans and other animals.
So not even your own evidence tries to claim that lead is a natural part of human evolutionary history

>>15411862
>reject valid syllogisms, therefore logic
>I'm right because I'm right
>>15411803
>valid syllogisms

I don't need proof.
I just say "use your mind".
Because logic.
Why proof?
Just use deduction and syllogisms.
Science is just for people who are unable to make up shi- i mean "logically think".

>>15414756
Why is there mercury in coal if it isn't natural, and coal is old plants?
>Humans did not. Where was all the mercury from 10000-150 years ago?
Heavy metals occur in ancient bones all the time.
>>15414781
It's more than one sample, and we don't have that many neanderthal teeth to cherry pick from.
>>15414790
You don't really get the scale. The most lead poisoned ancient Romans had Ca/Pb ratios about 1000. Even the baseline concentrations are massive. The only sample without it is the one from 5.4ky ago.
There is evidence of some kind of depletion event about 26 ky ago.

>>15414756
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719363156

>>15415445
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719363156

Quote:
"Both metals can produce harmful effects on ecosystems and human health. Exposure, even at low levels, may cause complex and serious health effects, including developmental delays, cancer, brain and kidney impairment, cardiovascular functioning and even death"

Romans got tricked by "alchemists" to consume lead a sugar derivate:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html

>>15415443
>Heavy metals occur in ancient bones all the time.

Guys look at the dead bones.
It contained toxic shit. that means it was healthy for them.
Trust me, it's in ancient bones.
And because it is in ancient bones, that means it is healthy, and we are deficient.

Please ignore every single scientific experiment which lead to poisoning when using these metals.
Please.
We are deficient.
We need the toxic metals.
Because we found it in ancient dead material.
That means it's working.

>>15415551
They have to write that in order to get published.
>Romans got tricked by "alchemists" to consume lead a sugar derivate:
No, you need it and it tastes great.
You can see mentions that it even got used to get rid of disease, as the immune sustem needs it.
>>15415560
It goes way before known civilization. Coal oil and a lot of phosphates even predate people by millions of years.
>Please ignore every single scientific experiment which lead to poisoning when using these metals.
Never ever shown to be true. You can only overdose by obviously excessive levels. No poisoning with readonable levels.
>We need the toxic metals.
They have never been shown to be toxic in the first place, except that the dose makes the poision, in which case table salt is toxic too.

>>15415443
> Heavy metals occur in ancient bones all the time.
total. bullshit.

>>15415586
> They have to write that in order to get published.
you need to write this in order to get paid

>>15415634
I posted a link.
>>15415639
Who would pay me and why? Do you have any idea how much is being raked on treating the defects that the deficiency causes?

>>15415443
>Heavy metals occur in ancient bones all the time.
They have to write that in order to get published, shill

>>15415645
> I posted a link.
They have to write that in order to get paid, shill

>>15415645
> Who would pay me and why?
The most immediate and typical shill self defence lol. Just troost me bro, I am free expert saving the planet!

>>15415648
>VIRUSES DON'T EXIST
They do, lead deficoency causes something like AIDS. I think, just a guess, that it prevents the immune system from telling what is and what isn't dangerous.

>>15415654
no, they don't LOL you so pathetic now

>>15415653
Why would they pay me if they make money from the diseases that it causes, such as diabetes or nearsightedness?

>>15415586
>except that the dose makes the poision, in which case table salt is toxic too.

No the poison makes the poison.
Salt is part of our metabolis.
Overdosing is not the same as "toxic".
Toxic is, when crap is biochemically negatively interfering the natural metabolism in any dose.
Which mercury and lead does, in any dosage.
Table salt is used by our metabolism.

>>15415659
>Toxic is, when crap is biochemically negatively interfering the natural metabolism in any dose.
>Which mercury and lead does, in any dosage.
No it doesn't. It's supposed to work the way it does with them. You arbitrarily defined the way they work withoit them as "correct" and call any abberation from that a defect. You could prove every nutrient is a toxin in the same way.
Let's say zinc:
1. observe the metabolism of zinc deficient and healthy animals.
2. notice the differences in bodily processes.
3. observe the deficient animals wither and get "dominated" by the healthy animals
4. declare zinc a dangerous toxic element that causes agression.
5. remove all zinc
6. watch people die
7. execute those who managed to get zinc somehow anyway.
8. ???

>>15415670
Acute lead deficiency.
I get it now.

>bullets made from lead
>antifa and trannies are the most lead deficient
Took a while to get this joke.

>>15415679
No. It's not a metaphor. But they are indeed lead deficient, non-metaphorically speaking.

>>15415684
>non-metaphorically speaking.
*wink wink*
Yeah I get you bro *wink wink*

>>15415688
no winking

>>15415695
>no winking
*making air quotes*

>>15415707
Stop derailing the thread.

>>15398217
Vaxxies have a hard time accepting that this puts down the importance of modern medicine and "science" to near nothingness.

All we have is basically due to improved supply chains of food and Water. All the progress is more akin to the circus part in the old saying "bread and circuses".

People who have built an identity on being clever and science savvy don't like the idea that they were just circus enjoyers all along.

>>15415657
shill, your "why" pseudo questions sway only cattle.

>>15415443
>Why is there mercury in coal if it isn't natural, and coal is old plants?
How can you be this retarded? Coal mines are massive deposits in the earth's crust that contain way more than just "old plants." It is a perfect collection place for heavy metals.
>It's more than one sample, and we don't have that many neanderthal teeth to cherry pick from.
Except it isn't. No samples of prehistoric humans show common heavy metal exposure. Your own study says this you retard.
>The most lead poisoned ancient Romans
Lol, there really is no limit to your mental gymnastics. Rome was one of the first civilizations to propagate the usage of lead in paint (and wine). They artificially poisoned themselves with lead over a long period of time through unnatural selection, not because it was a legitimate part of their habitat. No one else around then had it. Widespread lead poisoning is even thought to be a contributing factor in the collapse of Rome.
>There is evidence of some kind of depletion event about 26 ky ago.
Lol, of course there was.

>>15398266
>Vaccines also work
>Vaccines
They literally changed the definition over this argument. They're so mad.

>>15398393
This is a case where I wouldn't bother. It's not particularly relevant data. Is a disease only bad if it straight up kills you during the initial infection? Is long term organ damage, stunted development, brain injury, sterility, etc. not a problem?

Modern medicine can keep a young person alive through all sorts of shit, and even the medicine of the early 20th century was making leaps and bounds with this. Access to medicine expanded massively in this time and the profession became regulated such that treatments were less likely to kill you themselves. People also stopped having nearly the rates of malnutrition, which tended to make disease worse, and they had clean drinking water so that any infection that knocked down their immune system didn't kill them.

But measles was still making kids sterile in the 50s. Not in huge numbers, but at a drastically higher rate than vaccines caused issues.

The proper comparison is "did vaccines cause less death and long term issues than getting the disease," along with "how expensive is the vaccine," and "how unpleasant is the disease for the person infected." Even if the long term effects are a wash, you might want a vaccine to avoid the unpleasantness of being sick. E.g., chicken pox rarely causes serious problems, but it, and moreso shingles, are quite unpleasant.

It's cost benefit. Very few treatments are all good stuff. People miss this especially with mental illness.

Psych meds are not very targeted, we flood the entire brain hopping to fix things. They often have hideous side effects. They only make sense when you have people with horrendous symptoms like my great grandmother, who had to be in a rubber room psych ward, locked away, because she tried to drown her children one time and tried to kill her husband another due to delusions. Back then all they had was a lobotomy. That let her live outside a dismal cage, writing on the walls with shit, but made her a potato.

>>15417035
germ theory is hoax

>>15417035
>infection
The ethymology original meaning, means contamination.

>But measles was still making kids sterile in the 50s
WAs it?
Or was it the standard of care, which included giving children antimony and calomel, and ether and heroin?

Since the dawn of time, they poisoned people as treatment.
And then they stopped this treatment and exchanged it with a lesser poison.
And magically the fatality and morbidity decreased.

Not only the treatment but also the diagnosis.
They could not even distinguish "skin diseases" nor did they knew about aspirin allergies which lead to the same skin effect.
Everything on the skin was measels.
And they pretended to know it is a specific disease, when it could have been thrombozytopenia with purpura, and applying the wrong treatment caused a worse outcome if it was "diagnosed" as measels.
Doctors are sharlatans with a license to kill you via guesswork.

>>15411025
The Reverse Duke, iirc

Does the rabies vaccine not work?

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/minnesota-man-dies-rabies-6-134559993.html

>>15417532
Is rabies deadly?
Or is the way giving the rabies vaccine directly after you had an incident, maybe so toxic that it mad the incident deadly?

"The treatment consisted of 25 injections of rabies vaccine: three on the first day, two on the second, two on the third, and one each day after for 18 days. Each dose was slightly stronger, or more virulent, than the preceding"

https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2013/10/surviving-rabies-100-years-ago.html

>>15398217
its the fucking death rate you absolute mongoloid not infection rate vaccines mainly help prevent infection also death rate has literally fuck all to do with clean water, you could argue about sanitation though this is about the deathrate of the disease itself, so sanitation still shouldnt matter.
Im amazed people like you can even complete the captcha

>>15417562
take meds shill.

>>15417562
>infection rate
How is infection rate established?
By epidiological statistical counting of declared diagnosis.
If docters ar told:
Diagnose [cluster of symptoms] as disease x then it will be counted as such, no matter how accurate the diagnosis.
See:
>>15417475
>>15403826

If they then change the definition of the diagnosis or splitt them apart because
>the science changed
The statistics will of course change.

Doctors are literally indoctrinated and follow peer pressure and declarations of the medical boards of oversight.

>widespread epidemics.
are literally a meme.
It's a broadcast phenomeon.
If you force test and create fear, and claim that different diseases and symptoms all of a sudden are all now ony disease, then you can declare a "pandemic".

>1) collect a group of symptoms from various or similar diseases (or ICD-10 codes)
>2) declare the group of collected symptoms now are a new Disease
>3) deploy a scare campaign and panic and make sure that [insert new disease] is diagnose as often as possible, so that people with one or more symptoms can be declared as "infected"
>4) include a asymptomatic form of disease, and make sure it gets diagnosed
>5) declare pandemic based on epidemiological/ statistical increase of diagnosis [insert new Disease or ICD-10 code]
>6) use pandemic to increase regulatory power, thin out population and force product on them
>7) after product is deployed revise what you told on step 2) and say symptoms are now different diseases and should be diagnosed as such
>8) declare pandemic is over based on epkdemiolical/statistical decrease of diagnosis with [insert new disease or ICD-10 Code]

Epidemics are started and ended with the strike of a pen.
>picrel

>>15417553
>25 injections
And people now get angry about 3

soience lied
vaxxies died

>>15415443
>>15417017
Lol, where'd you go, no further defense of your 40 IQ worldview? You post 2 studies you don't understand, vomit out a bunch wildly incorrect conclusions, make a fool of yourself, and then leave to start all over again in another thread. The shill is so fucking obvious.

I'm tempted to wonder if this is an actual fed experiment to see if you can get people to believe something that retarded just by spamming it enough. On the other hand, I imagine someone who intentionally poisons himself with lead would probably act like that.

>>15398217
the pandemics became man made in the early 50s

>>15418960
in the early 1000s AD

>>15418868
> vaxxies
globohomo concept, society division/alienation, nocebo

>>15418868
good

>>15419465
samefag shill

>>15419500
youre the only shill here

>>15419772
lol, shill, you are swarm here, a pack

>>15398217
running water and hygiene >> vaccines

>>15420779
throw occasional use of antibiotics into the mix and you pretty much have everything you need

>>15421402
ah, pay big pharma shill

>>15398266
“Correlation does not imply causation” might be the most Reddit phrase of all time.

>>15398266
>>15398315
>>15398318
Corelation does not imply causation, there is no satisfactory explanation of causation, only events that co-relate in space and time. Science and philosophy has never got past Hume.

>>15421858
Only when it is applied selectively and not with a real commitment to espistemological nihilism, or pre-established harmony, or occasionalism, or some other wacky answer that takes the problem seriously.

I dont wanna read this thread of shitflinging schizos. Can someone spoonfeed my and just tell me which side one the argument? Thanks.

>>15417017
>It is a perfect collection place for heavy metals.
It can't collect what doesn't exist yet.
>No samples of prehistoric humans show common heavy metal exposure. Your own study says this you retard.
It reports on such samples. You aren't even trying to make sense anymore.
>Widespread lead poisoning is even thought to be a contributing factor in the collapse of Rome.
Yet Neanderthals had leveks that were at least comparable.
>>15418895
You don't even try to argue, because it's so obviously correct that no rational argument can be raised against it.

>>15422592
vain words, no single argument, shill is obvious

>>15422084
the vaxxies are dropping like flies so the winners are obviously not them

>>15398217
Is a scam, is simple as that. Diseases went down thanks to engineers who developed better farming tools, fertilizers and all kinds of machines to boost animal husbandry. Before those revolutions in farming poor people couldn't afford food and became easy targets for diseases. That will happen again thanks to the WEF, and criminals like Gates, Bezos and Soros who want to depopulate the planet via starvation and toxic vaccines.

>>15423226
Viruses will still exist regardless of what you think.

>>15423915
it was poisoning, simple as that

>>15423916
no, shill, viruses don't exist. talks about them do, and will, of course. filter me, finally.

>>15421402
>throw occasional use of antibiotics into the mix
no.

>>15421402
Wrong. The human body relies on healthy bacteria flora in the gut to be able to acquire all the nutrients it needs. Without healthy gut flora you become another slave of big pharma and forced to buy supplements just to stay alive. That is highly profitable for those criminals.

>>15418715
Not the same shit. There is only one person who survived rabies without a vaccine, so it was practically a dead sentence. In the other side those boosters are killing people that were completely healthy, while people who didn't give a shit about Covid are laughing at them.

>>15423226
Fuck off you glowie piece of shit.

>>15425017
shill run out of arguments

>>15425012
> rabies
no such thing.

>>15425012
A lot of people survive rabies.

>>15425111
there's nothing to survive, but way of life

>>15425012
>There is only one person who survived rabies without a vaccine, so it was practically a dead sentence.


Source?

>>15423697
>nooooooo!! i just need one more booster maaaaann, just one more, then everything will be ok. i'm not addicted to being a goodgoy cuck, i'm not addicted to soience, just one more booster, i need it

>>15422592
>It can't collect what doesn't exist yet.
Lol, what the fuck are you talking about? Heavy metals have existed in the same minuscule concentrations on earth from the beginning.
>It reports on such samples. You aren't even trying to make sense anymore.
Neanderthals aren't humans. Shill better. Once again:
>Repeated lead exposures during childhood in the two Neanderthals **are the earliest such evidence in hominin remains.**
>**These high and acute lead lines are indicative of short-term exposure from ingestion of contaminated food or water or inhalation from fires containing lead**
>Periods of lead exposure during the childhoods of these two French Neanderthals are remarkable, as biogenic lead bands were not apparent in the ~100-ka-old Belgian individual discussed above, and decades of research have shown that there is no safe level for lead in humans and other animals.
Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that lead is a natural part of human evolutionary history.

And to top it off, mercury exposure causes homosexuality in animals
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19784-mercury-poisoning-makes-male-birds-homosexual/
Probably another reason why they were desperate to inject infants with it

>>15426030
>Heavy metals have existed in the same minuscule concentrations on earth from the beginning.
The concentrations are not minuscule. The permafrost concentration exceed all known human activity.
>Neanderthals aren't humans.
They are, and it's irrelevant to the point, it could just as well be an animal and nothing would change about it.
>contaminated food or water or inhalation from fires containing lead**
How could their food be contaminated if lead is recent contamination? Why would there be lead in smoke? It's some sort of anticircular argument where your arguments against the idea require it to be true in the first place.
>And to top it off, mercury exposure causes homosexuality in animals
The exposure to it has dramatically declined, we should see no gay people anymore. We ahould see tons of gay people in Japan where there don't seem to be any.
The study is absurd, there are too many gay birds (even in controls) and their "homosexuality" declines over time. The birds probably aren't sexually active yet, the inverse of how children have sex with each other in the west today

>>15426030
They invent fake environmental problems like global warming to distract from real problems like azatrine, which turns frogs gay

>>15426168
>The concentrations are not minuscule. The permafrost concentration exceed all known human activity.
Laughably false.
>How could their food be contaminated if lead is recent contamination?
I am baffled by how this is so confusing for you. Lead, like other heavy metals, is largely absent from the normal human environment. Instead, it is clustered in mineral-rich deposits in the Earth's crust that humans don't normally interact with. Activities like mining or volcanic eruption greatly increase exposure in the short term, not the long term. If the Neanderthals happened upon a deposit without knowing it, they could poison themselves.

It is pretty staggering how you keep ignoring the report from your own study that the 100k year old Belgian had no lead, which completely disproves your theory that humans evolved with lead.
>The exposure to it has dramatically declined, we should see no gay people anymore.
Exposure to mercury was practically 0 before coal mining. Then, they started putting it in a ton of shit like antiseptics, light bulbs, vaccines, and thermometers. Japan is the one of the most vaccine hesitant countries in the world, and they counteract their mercury toxicity with high iodine intake.

>>15426864
what are you trying to prove? that medicine isn't hoax and replacement for fascism? ridiculous.

>>15426864
>Laughably false.
So this is nonsense, then?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-arctic-permafrost-holds-a-crazy-amount-of-mercury-mdash-and-thats-bad-news/
>the Neanderthals happened upon a deposit without knowing it, they could poison themselves.
I'm not sure what your argument is. They unknowingly mined and smelted lead?
>It is pretty staggering how you keep ignoring the report from your own study that the 100k year old Belgian had no lead,
It says nothing like that. It only reports on barium.
>Exposure to mercury was practically 0 before coal mining.
I posted a study above about mercury in Ancient Rome. Bacteria convert anorganic mercury to methylmercury. Fungi obtain it from cinnabar. It's a quite an inert mineral, it seems extremely unlikely it didn't evolve on purpose.
And again why is there so much mercury in coal?

>>15427050
>So this is nonsense, then?
First of all, you're missing the point. The permafrost concentrations are also minuscule compared to any essential element. Second of all, humans didn't evolve in the permafrost, nor in any other mercury-rich environment. Third, yes, unreplicated climate doomerism is nonsense, typically run by retards or frauds.
>I'm not sure what your argument is. They unknowingly mined and smelted lead?
You aren't sure of a lot of things. There is an uneven distribution of lead on the planet, with large deposits in certain areas and nothing in most others. If they entered a region of increased lead, took shelter in a contaminated cave, ate from lead-heavy soil, etc., they could experience acute exposure. Your hypothesis is that humans evolved in high-lead environments. If that were true, your study should have found consistent high lead exposure. Instead it found a couple acute exposures scattered among extended lead-free periods. That is exactly consistent with my view.
>I posted a study above about mercury in Ancient Rome.
And as your own study says it was literally caused by mining you moron
>It's a quite an inert mineral, it seems extremely unlikely it didn't evolve on purpose.
Inorganic compounds don't "evolve." Cinnabar forms because sulfur is chemically attracted to mercury. Most mercury chelators have sulfur groups for this very reason. Lol, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>15427231
You are not arguing seriously, you are only trying to make me look like a moron. I won't reply anymore.

>>15427453
> you are only trying to make me look like a moron
Trust me, I don't have to try very hard. But you absolutely deserve it. You spam this board every fucking day basically telling people to poison themselves. Your own "evidence" doesn't support your position at all, but you're too stupid, too poisoned, or too deep in cognitive dissonance to realize it. I will keep going until you fuck off. Go get the commies on reddit to poison themselves instead.

>>15427586
>Go get the commies on reddit to poison themselves instead.
vaxxxie holocaust best day of my life

>>15398217
The chart is bullshit because its cherrypicking by using death rate and not disease rate. You could still get polio, live, but still be fucked by up for the rest of your life.

>>15427897
you cannot get polio. but you can get poisoned by eating an unlucky apple.

>>15427586
>Trust me, I don't have to try very hard. But you absolutely deserve it.
Oh, of course, you only tried so hard that you invented a new logical fallacy in the process.
>Your own "evidence" doesn't support your position at all,
It's so unambiguous that no rational argument can be raised against it.
>but you're too stupid, too poisoned, or too deep in cognitive dissonance to realize it.
One of the symptoms is the inability to process information contrary to your existing beliefs.

>>15427897
No.
They renamed it and changed the definition so much, that you cannot get polio anymore.
See:
>>15403826


Now you can get: Transverse myelitis, flaccid myelitis, Multiple Sclerosis, Encephalitic myelitis, myalgia myelitis, eastern horse encephalitis.

A disease is not specific, they are memes.
The Name is just a meme to convince you of:
>its new
>they know what they talk about
>its now your new personality
>its not because you were poisoned

>>15428282
you are just another stupid shill spamming random scientific words emulating arguments

>>15398217
No it can't. Science doesnt exist. Only schizos like you know the truth

>>15428410
shill degenerate reply #77

>>15428291
>>its now your new personality
kek

>>15428576
Ever talked to someone who had:
>morbus crohn
>hashimoto
>histamine intolerance
>MS
>any chronic disease with a nice name?

They always talk about it, mention it, when somebody is sick:
>oh you think you are sick?! pff, I have kawasaki relapse prolapse analis, I have to go to the doctor every week, here look at my 13 variation of Pills I need to take to stay alive

this meme shit, creates people who orbit arround meds and fancy disease names.
Which then leads to some sort of Stockholm Syndrome which make them NEVER ask the question:
>why and how do I have this?!
Because the answer would then conflict with their Stockholm syndrom which is based on "trust for the doc and med dispensers".
It is all a mix of Munchausen syndrome by proxy by the perpetrator (medical system) and a resulting stockholm syndrom by the victim (the patient or meds consoomer).

>>15428384
---->>>15427453

>>15398217
Germ theory is fake. Most medicine is fake. Vaxxes cause death and illness. Recall your interactions with your retarded doctor. Don’t believe their lies.

>>15428600
this shill slipped into recursion loop, bring new one

>>15428604
>Germ theory is fake
Germ theory of disease is fake.
Germs are real.

>>15428282
>One of the symptoms is the inability to process information contrary to your existing beliefs.
One of the symptoms of lead poisoning, yes. It impairs your cognitive processes to the point of retardation. You argue like you eat lead paint chips regularly. No doubt you've accomplished nothing with your life.

>>15398217
retrocausality

>>15428604
>Most medicine is fake.
its mostly toxic
and the toxic side effects always make you need another new medicine
you can get stuck in this loop until it kills you

>>15429583
Lead poisoning is as fake as germ theory.

Even big pharma is trying to make you scared of lead poisoning and other carcinogenic substances. In reality there's no such thing as lead poisoning or carcinogenic substances.

If a Chemical is said to cause you 10 different symptoms like a virus. It comes from some flawed study based on statistics or animal studies where they torture the animals

>>15430566
>lead poisoning or carcinogenic substances.
>If a Chemical is said to cause you 10 different symptoms like a virus

Dude. Neurotoxins are poisoning your nerves.
You have nerves all over your body.
You have 3 main nervoussystems.
>sympathetic
>para sympathetic
>enteric (bowel and lower organ system)

Nerves control your body.
You cannot decide which nerve gets damaged, thats why all neurotoxins cause diffuse symptoms.
If mercury, lead, arsenic, antimony gets deposited in your body, it causes systemic damage.

But go ahead and consoom your lead and mercury. And enjoy.

>>15398266
>Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
You can never prove causation. The "mechanism" fabricated in you head is just as real as your "vagina" constructed using an amalgamation of rotting flesh. It just exists to store and process data efficiently in human brain, data obtained from correlations.
You can only ever create models with better predictive power.

>>15430610
The amount of neurotoxins allowed in food is ridiculously low and you won't take any damage nerve damage at all from eating it.

The regulations is not screwing the big up the big producers. It's screwing over the small ones.

>>15403848
>uh, uuhhhhh, organic vs inorganic mercury!
You're treating scientific knowledge as if they were slogans, you fucking imbecile.

>>15429562
viruses are not.

How can you believe in evolution if it's just a theory(an guess)?

>>15398305
>looks at the state of smallpox
yeah, i think they work

>>15430907
>rename an illness
>illness eradicated
brilliant

>>15399201
>he thinks SIDS is real
Who's gonna tell him?

>>15431000
tell me

>>15430566
Lol, nice bait. It's easy to forget that some people out there are actually retarded enough to think like this.

>>15399201
One thing is for sure. The vaccines can't prevent any disease.

The question can then be asked what is the motive for pushing vaccines?

Is it just money or is it for something much worse. You can't blame people to be paranoid when it's so easy to debunk virology and germ theory.

>>15431047
>money
>control
>depopulation

>>15431047
>The question can then be asked what is the motive for pushing vaccines?

To have an excuse to downregulate health of the regular population.
If you create social burden and chronic illness, you eliminate competition, ehile also locking them into the system.
Vaccines are nothing but a excuse to inject you with shit

>>15431047
As long as you don't include the existence of Evil into your worldview, no model of reality you will build will match actual reality.

>>15431062
+ ritualization (larpification). cattle must always be occupied with stupid activity. the question how to occupy cattle is the question #1 in all history of globohomo/civilization.

>>15431094
Or maybe you should look at "evil" a different way. There would be no evil in the world if it had no biological advantage.

>>15431479
>There would be no evil in the world if it had no biological advantage.
says who? the evil.

>>15431486
What is evil to begin with.

What you call evil is necessary for some to survive or pass on their genes.

>>15431496
>What you call evil is necessary for some to survive or pass on their genes.
says who? the evil.

>>15431496
You are framing "evil" is a naturalistic way.
Evil is not naturalistic, it is metaphysical.
You are trying to explain Evil as maladptive behaviours, are evolutionary strategy, are behavioural cluster, as...

Evil is, and Evil is Evil.
Evil is axiomatic, and the pilpul you are displaying marks you as a demon at best, as goylem at worst.

>>15430652
>You're treating scientific knowledge as if they were slogans,
thats what they are

>>15398217
yes, but not without admitting that the massively profitable vaccine industry is a big ripoff

>>15431506
> evil
not science

>>15433726
Fuck off gay kike.

>>15433833
> da joos
why aren't you banned already faggots

>>15431533
memorized text book "facts" are no different from slogans

>>15434505
Fuck off literally gay literal kike.

>>15435345
no, you go away, shilltard

>>15405072
Explain why were so much children with polio condition

>>15398217
yes with lies, scientists lie about everything

>>15436137
lower bodymass, developing nervous system, chemical exposure more prone to cause problems, technocrats were furiously fumigating and otherwise shoving dangerous new chemical inventions everywhere they could

>>15399879
>posing with your deceased child for online validation
Narcissism knows no bounds. It also doesn't seem to appear alongside self awareness.

>>15436618
>posing with your deceased child for online validation
This is the worst part. She deosnt do it as respect pay but just selfishness

>>15436137
Pre 1955 Polio defined as 1 day of paralysis in a limb.
Post 1955 polio defined as 60 days of ongoing paralysis in the limbs.

Also addition of shizo new definition of flacid myelitis.
By pretending a flacid unmovable limb is different from a paralyzed limb.
See:
>>15403826

Polio is nothing but a name for paralysis.
If you rename paralysis into:
Flacid myelitis or transverse myelitis of course the diagnosis patterns change, because you made it impossible to diagnose polio anymore.

>>15411632
>Japan has low obesity rates because they have the highest intake of mercury
perhaps it is because they don't eat like pigs

>>15437228
Maybe people eat like pigs because they are actually malnourished.

>>15436608
A lot of bla bla.
A disease is nothing but a label you put on a collection of symptoms.
Of which the symptoms do not even have to be exact.
The incidence of a disease is statistically nothing else but the amount of "diagnosis".
They simply redefined polio after 1955.
Thats it.
Simple as that.
See:
>>15437222
>>15403826

The occurance of childhood paralysis is still there.
They just name it flacid myelitis or transverse myelitis or MS.
Also there is a thing called "floppy baby syndrome" which mostly occurs between 2-4 months of age.
Which is allegedly a botolism symptome. But coincidentally happens mostly exactly during the timeframe of the first scheduled infant vaccinations.
These symptoms is also like polio.
But the baby is then not "paralized" it's floppy. Meaning it's flacid. Meaning it's the same as:
Polio or flacid myelitis.

>>15437228
>>15437236
Maybe both fo you are partially correct.
Elevens have retarded cooking traditions and overpriced nutritious food hence being healthy (20-25 BMI) is a nightmare. No wonder why they are so short. Height average went +10cm after WWII food globalisation

Redpill me on Pasteur

>>15437241
>The incidence of a disease is statistically nothing else but the amount of "diagnosis".

the incidence of a disease is not just the amount of diagnosis bro. there are other factors that can affect it, like the prevalence of the disease in the population, the availability of diagnostic tests, the awareness of the disease among healthcare providers and the public, the effectiveness of treatment, the lifestyle choices of individuals, and the environment. so don't just assume that if the incidence of a disease is going up, it's because more people are getting diagnosed. there could be other factors at play.

>>15437892
You managed to be incorrect in the very first sentence, well done.

>>15437241
Look into a man called Liam scheff.

>>15437892
>the incidence of a disease is not just the amount of diagnosis bro
Dude...
A incidence rate is literally nothing else but the reflection of a diagnosis and a disease is literally defined by it's diagnosis when it's put into a statistic.
If nobody diagnoses a disease, you cannot have an incidence.

>>15436137
this one good
> Every child of the early '50s surely remembers the polio panics that swept the nation, invariably during the hottest days of summer, closing public pools and resulting in doctor visits at the first sign of a stiff neck or leg prone to falling asleep. My memory of the terror induced by the whispered word "polio" resides in a spot in the pit of my stomach just distal to the one recalling the Cold War era duck-and-cover drills we practiced in grammar school.

it was during hottest days of summer, just when they used pesticides.

>>15436137
>spray children with lead and arsenic
>spray children with paris green
>spray children with DDT
>???
>WHY IN THE FUCK AR CHILDREN ALL OF A SUDDEN EXPERIENCING NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES?!
>MUHST BE DA VIRUS
>Give vaccinne quiiick
>???
>cutter incident happens
>FUCKING VACCINE GAVE KIDS POLIO
>*take photos of cutter incident*
>print them in the press and say: "LOOK WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET ZE POLIO! IRON LUNG"

>>15411796
>tikkun olam