Forum

I understand, but the example with the atom was completely incorrect.

Speak for yourself ;)

Based on the fact that the photographs are photoshopped, which is visible to the naked eye. And based on the fact that I can more or less trust only ENGLISH VERSIONS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, NOT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SOME OBSCURE RESOURCES, as I have said many times.
All other quotes are not mine; I am not so blunt in my statements. I only spoke about the atom and plausibility.

For example, I don't see that they are photoshopped? Based on what signs did you come to this conclusion?

I tell you once again, there are photographs dated from a time when Photoshop didn't even exist in the slightest!

Well then read "The Unknown History of Humanity" in English—it is a full-fledged scientific work, according to the scientific community. There is plenty of evidence there. But even those will prove nothing to a person who does not want to believe it.

Fine, you don't believe the photographs because they contradict your ideas (and not because they are from unknown resources). If something had been posted on exactly the same resources—but corresponded to your understanding of reality, to your ideas—then you wouldn't have demanded any proof and would have simply accepted it. The resource has nothing to do with it.

And what should be done about the huge number of eyewitness accounts from all over the world who, without conspiring, report the same thing?

ariputra, all these photos are not evidence; I can look at photographs of Australia, but how do I know they are real?

But that doesn't stop you from believing that Australia actually exists.

It's not even about the photographs; it's about our established ideas of reality, which we fearlessly defend with enviable zeal and persistence.

If I had provided photographs depicting something you have no doubt about—there would be no question at all about their authenticity.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

I must admit I do not possess such a breadth of knowledge as ariputra, who is ready to fight for anything from elephants in orbit to AIDS denialism. But at the very least regarding vaccination, it is foolish enough to deny that vaccines against pertussis and scarlet fever removed these diseases from the ranks of deadly threats. I remember there was even a poem back in Soviet times about the death of a pioneer girl from scarlet fever. Furthermore, comparing child mortality in the 20th century with what came before is somewhat absurd; the difference is manifold.

I am ready to fight for flexibility of thought, logic, and common sense.

Pertussis and scarlet fever—like smallpox—declined not thanks to vaccination, but in spite of it.
In many areas where vaccinations against pertussis, scarlet fever, smallpox, and other diseases were carried out, the epidemics declined exactly at the same time as they—these epidemics—declined in those areas where no vaccination was performed!
From this, one can conclude that the link between vaccination and the decline of epidemics is doubtful.

http://www.mtmvua.com/mify-pravda-vakcinacii - "Myths and Truths about Vaccination"

An introduction to the contradictions between medical science and immunization policy
Alan Phillips,
Chairman of "Citizens for Health Freedom"

Introduction

When my son began his scheduled vaccinations at 2 months of age, I did not know that immunization was associated with any risk. But a leaflet in the clinic contained a contradiction: the chances of my child having a serious complication from the DPT vaccine were 1 in 1750, while the chances of dying from pertussis within a year were 1 in several million. When I pointed this out to the doctor, he angrily expressed disagreement and rushed out of the room, muttering: "I think I'll have to read this [leaflet]..." Shortly thereafter, I learned about a child who was permanently disabled after a vaccination and decided to investigate for myself. What I discovered alarmed me so much that I feel the need to share it. This is my report.

Health officials attribute the decline in disease to vaccinations and assure us of their safety and effectiveness. However, these assumptions directly contradict government statistics, published medical research, reports from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and data from recognized research scientists from different countries around the world. In fact, the incidence of infectious diseases had been steadily decreasing for decades before mass vaccination; American doctors report thousands of serious reactions to vaccines annually, including hundreds of deaths and disabilities; epidemics break out in fully vaccinated populations, and researchers attribute dozens of chronic immunological and neurological diseases, which have increased sharply in recent decades, to the results of mass immunization programs.
.....

Vaccination Myth #1: Vaccines are completely safe

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established by Congress under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986. This system receives about 11000 reports annually of serious complications from vaccinations, which include between one hundred and two hundred deaths, and several times more cases of lifelong disability [1]. VAERS officials report that 15% of complication cases are "serious" (ambulance transport, hospitalization, life-threatening cases, lifelong disability, death). Independent analysis of reports received by VAERS showed that up to 50% of the known cases of complications from the hepatitis B vaccine are "serious" [2]. While this figure is alarming in itself, it is only the "tip of the iceberg." According to FDA estimates, reports are made for only 1% of serious vaccination complications [3] [4], and the CDC admits that only about 10% of such cases are reported [5]. In fact, Congress heard testimony that medical students are advised not to report suspected complication cases [6].
.....

Vaccination Myth #2: Vaccines are very effective...

Medical literature contains an unexpected number of studies documenting the failure of vaccines. Outbreaks of measles, mumps, smallpox, polio, and hemophilic infection occurred in vaccinated groups [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. In 1989, the CDC reported: "Among school-age children, outbreaks [of measles] occurred in schools with vaccination levels over 98 percent" [24]. "They occurred in all regions of the country, including territories where measles had not been recorded for years" [25]. The CDC even reports a measles outbreak in a group that was documented as one hundred percent vaccinated [26]. A study of this phenomenon concludes: "the obvious paradox is that when the level of immunization against measles in a group reaches a high level, measles becomes a disease of the vaccinated" [27]. A more recent study found that measles vaccination "causes immune suppression, contributing to increased susceptibility to other infections" [28]. These studies suggest that the goal of full "immunization" is actually counterproductive, and this opinion is emphasized by cases where epidemics followed the full immunization of entire countries. Japan experienced annual increases in smallpox incidence following the introduction of compulsory vaccinations in 1872. By 1892 there were 29979 deaths, all of whom were vaccinated [29]. In the early 1900s, the Philippines suffered its most terrible smallpox epidemic after 8 million people received 24.5 million doses of the vaccine (a level of 95% was reached); as a result, mortality quadrupled [30]. Before the first English compulsory vaccination law passed in 1853, the highest mortality rate over two years was about 2000; in 1870-1871 England and Wales had more than 23000 deaths from smallpox [31]. In 1989, the state of Oman experienced a large-scale polio outbreak 6 months after achieving full vaccination [32]. In the US in 1986, 90% of 1300 people who contracted pertussis in Kansas were "properly vaccinated" [33]. 72% of those who contracted pertussis during its outbreak in Chicago in 1993 were vaccinated absolutely on time [34].

Vaccination Myth #3: Vaccinations are the main reason for the low incidence rate in the US today...

According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased by 90% between 1850 and 1940, corresponding to improved sanitation and hygiene, long before compulsory vaccination programs. According to a recent report from "Medical Sentinel," "from 1911 to 1935, the main causes of child deaths from infectious diseases in the US were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945, the overall mortality rate from them had decreased by 95% before the introduction of mass immunization programs" [35].

This article can be read not as proof of my correctness, but simply to broaden your horizons, for greater awareness in this field.