RE: Putting a face to the dangers of vaccines
LOL Man, you really have debating chops! As you outright deny you are employed as a professional public relations operator, I'll drop the subject.
There are scammers and criminals of every stripe, and millions of government servants. Sadly, these two categories intersect.
When an organization is doing something nefarious, the organization denies it.
This is not a novel concept. Now, it is demonstrable on it's face the one or the other statement by the CDC that you quoted is untrue. Therefore, the CDC has published, on purpose, an untrue statement, something people in my neck of the woods call a 'lie'. Telling lies is something liars do to keep from getting caught.
Now, sometimes organizations with entrenched interests, particularly governmental organization, such as the CDC, with a monopoly on the particular field in which they operate, are discovered to be doing something bad, such as contaminating vaccines with SV40. If it absolutely proved by determined victims that such a thing has happened, lying does not do any good to conceal the crime any longer, and admitting the act is necessary. When doing so, such liars do attempt to make excuses, minimize the perception of harm, and various other scumbag moves to keep from facing consequences of their criminal acts, and maintain their power, customers, and income.
Again, confessing to a criminal act, and lying about it when you do, is not an unusual thing for such organizations to do, and you clearly know this.
Therefore, you intend your argument to simply obfuscate the issue. You are making a pretense of not knowing of this common aspect of such criminals, and their obfuscation of their crimes.
This is a useful tactic to defeat a debate opponent by simply making them do as I have done here, and fully explore the chain of reasoning and insinuation, wasting their time and effort.
It is what shills, propagandists, and public relations professionals are trained to do, and that you do this so well is why I asked you if you have a graduate degree.
If a criminal admits to one crime that is undeniably proved one cannot suddenly therefore believe all their statements.
Particularly when the very admission of the act contains lies intended to further obfuscate the matter, and minimize the consequences to the criminal of the act.
Furthermore, it is facile, ludicrous, and reprehensible to make a case that such an admission cannot be believed because the confessor is a habitual liar, but you went there.
Thanks for activating my brain! As usual, I enjoyed it.
I don't know who proved, to your satisfaction, that the polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40. My guess is that the very researchers and watchdogs who did so are the same ones who demonstrated that SV40 doesn't have a causal relationship to cancer, and that the polio vaccine is safe.
Here's who didn't contaminate that batch of the polio vaccine: the CDC. You see, the CDC isn't the drug manufacturer. In fact, they are exactly the type of agency that tests vaccines for things like SV40 contamination, adverse reactions, ect... By declaring that batch contaminated, they are not admitting to their own wrongdoing, but rather exposing an oversight on the part of major drug manufacturers at the time.
So we are back to my original point, which is that you, and the author of this post, simultaneously want the CDC to be an unreliable source of information, an enemy of the truth, and also for their statements to be credible evidence of your claims.
So it's really not such a poor choice on my part to point out that you are declaring only the statements that confirm your beliefs to be true here. I'm not a fool, I know that the CDC is made of people, who can get things wrong, but I'm simply not buying that the CDC is obfuscating the deep dark secret that the polio vaccine is unsafe, simply by pointing out SV40 contamination from half a century ago.
Also, I think you could think a little less highly of your apparent monopoly on logic and the nature of humankind? Two really logically people actually can come to a different conclusion here, and I don't think your last treatise on the nature of liars really helps your case.
Especially since, hey man, you kinda lied to me, remember? When you posted that CDC page, and told me to debunk it because it proves your point? Then you turned around and said essentially "Nahhh I didn't really believe that, fooled you!"
As to the claim that I'm forcing you to waste time and effort debating me, I dunno. You could ignore me. No way is anyone else reading this. I seriously doubt I'm pulling you away from a vital truth-telling task. When the history of the anti-vax movement is written, I doubt it will include public-relations professionals (or in this case, just a regular dude) on an infant social media platform arguing with internet strangers.