Accountability Now

Which is exactly what I'm saying here. Again...they are focused on the bulls from the 15th century. What about the bull from the 16th century which already addressed this? Now we are in the 21st century and still worried about something they corrected almost 500 years ago. Canada has already apologized. Not sure if the Queen of England even matters anymore but maybe she could too. Having said that, what about the other First Nations tribes that warred amonst themselves. Are we going to see apologies for the brutal savagry they commitment upon other tribes causing near extinction? The point is that these events happened in a past where all was fair in love and war. We didn't have a Geneva convention to guide us so the thought that there may be consequences or implications of something that happened hundreds of years ago is ridiculous. I don't agree with you on this. I know that you are a proponent of your Earthling thing but I wouldn't go that far. I am however a proponent of a unified Canada and I think that most would agree with that and as such they do beleive in the sovereignty of our land and do so by respecting the laws that we have in place which were created by our history. We live in one of the best countries in the world because of the laws we have governing us make it that way.

Its about acknowledging truth? Or is it about leverage? As per your article: The truth is already out there jacee. Everyone knows that the Vatican and early government's were out to exterminate the aboriginals. It was crusader mentality of the times. Its fine if they want an apology but that is NOT their end game. They want leverage to assert their sovereignty to somehow change the past. Its not going to happen. I particularlily like how they are focusing on the edicts from 1400s but fail to see the later ones from the church stating: Hmm...is that truth going to be acknowledged too?

That's the sad part. If this apology is what they are waiting for to turn things around then I find it even more pathetic. 'Science' never waited for an apology to move on. However, in this particular case they aren't using this for an apolgy to move on but rather an apology to gain leverage on sovereignty talks. The apology for Galileo was purely symbollic. The Canadian government, who was the direct and primary party responsible for the acts HAS apologized. But that wasn't good enough. Let's get one from the Vatican. What's next? The French government? The British government? The Protestant church? How about the direct descendants of Sir John A? What makes me twitch as you say is knowing this 'apology' they seek is just another attempt at leverage.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. Seriously....an apology from 15th century? What in the world will that do for these people??? Lol. Tell you what....get the Iriquois to apologize to the Cree and the Cree to apologize to the Sioux for their savage battles then we can talk about the Vatican. Too funny!!

His job is to promote health which is why it doesn't surprise me that he would stand by this vaccine even though it doesn't work. With that said, he did not perform either of the two independent studies that both state the vaccine offers little to know reward. Of course you down play the risk but even GSK tells us the flu will give 10% vaccine takers the shivers, fever, feeling sick, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain....but this is NOT the flu. Lol

Of course he's going to say that....its his job to promote the vaccine. That's like Dr. Oz going on live TV and getting the flu shot but meanwhile his family did not. Its called crowd control....he needs to have these people come back next year for the flu shot and the only chance he has is to stay pro flu shot regardless of the zero effectiveness for this year.

In my opinion, Ingesting a metal is different than injecting the metal directly into the blood stream. I only state its my opinion because I have not seen conclusive lab results stating otherwise. However from common sense we know that once ingested, a metal needs to make it through the intenstinal wall and into the blood through that mechanism. Most of the metal is normally removed in the stool. However, injecting the metal directly in the blood means you have that concentration 100% in the blood and ready to interact with the blood/brain interface where it can now do damage as a neurotoxin. Of course, in healthy kids the liver will remove the metal and not have a build up in the system. Not the case with some children as their phase 2 detox doesn't function properly. Add to the fact that many of these same children have what's known as leaky guy which is holes in their intestinal wall allowing many of the ingested toxins to enter the blood much easier.

Touche!

And from the current link its states: In either scenario, I think its fair to say that negative effectiveness is a lot closer to zero reward than you'd like.

Big deal. The guy still walks away with millions and not even a slap on the wrist in a legal sense. Others would be facing tax evasion from the CRA and possibly jail time.

So it's even worse than thought. A very recent Canadian study on this years flu shot suggests it might actually make you sick. So at what point does a negative reward become a risk? http://globalnews.ca/news/1804162/canadian-study-finds-flu-shot-could-increase-risk-of-getting-sick/

I don't think it would be hard to find other non-aboriginal businesses that haven't done the same. You should hear some of the stories about the trips taken or purchases made in the oilfield just to buy contracts. The only difference that I can see is that the non-aboriginal businesses would be accountable to the CRA fit these taxable benefits. What accountability do the aboriginal companies have?

BC has them too "At least one burner is still operational in the Fort George area, near Valemount. And there are others still functioning west of Prince George." http://forestnet.com/LSJissues/2014_october/B.C.s%20Beehives.pdf

Typical flu season starts in January and peaks in Feburary. If the strain isn't here now, do you really think its going to come in the next few weeks? Health officials don't which is why they are advising you NOT to get it. The reward is zero...as stated by my article and the health officials. This is lower than any risk...which is not practically zero. Check the box that the flu vaccine comes in. No...you are focusing on the risk when i'm saying not to get vaccinated because of the lack of reward. At least in your movie example, the person still gets the rewarcd of entertainment. What reward is there from getting a vaccine that doesn't work? Perhaps a chance to talk with a hot nurse?

So even the health authorities are saying don't bother but you're pushing forward anyway? Are you also going to get the vaccine for the plague while you're at it? We know there are side effects from vaccines which we accept the risk in favor of not getting the disease. However in this case you are only getting the risk and zero reward. Doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps this isn't an issue of laziness but more an issue of people who actually think critically and sensibly.

As per my link above, it's more like no chance of it working this year....at least in Canada that is. They're even telling the elderly not to bother

At what point would you not get the vaccine? Perhaps if it offered little to no protection like this years vaccine? http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/canada-s-flu-shot-offered-little-or-no-protection-this-season-study-1.2211931

I'm not anti vax but I certainly am far from thinking that our current vaccines are perfect. I believe that Jenny McCarthy believed the same but again when it comes to vaccines it's an all or none type of thing. I'm not saying she's totally innocent but the fact (as you can see in this thread) is that the minute you even question the science, you are thrown to the opposite side. I took the flu shot sbout 10 years ago and about a week later got the sickest I have ever been. Logically I have to believe i had an adverse reaction to the shot which is rare but is probably the way it is for me. After that I started looking into the science and I didn't feel it was worth it. I also believe that getting the flu once in a while isn't a bad thing as it allows your body to build a natural immune response to it. I can do that because I'm in a healthy bracket and I understand others can't. If the vaccine actually worked to the point where herd inmunity was possible then I'd give it more merit but it doesn't.

How did I not answer your question? I said that I already support all vaccines except the flu. Obviously I consider those diseases more riskier than the side effects. We were talking about whooping cough and how the new vaccine is weaker and wears off after 5 years. Again....Is this the best we can do? But don't ask that because you'll be labelled an antivax

If you would have read my one of my initial posts you would see that I am in favor of all vaccines....except the flu shot. I am fully aware that for the majority of people they pose no risk and will in fact protect them from these diseases. My point from the start is that there is more we can do to further advance these vaccines and to educate ourselves. Of course the minute you raise any type of question regarding vaccines, you get labelled as an anti-vaxxer. I guess it's your all or none kind of thing again...hey?

Which disease that we currently use vaccinations for is 50% fatal?

Hey...you were the one that brought up and hung up on the defintion. I just showed you that other scientists and lab researchers use it commonly. The fact that the term is used meaninglessly doesn't excuse one from having to understand the interpreted meaning.

The mitochondrial effect is only a small subset of the actual cases but is often documented as it is shown in the court cases that have been proven in the court of law. The more common cases of aggravated autism come as a result of inflammation which is similar to the ASIA study I showed above results from adjuvants. Kids with autism notably have increased biomedical issues that get aggravated by heavy metals which then sends the immune system into dysfunction. It's not just vaccines that do this but other environmental factors. The expression they use is that genetics load the gun but toxins pull the trigger. In these cases the phase 2 liver function is impaired and these children can't get rid of these accumulated toxins in the same way regular kids do.

Wow....you're in a real lab with real scientists. Well then you must be right....oh...other than the fact that a quick Google easily found three labs below that call Aluminum a Heavy Metal in their testing protocol. http://www.lef.org/vitamins-supplements/ItemLC100003/Heavy-Metals-Panel-Mercury-Arsenic-Aluminum-Blood-Test http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/home/eng/metals_hair.asp http://www.mylabsforlife.com/OrderBloodTestsOnline/heavy-metals-and-environmental-toxins-and-related-testing I'm guessing that you (and your scientists) are out junking your coal and diamonds when people tell you to reduce your 'carbon' footprint. Lol. You realize that a term doesn't need to be literal for it to apply and be used....right? Of course, if you're still caught up on the literal term of heavy metal, then I suggest you read the following from IUPAC: http://iupac.org/publications/ci/2001/november/heavymetals.html Most importantly from the link:

There are a number of ways used to define yhe term heavy metals. Density, toxicity, and even atomic number. The fact that you choose to use one and I'm using another doesn't make it less right. Ask the thousands of scientists and lab researchers if they think it's silly that the call aluminum a heavy metal