Dear Google: Are Unvaccinated Babies Healthier?

[InChristAlone]

Im new to the idea of a plausible "anti-vax" movement.

To those shoulder-deep in it, is polio not a concern? Are the diseases we vaccine for not problems? Dont take this as dissent, Im open to education on the matter

I wish I could give you a complete run down, but it's hard to convey years of research in a few paragraphs. Basically I don't fear any of the diseases we routinely vaccinate for. Polio is basically eradicated. We shouldn't even be using a vaccine. In fact the oral vaccine used in third world countries is causing polio! We do have paralysis still.... it's called guillian barre syndrome and it happens after flu shots. I have a cousin who got it. Their family will never do flu shots again. My kids are completely unvaccinated and the worst they ever had was a cold. No antibiotics ever, no medical care ever needed. Research each disease and you will find the same. Sanitation and plumbers did more for society than vaccines ever did.

 

[boris]

Im new to the idea of a plausible "anti-vax" movement.

To those shoulder-deep in it, is polio not a concern? Are the diseases we vaccine for not problems? Dont take this as dissent, Im open to education on the matter

I think Peat has a few interviews and newsletters about it. In this interview is a short segment where he talks about it. Ray Peat Interview - Ray Peat On The Coronavirus, Immunity, & Vaccines 2020-03-18

The most dangerous part are the adjuvants. Vaccines don't work without them. They add aluminum oxide particles to create an extreme immune reaction in the whole body when injected into the muscle, because the pathogen alone is not enough to cause it. Testing is fraudulent. The "control" group gets the same adjuvants injected so there is no real double blind testing. The companies carry no legal liabilities anymore. So if you get health problems as a result they are clear. Why would you even want a law like that if your product is safe? Now testing and safety will be reduced even more, because people want the next vaccine quick. Flu vaccines are probably useless, because by the time a vaccine is ready the virus is already mutated.

 

[yerrag]

I think Peat has a few interviews and newsletters about it. In this interview is a short segment where he talks about it. Ray Peat Interview - Ray Peat On The Coronavirus, Immunity, & Vaccines 2020-03-18

The most dangerous part are the adjuvants. Vaccines don't work without them. They add aluminum oxide particles to create an extreme immune reaction in the whole body when injected into the muscle, because the pathogen alone is not enough to cause it. Testing is fraudulent. The "control" group gets the same adjuvants injected so there is no real double blind testing. The companies carry no legal liabilities anymore. So if you get health problems as a result they are clear. Why would you even want a law like that if your product is safe? Now testing and safety will be reduced even more, because people want the next vaccine quick. Flu vaccines are probably useless, because by the time a vaccine is ready the virus is already mutated.

Well said!

 

[methylenewhite]

Polio is basically eradicated. We shouldn't even be using a vaccine

I posted today. You are misinforming people.
Another Vaccine Failure. Vaccine-derived Poliovirus Mutated And Spreads Like Wild Type

 

[InChristAlone]

I posted today. You are misinforming people.
Another Vaccine Failure. Vaccine-derived Poliovirus Mutated And Spreads Like Wild Type

I am not misinforming, we SHOULD NOT be vaccinating for a virus that was commonly found in feces. The reason it paralyzed was the use of extremely toxic pesticides that have access to the nervous system.... we also give these toxic vaccines access when we vaccinate. And no I would not use their new vaccine if they were to create it.

 

[Amazoniac]

May be googling what SEO is could help you.

No need to. That's the boss of the company, everyone knows it. Makes us question if you really understand how the logarithm works.

Your intention was laudable nevertheless.

Give a fish a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a fish to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Good point. So basically, you are doing search with terms that the average person would not use as the regular words used (for that term) is already coded to trigger advertister-influenced search results.

Sorry for the people below 95 percentile. Your searches are manipulated. The doctor will see you now.

Hi, yerrag. I guess that's not it. Of course it's not interesting to dialogue with Google, but the solution is not to resort to technical language, there's high-quality material available that won't use it. Raj's articles for example barely contain such terms, and if you was to search for 'depression 5-hydroxytryptamide', it's unlikely that you'd get to his stuff. Sheila is sophisticated, but avoiding coloquial language as an artifice is not.

Reducing vinegar to acetic acid may exclude broader discussions where it wasn't mentioned and it's perhaps something that can't be reproduced with plain acetic acid. I bet that you already read good articles that surprised you for not having included terms that you expected to be there. Simplification to the essence tends to work, but it's not why it works.

As you probably know (because I have the impression that your examples were only illustrative), there's nothing to ask, it's not an answer machine. Relying on keywords only may not be enough, there's nothing specific about them and you'll have to also rely on the fancy terms to refine your search.

The principle is to view the engine as filter for all the information that's out there. When you do this, it becomes intuitive to shape the search line according to what you want to screen for. It's as if you were the author searching in your archive for a lost document with terms or phrases that should be contained in it. Acetic acid is an important component of vinegar, therefore it's likely to have been mentioned somewhere in the text.

Examples:
'ibd "acetic acid" vinegar therapeutic'
'ibd vinegar "traditional use"'
'ibd "vinegar improved"'
'ibd "vinegar treatment"'
'ibd vinegar "acetic acid" significant'
'ibd vinegar "but not"'
'ibd vinegar recruited "healthy adults"'
'ibd vinegar "it was observed"'
'ibd vinegar lesions'

It can be with contrasting terms to avoid bias.
Sometimes just the exclusion of superfluous terms can get you decent results and avoid marketers that predate on predictable lines.

 

[yerrag]

No need to. That's the boss of the company, everyone knows it. Makes us question if you really understand how the logarithm works.

Your intention was laudable nevertheless.



Hi, yerrag. I guess that's not it. Of course it's not interesting to dialogue with Google, but the solution is not to resort to technical language, there's high-quality material available that won't use it. Raj's articles for example barely contain such terms, and if you was to search for 'depression 5-hydroxytryptamide', it's unlikely that you'd get to his stuff. Sheila is sophisticated, but avoiding coloquial language as an artifice is not.

Reducing vinegar to acetic acid may exclude broader discussions where it wasn't mentioned and it's perhaps something that can't be reproduced with plain acetic acid. I bet that you already read good articles that surprised you for not having included terms that you expected to be there. Simplification to the essence tends to work, but it's not why it works.

As you probably know (because I have the impression that your examples were only illustrative), there's nothing to ask, it's not an answer machine. Relying on keywords only may not be enough, there's nothing specific about them and you'll have to also rely on the fancy terms to refine your search.

The principle is to view the engine as filter for all the information that's out there. When you do this, it becomes intuitive to shape the search line according to what you want to screen for. It's as if you were the author searching in your archive for a lost document with terms or phrases that should be contained in it. Acetic acid is an important component of vinegar, therefore it's likely to have been mentioned somewhere in the text.

Examples:
'ibd "acetic acid" vinegar therapeutic'
'ibd vinegar "traditional use"'
'ibd "vinegar improved"'
'ibd "vinegar treatment"'
'ibd vinegar "acetic acid" significant'
'ibd vinegar "but not"'
'ibd vinegar recruited "healthy adults"'
'ibd vinegar "it was observed"'
'ibd vinegar lesions'

It can be with contrasting terms to avoid bias.
Sometimes just the exclusion of superfluous terms can get you decent results and avoid marketers that predate on predictable lines.

I get the idea, Thanks for explaining. I just haven't thought to be as concise as you are in describing the process. It's intuitive but adaptive - intuitive to my understanding of Google's process of handling search.

This changes though, so I have to have an ongoing feel for where Google is now in what it thinks people intuit the way Google intuits them.

What I noticed for a long time now is some of the search conventions are gone.

Like " cat got your tongue" gives me results that are no longer "cat got your tongue"

 

[Amazoniac]

I get the idea, Thanks for explaining. I just haven't thought to be as concise as you are in describing the process. It's intuitive but adaptive - intuitive to my understanding of Google's process of handling search.

This changes though, so I have to have an ongoing feel for where Google is now in what it thinks people intuit the way Google intuits them.

What I noticed for a long time now is some of the search conventions are gone.

Like " cat got your tongue" gives me results that are no longer "cat got your tongue"

The engine attempts to interpret what you (might) want, right? Tempting you to antecipate the interpretation and try to manipulate to obtain the results that you're after. It's a funny guess game.

Deprioritizing or omitting results has been annoying.

 

[yerrag]

I think search has become more forgiving and inclusive than being strict and exclusive. It's resulted in more garbage to accommodate people who don't really know how to do search. Even in Amazon, when I search for product, they give me lots of garbage results nowadays.

Search has been dumbed down.

If only there is an option in search settings that allows you to select "human-smart search instead of Goodle-smart search."

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Im new to the idea of a plausible "anti-vax" movement.

To those shoulder-deep in it, is polio not a concern? Are the diseases we vaccine for not problems? Dont take this as dissent, Im open to education on the matter

http://katlynfoxfoundation.com/wp-c...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw14jA__V9llorSEU-_YH5KG

https://vaccinecourse.org/resource/...BMAF6BAgGEAQ&usg=AOvVaw1aYuvNBLRuXhebhL-TZ5aK

A bit lot, but the tldr is polio can not really be differentiated from a mild flu. The paralysis blamed on polio never went away, it increased in number after the polio vaccine, but the guidelines for diagnosis were changed so it was called something else than polio. The chances are polio does not even cause paralysis, and if it does, the polio vaccine makes it worse.

There is also vaccine derived polio epidemics.

www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/polio-vaccination-causes-more-infections-than-wild-virus-66778/amp

 

[YourUniverse]

http://katlynfoxfoundation.com/wp-c...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw14jA__V9llorSEU-_YH5KG

https://vaccinecourse.org/resource/...BMAF6BAgGEAQ&usg=AOvVaw1aYuvNBLRuXhebhL-TZ5aK

A bit lot, but the tldr is polio can not really be differentiated from a mild flu. The paralysis blamed on polio never went away, it increased in number after the polio vaccine, but the guidelines for diagnosis were changed so it was called something else than polio. The chances are polio does not even cause paralysis, and if it does, the polio vaccine makes it worse.

There is also vaccine derived polio epidemics.

www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/polio-vaccination-causes-more-infections-than-wild-virus-66778/amp

Ok, thanks for this, the top 2 links dont work though.

Polio was the first example that came to my head, but what about any and/or all of the diseases we vaccinate for? Measles, mumps, etc and etc. Would you not vaccinate any of them? Is that the stance of Peat?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Ok, thanks for this, the top 2 links dont work though.

Polio was the first example that came to my head, but what about any and/or all of the diseases we vaccinate for? Measles, mumps, etc and etc. Would you not vaccinate any of them? Is that the stance of Peat?

Sorry. I messed up the links. Look up Smoke mirrors and the disappearance of polio.

That had a paper and a lecture.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Disturbing Facts About The Failure Of Vaccines

 

[Amazoniac]

I think search has become more forgiving and inclusive than being strict and exclusive. It's resulted in more garbage to accommodate people who don't really know how to do search. Even in Amazon, when I search for product, they give me lots of garbage results nowadays.

Search has been dumbed down.

If only there is an option in search settings that allows you to select "human-smart search instead of Goodle-smart search."

One feature that's rarely used is the exclusion of terms.
'vaccine abjuvants -aluminium -"in dinosaur extinction"'

 

[yerrag]

One feature that's rarely used is the exclusion of terms.
'vaccine abjuvants -aluminium -"in dinosaur extinction"'

True, glad that feature still works.

 

[bk_]

If censorship is done well, you wouldn't even notice it.

Very true, an example is how it took me years to come across Peat’s work or hear of Gilbert Ling or Gerald Pollack.

 

[yerrag]

I googled "CDC Lies" and what came up is:

I'm looking for an easy way to find the numerous instances CDC has lied to the public, but what comes up is not so much about CDC lying, but of Trump lying.

So how do I go about finding this information using Google:

- can't find RFK Jr. 2005 Article in Rolling Stones and in Salon. Was it becasue this article was eventually retracted by the said publications? I could find this article by typing "rolling stone vaccine cdc kennedy" on Google Search, and here's what came up:

It's all articles against Robert Kennedy Jr. And on the Wikipedia page, it is part of a series on "Alternative and Pseudo-Medicine.

Now, all I want to find is one glaring instance of CDC lying, and in the one most glaring instance (if I can call it the most), I find that the article has been retracted by the publications it came out in.

How can I prove to my Viber group, faced up against doctors, when I know they have more ammunition in media to just stop me dead on my tracks?

When the COVID-19 crisis is over, it is going to be very hard to tell the unknowing masses to resist mandatory mass vaccination, when media has control of the narrative, with the cooperation of Google and Wikipedia. And who do we have on our side? Alex Jones? Ok, skip that. Mike Adams, Dr. Mercola. We have Ray Peat, but they don't know him.
'
Now, do you agree Google is still on the side of the truth? That it really has thrown away its pledge to "do no evil" long time ago already, and it means it?

 

[yerrag]

On Bing, here's what I get for "CDC Lies:"

On Yandex, here's the result:

Now, why is Google still the top search engine? Because it pays to lie.

 

[Amazoniac]

True, glad that feature still works.

yerrag! It's quite useful, isn't it?
'vaccine aluminium manila -alibaba -unavailable -"out of stock" -"solded out"'

 

[yerrag]

yerrag! It's quite useful, isn't it?
'vaccine aluminium manila -alibaba -unavailable -"out of stock" -"solded out"'

That search is banned!