richard_smith237

You seem to think your life experiences are somehow more valid than science - now that’s genuinely comical. There’s really no point in debating you when you’re incapable of bringing anything other than half-baked arguments to the table. Then, when someone calls you out, you throw a tantrum like a child who’s been “hurt” because you can’t handle the fact that all you’ve got are substandard attacks. This isn’t personal - it’s a debate. But first, you’ve got to be able to actually engage in the debate itself, which, let’s be honest, you clearly aren’t which is why you keep trying to make it personal. Neither is Middle, who just repeats the same tired nonsense over and over. Red might throw out a bunch of info, but it’s basically just a copy-paste job from anti-vax sources, its interesting to read and understand the Anti-vax line of thinking, but it rarely adda anything new or credible to the discussion. At least Rattlesnake does a decent job of presenting thoughtful anti-vaccination arguments that spark actual discussion and intelligent debate, even if he’s dropped the ball a few times. It’s a shame the rest of you can’t seem to keep up.

When political bias is stripped away, the explanation becomes far more reasonable. The crux of the issue lies in the fact that the conversation surrounding this figure is so polarizing that some individuals are unwilling to perceive anything other than negativity towards him. Engaging in such a discussion becomes nearly impossible, as people are incapable of addressing the topic of Trump without being clouded by emotion. Once emotion is set aside, I find that many of the arguments against Trump appear somewhat absurd, to the point where, from the perspective of an impartial observer, they actually undermine the strength of the anti-Trump position. Prince William also wore a blue suit.

Its really very simple (when renewing a 5 year license) IF your license expires on 1st June, 2025 (on your Birthday).... You renew on 31st May, 2025, your renewed license will expire on 1st June, 2030 (effectively 5 years). You renew on 2nd June, 2025, your renewed license will expire on 1st June, 2031 (effectively 6 years).

There’s been a great deal of debate surrounding this issue, most of which is utterly nonsensical. Other leaders have been photographed in very dark blue suits. Many of these images of Trump have clearly been altered, causing some of the darker shades of blue to appear lighter - an Image above, is so heavily edited it looks like most are wearing dark blue suits. As for Trump, his suit was undeniably ‘midnight blue.’ The reasoning behind this choice is clear: security. Having already survived an assassination attempt, it’s reasonable that a subtly distinct suit was selected to make him more identifiable in a crowd or any potential commotion. Given that he is arguably the most high-profile and targeted leader at such an event, it would have been strongly recommended for him to wear something that further enables his safety and security. And - lets be clear, I think the guy [Trump] is a complete ayhole, but I find the the total rubbish of the anti-Trump crowd so much worse.

Your refusal to take the smallpox vaccine at 13, as you admitted, wasn’t a decision made through informed consent, but out of vanity - a desire to avoid a scar before summer. This perfectly illustrates why parental consent should outweigh that of children. At 13, a child lacks the maturity to fully understand the consequences of their choices, especially when influenced by superficial concerns. Parents, with their responsibility, are tasked with making decisions that protect a child's health and future, just as they guide them in other matters like education - its why you were 'sent to school' when you may not have wanted to go. Parental consent in these matters is not about denying autonomy, but about ensuring that decisions are made with the gravity and understanding that a child simply cannot possess. It is an acknowledgment that, in many situations, a child’s immediate desires must be weighed against their future health, safety, and development. The term "pro-vaxxers" is a misnomer - it's a label coined by 'anti-vaxxers' to create an opposing group to argue against. You could just as easily call us 'pro-science' because our position is grounded in the scientific evidence that vaccines work. It's like calling someone a "pro-spherical-earther" - a label so absurd that it highlights how illogical and unnecessary the term "pro-vaxxer" truly is. The science doesn’t need a side; it just is, and those who trust it are just advocating for the facts. If your claim is correct, that 25% of the Western population will refuse vaccines, then we can indeed expect to see increased outbreaks. In fact, we are already witnessing this with measles outbreaks in areas where vaccine rejection is higher, particularly in communities in the U.S. where vaccination rates have dropped. These outbreaks are a direct consequence of the lower levels of herd immunity, which can only be maintained when a large majority of the population is vaccinated. The evidence is clear: rejecting vaccines puts entire communities at risk, and the consequences are already playing out in real time.

This statement is emotionally charged but intellectually shallow. Phrases like "government mandated murder" are inflammatory, not reasoned - they substitute outrage for argument, which isn't serious discussion. Saying "Spanish flu ended WWI" is historically lazy; the war was ending for many reasons, and reducing complex geopolitical events to a virus is neither accurate nor thoughtful. I think you point to question whether the Spanish flu would have been "such a problem" had the world not been at war is a valid. Especially if we consider the impact of wartime conditions. Overcrowding in military camps, widespread malnutrition, and the overall weakened state of soldiers contributed significantly to the rapid transmission and increased lethality of the virus. These conditions created a perfect storm for the flu to spread unchecked. However, this does not mean that the pandemic was an inevitable or insurmountable catastrophe. Had a vaccine been available at the time - as we are fortunate to have today - it is highly plausible that the pandemic could have been mitigated to a far greater extent. Vaccination has proven time and again to be one of the most effective tools in preventing the spread of infectious diseases and reducing mortality rates, and its absence during the Spanish flu certainly played a role in the extent of the devastation.

While personal testimonies of vaccine injury are genuinely moving and deserve compassion, it is crucial to approach public health decisions based on rigorous evidence, not anecdote. Empirical observations at a population level overwhelmingly show that vaccines have saved millions of lives globally. This isn’t abstract theorising - it's hard data from countless studies, across nations, across age groups, across different vaccines. The "broken eggs" metaphor is misused: vaccines are not casual sacrifices. Every serious side effect is taken seriously, monitored, studied, and continuously reassessed. That's why adverse event reporting systems exist, like VAERS in the US and the Yellow Card scheme in the UK. If underreporting exists, it still doesn't alter the clear, repeated finding that the risk from viral diseases themself is far, far greater than the risk from vaccines, including for young people. Additionally, the argument that "watching a few testimonials" somehow overturns the scientific consensus misunderstands the nature of evidence. Individual cases, tragic as they may be, do not invalidate broader trends any more than a few bad car accidents prove that driving should be banned. Public health policy is not based on emotional snapshots; it's design is based on reproducible, statistically sound data. Vaccines reduce hospitalisations, severe disease, and deaths by orders of magnitude - including among the young and healthy. John Campbell's later work, particularly during the pandemic, has been criticised for cherry-picking evidence and drifting into sensationalism. Seeking truth requires consulting the full spectrum of high-quality evidence - not just emotive, selective cases that confirm pre-existing biases. Finally, real intellectual honesty demands recognising scale. It demands acknowledging that public health will always involve weighing risks and benefits for everyone, not just reacting to the most visible or heartbreaking outliers. The vaccine programme wasn’t perfect - no major intervention ever is - but it remains one of the greatest contributors to the ending of the worst phases of a pandemic. That’s not abstraction. That’s reality. Public health decisions rely on broad evidence, not isolated anecdotes, because protecting millions requires perspective, not cherry-picking - aggregate statistics are key.

I agreed that the US medical industry has serious issues with integrity - including documented kickbacks to physicians for administering vaccines, I agree that this is not only unethical, its morally reprehensible IMO. That said important to recognise that the broader scientific consensus on vaccines comes from outside the US as well, from countries whose healthcare systems are not plagued by the same corruption and profit motives. In Europe, Australia, Japan, and many other regions, independent research has repeatedly confirmed the safety and effectiveness of vaccines without the same financial entanglements. Ironically, the rampant corruption within the US system may actually be a major reason why so many Americans distrust vaccines: their own institutions have taught them to be sceptical. But that doesn’t negate the findings of the global scientific community, who operate in systems with far more transparency and accountability. I'd ask if you, Middle Stump, Red Phoenix, Rumak and johng are from any other nation than the USA. It's understandable that parents seek explanations when something traumatic happens to their child, it’s human nature to search for external causes - especially ones that feel tangible and immediate. Temporal association doesn’t prove causation, and when distressing symptoms like autism or epilepsy emerge, it's natural for parents to want a clear reason. Vaccines, being a recent and visible event, become an easy target. But, this tendency doesn’t necessarily reflect an empirical reality - it reflects a deeply emotional and psychological need to find something to blame. Just because symptoms appear after a vaccination doesn't mean the vaccination caused them, any more than rain the day after washing a car means the car wash caused the storm. Correlation and causation are dangerously easy to confuse, especially when emotions are involved. I agree that such studies should indeed be conducted, though my reasons differ from yours. I believe the anti-vaccine movement is causing significant harm, and it is vital to lay these misconceptions to rest - though I doubt this will ever fully be achieved. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the convictions held by many anti-vaxxers are rooted not in clear evidence but in deeply entrenched ideologies and self-reinforcing misinformation. No matter how much rigorous data is produced, their position remains largely impervious to reason. Thus, even with renewed studies and undeniable proof, I suspect that anti-establishment, anti-vaccine sentiment will persist indefinitely.

While I consider the existing body of scientific evidence as robust, I also agree with you that additional, rigorous assessments are necessary - albeit for different reasons. The growing influence of the anti-vaccine movement is (IMO) causing harm to public health, and this issue must be addressed. To combat this, it is essential that future studies be conducted with complete impartiality and transparency, ensuring that the findings are not only credible but also accessible to the public. By providing clear and unbiased data, we can counter misinformation and foster trust in vaccines, which are one of the most effective tools in safeguarding global health. But even if impartial and transparent studies were conducted, conclusively proving that vaccines are safe, would the anti-vaccination movement ever change their stance? Conversely, If it could be conclusively proven that vaccines were dangerous for even a tiny minority, would existing opinions, medical expertise, and even the stance of governments and big pharmaceutical companies change ? - I think they would. And... that’s where the fundamental divide lies.... On one side, there are those whose beliefs are driven by deeply held ideologies or misinformation, and no matter how much evidence is presented, their stance remains unwavering. Their resistance to change often stems from a complex mix of emotional, social, and cognitive factors, with the spread of misinformation exacerbated by social media amplifying their views. On the other side, you have those committed to public health and scientific integrity - healthcare professionals, governments, and regulatory bodies. These entities are bound by a duty to protect the public, and their stance is not rooted in ideology but in evidence and data. If credible, irrefutable evidence were presented showing vaccines to be harmful, this side would have to adapt, recalibrate, and even shift public health strategies, as they are grounded in the evolving understanding of science. Yes, the reason lies primarily with social media. Too many laypeople have the platform to spread alarmist misinformation far and wide, often without fully understanding the science behind the claims. Many people, swayed by persuasive arguments and partial truths, fail to critically assess the information they encounter. This unchecked flow of misleading content spreads rapidly, shaping opinions based on incomplete or distorted facts, rather than on the solid evidence.

You can buy on BitKub - which is a Thai exchange. If you wish you can transfer your crypto from BitKub to Kraken..... Or better still, transfer your 'keys' to a Cold Wallet such as Ledger, where its safer to be kept... ... and from there transfer to any exchange when you wish to make a transaction.

Oh I don't know... Give the 'Butter Churner' or the 'Sultry Hill' a go...

I completely agree with this. VAERS serves as an initial "flag" to identify potential patterns that may justify further investigation. However, any subsequent inquiry must be impartial and robust, avoiding the pitfall of using VAERS data as the sole basis for conclusions. It is essential that the investigation be independent of the biases inherent in the VAERS system itself.

I've seen that article before, and have heard of Neil Z. Miller too. He's a known anti-vaxxer, not exactly someone I'd call impartial. That said, the article itself makes some strong points. Here’s what Miller claims: Temporal Clustering: He looked at 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, and found that 58% of them happened within three days of vaccination, and 78.3% within seven days. Statistically significant (p < 0.00001) — no denying that. Literature Review: Miller pulls in a number of studies and case reports suggesting a possible link between vaccines and sudden unexplained infant deaths. Proposed Mechanisms: He throws out a few possible biological explanations — like inflammatory cytokines messing with the infant medulla, adjuvants crossing the blood-brain barrier and affecting respiratory control, and the idea that giving multiple vaccines at once could cause synergistic toxicity. BUT... While the study raises some interesting points, there are some major issues that undermine its conclusions... I'll list those below.. Nature of VAERS Data: Passive System: VAERS is passive - it relies on people voluntarily reporting events. That means underreporting, over-reporting, and a lot of noise in the data. No Causality: Just because an event is reported to VAERS doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. It just means the two happened around the same time. Temporal Association ≠ Causation: Just because deaths happened shortly after vaccination doesn’t prove the vaccine was to blame. Babies get a lot of vaccines in their first few months - which also happens to be the peak window for SIDS. So you get an overlap that looks suspicious, but it doesn’t automatically mean one caused the other. No Control Group: There’s no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated babies in Miller’s study. Without that, you can’t really say if the rates he’s pointing at are unusual at all. For context: From 1990 to 2019, there were about 130,000 SIDS deaths in the US. Only 2,605 were reported in VAERS. So the data’s incomplete - though, to be fair, it’s all they’ve got to work with. Author Bias: Miller’s reputation as an anti-vaccine activist isn’t exactly a secret. His past work has been rightly criticised for cherry-picking and bias, and that definitely colours this study too. Selective Literature Review: He mainly cites studies that support his theory and conveniently ignores the mountain of research that supports vaccine safety. That’s not how honest science is done. Speculative Mechanisms: Sure, the biological mechanisms he proposes are theoretically possible. But there's no direct, solid evidence linking those mechanisms to vaccine-related sudden infant death. Now, stepping back a little... Extensive research absolutely supports the safety of infant vaccines - and it pretty much dismantles Miller’s arguments: Epidemiological Studies: Massive studies, like one published in The Journal of Pediatrics, found no increased risk of SIDS after immunisation. Public Health Data: Since widespread infant vaccination programmes started, SIDS rates have actually dropped in many countries - not gone up. Regulatory Oversight: Organisations like the CDC and WHO keep a constant watch on vaccine safety — and they haven’t found any causal link between vaccines and SIDS. --------------- I want to add a little about the flaws in Miller's work... Misuse of VAERS Data: He leans on VAERS reports to push vaccine scare stories, despite the fact that VAERS is a messy, unverified data set that can’t establish causality. Experts constantly warn against using VAERS this way - it’s straight up misleading. Ecological Fallacies: In stuff like his 2011 paper (co-authored with Gary Goldman), Miller claims that more vaccines = higher infant mortality across countries. But critics have pointed out (correctly) that these kinds of studies are riddled with confounding factors and can't actually prove anything. David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and fierce critic of pseudoscience, has labeled these conclusions as "bad science" that misrepresents data to promote anti-vaccine narratives. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-and-infant-mortality-rates-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement-again-12-years-later Lack of Peer Review: A lot of Miller's papers are published in sketchy journals with minimal (or nonexistent) peer review - like Medical Veritas. That alone should raise big red flags about the scientific quality of his work. Confirmation Bias: In his books like Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, he only highlights studies that support his anti-vaccine stance and ignores the much larger body of evidence showing that vaccines are safe and effective - its not an impartial study by any means. ------------ Thus: While the article presents data indicating a temporal association between infant vaccinations and sudden deaths, it does not establish a causal relationship. The reliance on passive reporting data, absence of control groups, potential author bias, and selective literature review limit the study's validity.... and thats just what I can pick out from the paper. Experts would tear it a apart !

You counted? As of 2025 - there are 26.66 Million stinging little critters in Australia...

Which is it ?? am I cutting and pasting from Google, or I am an AI bot ??? Such stupid comments.

Go ahead - post the proof of 'my cut and paste'...

You received a COVID vaccination specifically designed to minimise the impact of infection. You caught COVID, suffered no serious effects - and somehow you argue the vaccine "did nothing" for you. In reality, your experience is a textbook example of a successful vaccination: it did exactly what it was meant to do, and you're living proof of it. The smallpox vaccination is no longer routinely given to the general public because smallpox was declared eradicated by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1980... ... All of that is thanks to successful vaccination campaigns worldwide...

Survivor fallacy - surely, by now even you must grasp the fundamental flaw in the tired "I'm still here" argument, no? Do you wear a seatbelt? No? Why bother - after all, you're still here, even if you've never had a major accident, right? (I hope that clears up the flaw in your thinking.) Apply the same logic to riding without a helmet... and now, apply it to your anti-vaccination argument. Survival without incident doesn't invalidate the protective value of prevention - it merely proves you were lucky, not wise. The Polio and Tetanus vaccines stand as strong examples of why you are still here today. Before vaccination, polio crippled and killed thousands every year, and tetanus turned even minor injuries into near-certain death sentences - its likely you avoided that through due to vaccination of you and everyone around you. As for your refusal to take the smallpox vaccine - it's meaningless throwaway point. By the time you had the luxury of declining, smallpox had already been eradicated through the collective action of those who were vaccinated long before you ever had the chance to freeload and claim some intellectual choice !! Did the two COVID vaccines somehow harm you? Have they devastated your health in some mysterious, unspoken way? Or are you now claiming to be a living example of "post-vaccination autism"?

I guess their intelligence is just a little below yours ? 55555555555555 It was intellectual mediocrity such as yours that I had in mind when drafting my comment... Ironically, you were the one to take such a comment personally !!!

Thats your only angle - another comment of yours so readily debunked... If you lack the eloquence to articulate an effective argument you could look back and either blame your education, your lack of learning ability, or simple lack of intellect... reading your comments, I'd blame all three.

The truth strikes and you use "Artificial Intelligence" to counter say it ain't true. You're clinging to this tired "AI" accusation - feel free to run my comments through every AI checker you can find; it won't change a thing. As I said before, and it's even more accurate now: "The truth strikes, and you have no intelligent response." Your inability to engage with substance speaks loudly enough - you don't have the tools to debate this intelligently. You misrepresented 'it' as something it was not, and now part of your anti-vax argument clings desperately to the idea of something a research group merely considered. Your relentless doubling down on a broken and readily debunked argument only serves to highlight the fundamentally broken thinking that underpins it.

In the interests of balance, does he also give a voice to those whose lives have been saved by vaccines? Of course, that’s harder to showcase — it’s impossible to know whether you, I, or anyone else was personally saved. Yet statistical modelling makes it clear: without vaccines, nearly half of us wouldn't even be here to argue about it. The correct emotional response is, of course, empathy toward any suffering. Thus, while compassion is essential, the wellbeing of the greater whole must take precedence over the rare misfortunes of a few. In the grand scheme, vaccines have dramatically reduced human suffering rather than caused it. Though big-picture thinking must never lose sight of individual hardship, the overwhelming body of evidence makes clear that those adversely affected remain an extreme minority.

Yes reads to me like an AI generated flowery word fest thanks. The truth strikes and you have no intelligent response, when your focus shifts to attacking how something is said, rather than what is said, it usually means the truth hit a little too close for comfort - your comment and lack of intelligent response highlights the weakness in your argument and the strength in mine. As always, anti-vaccination arguments are laughably easy to dismantle - and predictably, the only defence is a half-witted tantrum or some absurd claim that we’ve somehow failed to "open our minds" to the real science, meaning YouTube gurus and anecdotal rants that collapse the moment they’re held up against decades of peer-reviewed evidence and undeniable statistical reality.

You've dressed this up by falsely presenting it as something actively planned - when in truth, you clumsily stitched together a fragment of reality to peddle a flimsy distortion. And no, it is not remotely alarming for theories to be tested or proof-of-concept studies to exist - that's called science, a discipline that moves forward by evidence, not by catering to the manufactured outrage of the perpetually confused. Many of the anti-vaccination comments here dangle onto scraps of truth like drowning men clutching driftwood, desperately trying to feign credibility, all while hoping no one notices the gaping, fundamental flaws rotting away at the core of their arguments.

There has never been a serious plan to unleash mosquitoes as flying syringes for mass vaccination; only limited proof-of-concept trials, nothing more. While the idea moved forwards in tiny studies, it immediately collapsed under the weight of glaring problems like uncontrollable dosing, ethical nightmares, and predictable public outrage. This is the inevitable tragedy of debating with the ill-informed: hand them a voice, and you eagerly spew half-truths, blissfully unaware of the gaping, fundamental flaws that make their comments little more than polished ignorance.