Discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances

[4channel]

Some issues when discussed can cause a range of reactions. Sometimes they can lead to an awakening, the beginning of a journey to discovering something new, or they can can cause a certain type of reaction in a person who may not like what they hear. I think that it's all about how we choose to deal with the info we're hearing and how we process it.

Take the issues of let's say ....  fluoride and mobile phone tower radiation. The government has allowed the fluoridation of our water and they have allowed the construction of mobile phone towers in residential areas. Does that mean the water is safe to drink and it causes no ill affect? Does that mean that the mobile phone towers are safe?  What about the handsets. Are they safe for children to use and hold against their heads?

Well, we discuss these things and some people do react angrily to the people discussing these issues. Does this mean that we have to stop discussion that challenges the supposed official stance or challenges what we are told is the mainstream belief? Do we have to self-censor or have this in a [private group? I have noticed that in discussion forums or the media that racist beliefs are a;allowed a platform and yet issues that many folk feel that need to be addressed because of health concerns are not given the same platform. To me racism is abhorrent and yet in the media, it gets the pass ticket while issues that some call important to health freedom do not! Why is that?  Could it be political? What are your thoughts?

NOTE:

Spoiler

This is a discussion that some people here would be interested in while others may not be. Folks with opposing views are welcome as  always. Please, if someone has an issue with these topics being discussed or another member, could they refrain from any attacks on others or deliberately flooding this thread with off topic filler.

[4channel]

There is discomfort felt by some people when discussing issues such as Fluoride, GM crops, mobile phone radiation. It sometimes makes them more uncomfortable than the freedom to chose vaccination issue which can get some folk quite emotional. I think possibly because with Fluoride, GM crops, mobile phone radiation, the government has largely ignored the voices of the people on those three and just allowed them to be pushed out. Many folks would like to think the gov't is in their corner, looking after them.

So the discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances can possibly make some people go mute. Or it can make them react defensively. Is that possible?

Working a 9 to 5 job,  taking care of life's business,  it's better and easier to deal with life by being in the comfort zone and pretending .......  that ..... everything .... is ....  OK.

Is it?

[lalbo-81]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@lalbo-81 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@tasfleur wrote:

4channel, perhaps there is a purpose to your "discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances"  thread, but such a discussion is doomed to failure by its very nature.

It gives no real allowance for what people really would like to safely and confidently post as their personal opinion without some, who have long term self imposed tunnel vision, attacking them.

---

Ok I'm answering this even though your post was to 4channel, Tas.

Putting forward personal opinions for discussion are one thing.

Getting personal with insults and derision if there's disagreement, is another.

---

Maybe you can answer my question, dear. Why is it that disagreeing with the subject matter and calling it out for the fake  and sometimes harmful garbage that it is considered a personal attack? Especially when said personal attack doesn't happen, nothing even posted directly to the poster of said garbage? And said poster reports an attack that never happened?  Are those posters that thin skinned, or are they attempting to get rid of anyone who disagrees with their garbage? What's your point of view on this? You seem to know most people here, I think your opinion would be interesting to read. 

---

Nana, I've seen your first few posts here where you attacked a poster here both directly and indirectly. Insulting his intelligence and mocking his opinions. Unfortunately I see you're still not done.

Give it up, can't you? Try entering a discussion without the derision and insult, not to mention condescension. Then you may truly be a valued and welcome commentator to all  on this forum, not just a few.

---

That's your opinion, wrong though it is, of me. You see what you want to see, and I'm fine with that. I've never expected to be "valued" by everyone, unlike some people. 

[lalbo-81]

---

@feloniexyz wrote:

Old habits die hard 

---

And what would you know about my habits, old or new? Or are you another one who thinks I'm someone you used to know and dislike? Not that it would bother me if you did, I'm just curious. 

[lalbo-81]

---

@*tippy*toes* wrote:

You come live with me 4channel. I don't drink tap water because of the fluoride. I much prefer the tank water that contains all sorts of weird and wonderful chemicals from crop dusters. It adds to the delicious flavour of the water. 

I am safe. You come be safe with me. No 5G towers here, but I am prepared. I am also safe from chem trails. Them are evil things them chem trails.

PM me if you want my safe address. I allow pets.

---

That's hilarious! I know a few people who shoud live there, lol! 

[lalbo-81]

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

---

@4channel wrote:

---

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

I guess the bringing up dangers of fluoride would have nothing to do with all the water filters these "health mags" are peddling?

---

Definitely not Kazumi. The anti-fluoride movement or the people who are educating us about the dangers of fluoride come from different place than the filter sellers. It would be like saying that locksmiths are connected with the stolen goods fencing criminal network.  Obviously water filter suppliers and manufacturers are here because of what's in our water and locksmiths are here because of what's out there in the community.

---

The mags get income from those ads.   They print articles that suit the people who pay them. 

---

I filter my drinking/cooking water, but only because the water here is very"hard", lots of lime that imparts a metallic taste. 

[chameleon54]

---

@4channel wrote:

There is discomfort felt by some people when discussing issues such as Fluoride, GM crops, mobile phone radiation. It sometimes makes them more uncomfortable than the freedom to chose vaccination issue which can get some folk quite emotional. I think possibly because with Fluoride, GM crops, mobile phone radiation, the government has largely ignored the voices of the people on those three and just allowed them to be pushed out. Many folks would like to think the gov't is in their corner, looking after them.

So the discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances can possibly make some people go mute. Or it can make them react defensively. Is that possible?

Working a 9 to 5 job,  taking care of life's business,  it's better and easier to deal with life by being in the comfort zone and pretending .......  that ..... everything .... is ....  OK.

Is it?

---

The vaccine issue is one I retain a little question mark with. My wife is blind due to being one of the last babies born before the Rubella vaccination programme in schools really became established, so I have some skin in the game so as to speak. Covid has also shown us how important vaccines can be when a disease or virus gets going.

I haven't actually looked deeply into the claims of the anti vaxers, but I suspect there has been an increased prevalence in Autism in our modern society. It seems to be a very common occurrence compared to the past. The experts claim this is because of better diagnosis, but thats could be an easy out in a cover up.

So is the anti- vaxers claims that vaccination causes autism correct ( something is causing it ) and if so which vaccine in particular ?   I could well imagine the medical profession and government's could close ranks on this issue, purely because vaccination saves so many lives when weighed against a few people suffering autism. It could be the same as governments, big pharma and the medical profession closing ranks to hide the risks of using statins due to the lives saved from heart disease outweighing the cost of a few people suffering severe reactions to the medication.

[4channel]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

The vaccine issue is one I retain a little question mark with. My wife is blind due to being one of the last babies born before the Rubella vaccination programme in schools really became established, so I have some skin in the game so as to speak. Covid has also shown us how important vaccines can be when a disease or virus gets going.

I haven't actually looked deeply into the claims of the anti vaxers, but I suspect there has been an increased prevalence in Autism in our modern society. It seems to be a very common occurrence compared to the past. The experts claim this is because of better diagnosis, but thats could be an easy out in a cover up.

So is the anti- vaxers claims that vaccination causes autism correct ( something is causing it ) and if so which vaccine in particular ?   I could well imagine the medical profession and government's could close ranks on this issue, purely because vaccination saves so many lives when weighed against a few people suffering autism. It could be the same as governments, big pharma and the medical profession closing ranks to hide the risks of using statins due to the lives saved from heart disease outweighing the cost of a few people suffering severe reactions to the medication.

---

Good post chameleon54 and it's looking at it broadly. First of all I'd like to say that in the vaccination  issue, the media does tend to label selective vaxers and vaccination choice people as anti-vaxers.  I guess with me, I would be close to selective as I still believe some are necessary while others are not. Rubella can be serious and for your wife it was.

I'll post more on this later but with autism, I believe the answer is "Yes, it is in a lot of cases related to vaccination". Vaccines contain mercury and aluminium. A tiny developing human being is bombarded with neurotoxins too often in a short period of time and expected to withstand this. How often are we supposed to say ... "Oh this kid was born autistic" when the little one was bright, cheerful, inquisitive and upbeat. Then after a vaccination or three, there's an almost immediate downward slide and that personality that once was has now gone forever? This is something maybe hidden that is happening in plain sight.

[simone4010]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

One shouldn't need to change 'frocks' to give an opinion.

We all know how 4 thingy - feels about this.

---

After asking my husband, searching the internet and as a last resort, consulting other posters, I have finally discovered what you meant by your post. You are insinuating that I and 4channel are one and the same.

Firstly, I have and have only ever had one ebay ID.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure 4channel has a p#nis, I don't.

Not being nasty, just pointing out the facts.

[rogespeed]

---

@4channel wrote:

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

The vaccine issue is one I retain a little question mark with. My wife is blind due to being one of the last babies born before the Rubella vaccination programme in schools really became established, so I have some skin in the game so as to speak. Covid has also shown us how important vaccines can be when a disease or virus gets going.

I haven't actually looked deeply into the claims of the anti vaxers, but I suspect there has been an increased prevalence in Autism in our modern society. It seems to be a very common occurrence compared to the past. The experts claim this is because of better diagnosis, but thats could be an easy out in a cover up.

So is the anti- vaxers claims that vaccination causes autism correct ( something is causing it ) and if so which vaccine in particular ?   I could well imagine the medical profession and government's could close ranks on this issue, purely because vaccination saves so many lives when weighed against a few people suffering autism. It could be the same as governments, big pharma and the medical profession closing ranks to hide the risks of using statins due to the lives saved from heart disease outweighing the cost of a few people suffering severe reactions to the medication.

---

Good post chameleon54 and it's looking at it broadly. First of all I'd like to say that in the vaccination  issue, the media does tend to label selective vaxers and vaccination choice people as anti-vaxers.  I guess with me, I would be close to selective as I still believe some are necessary while others are not. Rubella can be serious and for your wife it was.

I'll post more on this later but with autism, I believe the answer is "Yes, it is in a lot of cases related to vaccination". Vaccines contain mercury and aluminium. A tiny developing human being is bombarded with neurotoxins too often in a short period of time and expected to withstand this. How often are we supposed to say ... "Oh this kid was born autistic" when the little one was bright, cheerful, inquisitive and upbeat. Then after a vaccination or three, there's an almost immediate downward slide and that personality that once was has now gone forever? This is something maybe hidden that is happening in plain sight.

---

I suspect is compounded by multiple doses administered at the same time - also the theoretical possibility of "selective accidental" overdosing ,  especially the oral vaccines

rant:

Govt / Big Pharma concerns themselves with their standard of favourable outcomes vs that which is considered insignificant damage

and this consideration can change over time - traditionally a lot of time ie removing lead from petrol , 70 years ? Moving away from amalgam fillings , lead to stainless steel commercial buckshot - however due to social media and a more informed society the reactions times are shortening ( with the incentive of maintaining market share in a more assertive consumer marketplace) ie various harmful chemicals out of cooking utensils  

[the_great_she_elephant]

4channel wrote: I'll post more on this later but with autism, I believe the answer is "Yes, it is in a lot of cases related to vaccination". Vaccines contain mercury and aluminium.

Thimerosal (ethylmercury)

• Why is it used? This mercury-containing ingredient has been used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s. Today, it is only found in vaccines for influenza. Preservatives are necessary for preventing dangerous bacterial or fungal contamination, but thimerosal has since become a major source of vaccine safety concerns.
• Health concerns? While mercury is a naturally-occurring element found in soil, water, and food, large amounts of it can be harmful, especially for children. Back in 1997, children were receiving three vaccines that together contained more mercury than the EPA recommended limit (though not more than the FDA limit). This led to speculation that thimerosal in vaccines could be linked to autism or other conditions.
• Is it safe? Years of research have reduced concerns here. The type of mercury found in thimerosal, ethylmercury, differs from methylmercury, the type commonly found in fish and known to be harmful in large amounts. Ethylmercury is broken down and excreted from the body much more quickly than methylmercury, and no scientific study has found a link between ethylmercury and autism or any other harmful effects.
• Amount in vaccines? Nonetheless, several public health agencies and vaccine manufacturers agreed in 1999 to cease using thimerosal as a precautionary measure. Today, no vaccine contains Thimerosal except the influenza vaccine, and Thimerosal-free alternatives are available.

Aluminum

• Why is it used? Aluminum is used as an adjuvant in vaccines. That is, it makes them more effective by strengthening the immune system response. Thanks to adjuvants, people need fewer doses of vaccine to build immunity.
• Health concerns? Sometimes the mention of aluminum in vaccines makes parents uneasy; that's because there has been some evidence that long-term exposure to high amounts of aluminum can contribute to brain and bone disease. However, aluminum is naturally present in water, foods, even breast milk. Aluminum has only been shown to harm people if absorbed in very high amounts and when a person's kidneys aren't working properly. In contrast, the amount of aluminum in vaccines is negligible.
• Is it safe? Aluminum is the third most common naturally-occurring element, after oxygen and silicon. It is found in plants, soil, air, and water. A breast-fed infant will naturally ingest around 7 milligrams of aluminum in her diet throughout the first six months of her life. In contrast, the standard vaccines administered over the first six months of an infant's life contain an average of just 4.4 milligrams of aluminum. Aluminum has been used safely for over six decades in vaccines, with no scientific evidence indicating otherwise.
• Amount in vaccines? The amount of aluminum in vaccines is tiny. In fact, babies always have a small naturally occurring amount of aluminum in their bloodstreams, about 5 nanograms. The quantity of aluminum in a vaccine is so small it doesn't cause any noticeable raise in this base amount found in the blood, even immediately after an injection.

https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/goes-vaccine/

The only thiomersal (mercury) containing vaccines in Australia are for Japanese encephalitis and Q-fever. 

Human breast milk has 40 micrograms of aluminium per litre, and infant formulas contain around 225 micrograms of aluminium per litre. Aluminium is also rapidly excreted – half of any dose of aluminium will be expelled from the body within 24 hours.

Guidelines for aluminium exposure (with a 30-fold safety factor built in) are for aluminium exposure to be less than two milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. That means someone who weighs 80 kilograms could ingest 100 milligrams of aluminium in a day and remain safe.

All vaccines have less than one milligram of aluminium per dose, and most are below half of that. So exposure to aluminium through vaccines is negligible, and well below the already low risk threshold.

https://theconversation.com/toxins-in-vaccines-a-potentially-deadly-misunderstanding-11010