"I Don’t Vaccinate My Child"

[w84u2]

I posted the article for an open discussion from both sides of perspective and healthy debate.

Not for me to dissect the info, analyse, I could analyse and summarise that article to you in any which way I want you to believe.

Simply posting an article for people to read at face value to perceive it any which way they wish.

To have a debate you have to have both forms of material on the table, you must do your own investigative research, not me.

This is simply me posting a link to an article that's against vac's. You have to have both sides of the argument on the table to be fair game. I am not stating I am pro or against.

Which side are you on then? For or against vaccinations?

[Fancy]

Oh he won't say - he doesn't even realize he posted an article that was about someone that died.

I could analyse and summarise that article to you in any which way I want you to believe.

Please do.

[bold]

I do my own personal analysing for me and me only, you do your own. People do not agree with each other, that makes a healthy debate!

I will not write down my personal opinions as I do not have the time to monitor a forum all day with people set on their own opinions stating their are correct. That's why I posted an article with out make any statement leaving up to the viewer to draw their own conclusion. Is that ok? with love and respect.

lol - you reposted what peaceseeker posted and then you want a healthy debate. Doesn't sound like you even read the article as it didn't state anything about vaccines.

I love to debate with open minds only.

I cant debate with people who love the media/gov telling them what to think and say. Just like geo-engineering coincided with HARP is not real.

[bold]

Oh he won't say - he doesn't even realize he posted an article that was about someone that died.

I could analyse and summarise that article to you in any which way I want you to believe.

Please do.

With respect, You first.

[Fancy]

I love to debate with open minds only.

What's that got to do with the article you re-posted that didn't say anything about vaccines? Did you even read it? You can't have a debate if you don't know what the topic is (Olmsted's death). I've already stated an opinion on it so you obviously didn't read that either.

[Fancy]

With respect, You first.

You started it, you were asked first so it's up to you. That's how it works in discussions.

[w84u2]

I read it and I understand the correlation between it's content and a conspiracy theory.

[bold]

I posted the article for an open discussion from both sides of perspective and healthy debate.

Not for me to dissect the info, analyse, I could analyse and summarise that article to you in any which way I want you to believe.

Simply posting an article for people to read at face value to perceive it any which way they wish.

To have a debate you have to have both forms of material on the table, you must do your own investigative research, not me.

This is simply me posting a link to an article that's against vac's. You have to have both sides of the argument on the table to be fair game. I am not stating I am pro or against.

Which side are you on then? For or against vaccinations?

For, providing they 100% safe and necessary ie, US Government Admits Lyme Disease Is A Bioweapon, Vietnam.

Research for your self and prove me wrong.

[w84u2]

How about that you prove yourself right? You made the statement, I don't believe it is true.

[Thinktank]

Which side are you on then? For or against vaccinations?

Twenty five vaccines before age five?

Almost 75 percent of babies between 6 months and 23 months of age were vaccinated at least once against the flu last year.

^ is that for real? Babies must get twenty five different vaccines PLUS a flu shot every year? Wow. Crazy.
And 75% of parents go for it? I always thought only old people get flu shots.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/w ... ots-021116

[Fancy]

Well that had zero to do with the article he re-posted 3 times.

[bold]

With respect, You first.

You started it, you were asked first so it's up to you. That's how it works in discussions.

No, I am sorry If I confused you in any way Fancy and if so I am sorry. I posted a link to an article, period. Simply an article against vac's. You intimated it was false, I stated there are lots of false articles/data, including main stream/gov, I should have just ignored.

You have to look at both sides of the coin.

At the end of the day Fancy, we both want the same thing and that's good health!

[Fancy]

It was NOT an article regarding vaccines - you simply re-posted what peaceseeker posted above yours.

I read it and I understand the correlation between it's content and a conspiracy theory.

As did I.
Here's what's interesting regarding bold's re-posted article:
The identity of the author not given.
The identity of the family member not given (spouse or sister?)
Why would law enforcement try to cremate a body? (not substantiated by any means)
Lack of article that Olmsted apparently wrote.
Nothing about cause of death but insinuation.

[Fancy]

Simply an article against vac's. You intimated it was false

I'm not the one that's confused. You should read your article again. There was nothing said against vaccines so where did I say it was false?

[w84u2]

Simply an article against vac's. You intimated it was false

You should read your article again. There was nothing said against vaccines so where did I say it was false?

I concur with Fancy.