richard_smith237

So with literally every single response tell you you how mistaken you are... ... You don't believe anyone and will only accept your erroneous impression if you see it with your own eyes... I'm not even sure you'd believe your own eyes at this stage...

Development of vaccines that were not available to you and I in childhood is an incredible medical advancement. Your statement is also flawed - life expectancy is higher now than its ever been. The reasons are multifaceted and vaccination can be factored in to that. That’s all well and good - provided you’re also prepared to avoid international travel and accept the ethical responsibility of potentially endangering others, all based on personal, untrained beliefs. If you find yourself placing more trust in the voices of anti-vaccine activists than in the collective knowledge of conventional medicine, it’s worth asking - what would happen if the tables turned? If you became formally educated in virology, witnessed the overwhelming evidence first-hand, and shifted toward supporting vaccination, would your former peers simply dismiss you as having been “taken in by the mainstream”? Likewise, if I immersed myself in virology and, despite the data, emerged convinced that vaccines did more harm than good - would the broader scientific community ignore me as just another anti-vax eccentric? The real dilemma lies in who we choose to trust. And in a world where doubt is easily spread, I find grounding in one thing: statistics..... Life expectancy continues to rise. The heartbreaking images of children ravaged by Polio and Measles have faded. Smallpox has vanished. Diphtheria is virtually forgotten. Rabies? Hardly a death sentence anymore. And that’s not magic. That’s medicine, thats vaccines. Those who reject vaccination must understand - they aren’t just questioning science; they’re challenging decades of global health progress that has spared millions from suffering.

No.. I don't get my information from 'pro-vaccine' sources - I just get the information from 'scientific sources'... You call them 'pro-vaccine'... for everyone else, its just scientific fact... Whereas the anti-vaccination propoganda can so easily be debunked and picked apart. It’s a bit of a conundrum, really. Take the flat Earth analogy: I could insist on travelling to space to see the planet’s curvature with my own eyes, or I could choose to understand and trust the science - and the testimony of those who have seen it for themselves. Biology presents a similar case. I’ve never seen a cell with the naked eye, yet I accept its existence because scientists, armed with evidence and expertise, tell us so. The reality is, we can't spend our lives independently verifying every claim. I believe Concorde flew at Mach 2, not because I witnessed it firsthand, but because the overwhelming body of evidence leaves little room for doubt. Vaccination is no different. The scientific consensus, bolstered by decades of rigorous study, shows that vaccines work - and that they are overwhelmingly safe. Of course, like anything in life, there are risks. But then, even eating grapes carries a risk if you look closely enough. Do we really need to be informed about it ? Must we really be outraged about it? I mean, let’s take a step back - what exactly is the moral dilemma in using fetal fibroblast cells, especially if they come from long-ago, ethically approved sources? If these cells - replicated for decades in a lab - can be used to develop life-saving treatments or vaccines, is that not a profoundly humane application? Where, truly, is the ethical conflict? I struggle to see one. We’re not talking about new terminations or ongoing exploitation, but about scientific progress built on a legacy that, however complex, now holds the potential to preserve countless lives. Isn’t that a moral good in itself?

Been answered before enough times in other threads - I really should have that answer saved to keep for you when you repeat the same question across threads... The involvement of British nationals in wrongdoing in Thailand is not necessarily disproportionately high compared to other nationalities. While British nationals are often highlighted in media stories about negative behavior, this is largely a perception driven by factors like the volume of British tourists, media coverage, and social media amplification, rather than an actual overrepresentation of Brits behaving poorly. The reasons a varied - but here's a go a them... Higher Number of British Tourists: The UK is one of the largest sources of international tourists to Thailand, so there are simply more British nationals in the country. Statistically, if more Brits are visiting, the number of incidents involving them will naturally be higher, even if the rate of wrongdoing isn’t disproportionately higher compared to other nationalities. Selective Media Coverage: British media tends to focus more on their nationals abroad, especially when the incidents are controversial or sensational. This creates a skewed perception, making it seem like British tourists are more involved in wrongdoing than others. Media outlets often highlight the "bad behavior" of British nationals, feeding into the stereotype, even though tourists from other countries may be involved in similar incidents that just don't get the same media attention. Social Media Dynamics: British tourists are very active on social media, and when incidents occur, they often share them online. This increases the visibility of the situation, contributing to a greater perception that Brits are more involved in wrongdoing. Other nationalities may not post or share their experiences as widely, leading to an underrepresentation of negative incidents involving them. Cultural and Behavioral Factors: While British tourists may sometimes engage in behaviors that are considered out of place in Thailand (like drinking excessively or disrespecting local customs), these behaviors are not necessarily worse or more frequent than those of tourists from other countries. However, British nationals, especially those engaged in party scenes, may sometimes draw more attention for their behavior due to cultural expectations or stereotypes. Volume vs. Proportion: Because of the sheer number of British tourists in Thailand, their involvement in incidents might seem disproportionately high. However, in reality, this is likely just a statistical artifact—with more Brits in Thailand, the number of incidents involving them will naturally be higher, but this doesn’t mean they’re behaving inappropriately at a rate higher than other nationalities. Other Nationalities and Arrests: In contrast, tourists from other countries, such as Russians and Chinese, may be arrested more frequently in Thailand for various reasons (such as involvement in illegal activities or visa violations). However, these incidents often don't get as much coverage in social media. This lack of visibility can be attributed to a British-centric media focus—where stories involving British nationals tend to dominate, especially when those stories are sensational or controversial. As a result, while tourists from other countries may actually be involved in more serious or more frequent legal trouble, these stories don’t get the same media attention, contributing to the perception that Brits are more prone to misbehaving. Media Imitation and Amplification: When one high-profile incident involving a British national gets reported in Thai media, it can create a snowball effect, encouraging other outlets to cover similar stories. Media organisations often look for stories that have already gained some traction, as they are more likely to attract attention and generate clicks. If a story about a British tourist misbehaving or breaking local laws goes viral or gains significant attention, other media outlets, both in Thailand and internationally, are more likely to pick it up. This "copycat reporting" phenomenon can lead to the perception that these incidents are happening more frequently than they actually are. Once one incident is reported, it can lead to more stories being covered, even if they are not directly related or involve similar circumstances. This amplifies the public's perception that British tourists are more prone to trouble in Thailand. Social Media Contagion: Social media plays a huge role in spreading stories quickly, especially those involving shocking or scandalous behavior. Once an incident involving a British tourist begins to gain traction on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, it can quickly become viral. As more people share, comment, and post about it, the incident reaches a wider audience, often including media outlets that rely on trending stories for their coverage. The contagion effect here is the spread of attention from one incident to another. When a story involving a British national attracts large numbers of views or shares, others may follow suit, either because of the subject's inherent controversy or because the incident fits into a broader narrative (e.g., "British tourists misbehaving in Thailand"). This can create a loop where media and social media outlets continuously highlight similar stories. Stereotype Reinforcement: When incidents involving British nationals are widely reported, it can reinforce negative stereotypes about them, such as being disrespectful or uninformed about local customs. As these stories are repeated and amplified, they start to feed into the contagion effect, where more tourists (including Brits) may begin to engage in similar behaviors, consciously or unconsciously. This could be due to the belief that certain behaviors are acceptable or "expected" when visiting a destination like Thailand, further driving the cycle. Focus on "Foreign" Behavior: The focus on British nationals may also be part of a broader media tendency to report more on “foreign” behavior, especially when it contrasts with local norms. Stories involving tourists, especially from countries with cultural or behavioral differences, often get more attention. The more a certain type of incident gets reported—like a British tourist acting inappropriately or breaking the law—the more other similar incidents may get covered, thus perpetuating the cycle. Now, that was a lot for you to read - so I'm expecting a one line flippant reply thats neither eloquent or remotely intelligent (and there's a reason I tucked this last comment away in the paragraph because I know you won't read this far !).

What kind of stupid question is that? You better eat you pudding instead. Yes I am sure on my statement. The day I am on overstay, will never come. You said idiots overstay... so given your posts, naturally I thought.. ... ... .. ... erm .....ok, doesn't matter now anyway...

I've actually received more vaccinations in adulthood than I ever did as a child. I’d likely have had even more at a younger age had I been born a decade or two later. As you've rightly pointed out, the landscape of vaccination has evolved significantly over the past ten years. That’s why your comment and info graphic was only misleading, it was alarmist and disingenuous... ... implying that infants today are somehow being 'over-vaccinated' and placed at risk, while adults are somehow being neglected. That simply isn’t the case. In fact, the range of available vaccines has expanded considerably, not just for children but for adults as well. Take a moment to consider: as an adult, haven’t you received vaccinations for Polio, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Typhoid, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis (A and B), Measles, or Mumps? Many of us have - because these vaccines either weren’t part of the standard childhood immunisation schedule when we were young because they weren't available back then - which is why children were still seen walking around with leg braces and horrific images of kids in iron lungs were not uncommon... that doesn't happen anymore.

That list is clearly written to sound alarming... its the sort of list we see in an anti-vax social media post or an Anti-vax website... Given your recent posting of a meme-like alarmist info graphic, I'd argue that you are getting your information of a Social Media Anti-vaccination group... Anti-Vax facebook group or something similar and simply repasting it here... While the words and acronyms sound concerning its 'fear-washing'... .... "would you really inject 'compound beta-162-zytenol' into your innocent little baby ?"... Or ..... "do you really think something made with Chihuahas left testis is safe to inject into a defenceless infant" .... Lets face it - none of any of the list below is cause for any concern at all.... there is no Thimerosal Mercury in vaccines any more... the amounts of Aluminium are less than we acquire in daily consumption of food and water. The list below - while 'close' to fact, is really alarmist and nothing more.... It has served to waste some time in a debate while I fact check and debunk... And this is the issue with such discussions, anti-vaxxers can paste lists and information which look alarming, and they take time and energy to fact check so most people don't bother - but when we do, your lists and information are readily debunked.... ... how do you respond ?... "thats just mainstream thinking" ... its a no win, you'll just past more lists and compounds and mixtures no one knows or understands but sound alarming until they are fact-checked... ... "Compounds"... whoa... "you inject compounds into babies ??" - anything can sound alarmist, until fact checked.... This is my debunk: Ingredients included in the vaccines injected into children's (often babies') bodies: Polysorbate 80 – An emulsifier used to help ingredients mix properly; generally regarded as safe, though rare allergic reactions may occur. Thimerosal Mercury – A preservative containing ethylmercury, not methylmercury; phased out of most childhood vaccines in the early 2000s due to public concern, though shown to be safe at low doses. Aluminium – Used as an adjuvant to boost immune response; safe in small amounts used in vaccines, much less than environmental exposure. Formaldehyde – Used to inactivate viruses during production; present in trace amounts far lower than naturally occurs in the human body; considered safe. M59 Squalene – An adjuvant used in some vaccines (not all); has been used safely in flu vaccines in Europe with no evidence of harm. Acetone Sodium Borate (Borax) – Used occasionally in stabilising solutions; borax can be toxic in high doses, but vaccine levels are far below harmful thresholds. 2-Phenoxyethanol – A preservative used in some vaccines; generally safe in low concentrations, though large amounts could cause irritation. SV40 – A virus that was present in early polio vaccines in the 1950s-60s; no longer used, and current vaccines are free of SV40. Triton X-100 – A detergent used in manufacturing to split cells; not present in significant amounts in final vaccines; considered safe in this context. Bovine Calf Serum – Used as a growth medium for viruses; removed during purification; no evidence of harm in final vaccine products. Poultry Serum – Used similarly to bovine serum in virus cultivation; well-controlled for safety; not present in final vaccine. Poultry Byproducts – Used in egg-based vaccine production (e.g. flu); final vaccines are purified and free from byproducts; safe for most unless allergic to eggs. Animal Organs Used To Make Vaccines: MDCK: Madin Darby Canine Kidney, female Cocker Spaniel – Used to grow flu viruses for vaccines; highly purified in final product; no evidence of harm. VERO: African Green Monkey Kidney – Used in making polio and other vaccines; cells are filtered out in processing; safe for human use. FRHL: Fetal Rhesus Monkey Lung – Used in virology research and production; not present in final vaccines; processed to remove cells. CHO: Chinese Hamster Ovary – Widely used in biotech for protein production; very common, thoroughly purified in end products. PK-15: Pork Kidney – Used in viral vaccine development; well-regulated and not present in final product; no known risk to humans. RK-13: Rabbit Kidney – Used in some research and vaccine processes; not part of final vaccine; no health risk to recipients. SIRC: Rabbit Cornea – Used in lab testing and not typically found in final vaccines; minimal concern for safety. Harvested human organs used to make vaccines: HEK-293: Human Embryo Kidney, aborted female; used in development of Ebola & Covid – A cell line from a 1970s abortion; widely used for research; cells are cloned, not taken from new tissue; not harmful or present in final vaccines. MRC-5: Human Lung, 14 week old aborted male; used in Polio, Rabies, Chickenpox, Hep A & Shingles – Cell line developed in 1966; only lab-grown descendants are used; no fetal tissue in vaccines themselves. WI-38: Human Lung, 12 week old aborted female; used in Polio, Rabies, Chickenpox, Hep A & Shingles – Similar to MRC-5, developed in 1962; not part of final vaccine; used for growing viruses in early stages. RA 27-3: Human Kidney, 6 weeks old, used in the Rubella & MMR – Virus strain originally grown in fetal cells; final vaccine does not contain these cells. PER-C6: Human Retina, 18 weeks old, used in the development of Ebola & Covid – Developed in 1985; used in some COVID-19 vaccine production; cells not included in vaccines. IMR-90: Lung from a 16 week old fetus; to replace the WI-38 line – Another lab-grown cell line from decades ago; safe and only used in early production. WALVAX-2: Lung from a 3 month old fetus; to replace the WI-38 and MRC-5 line – A more recent cell line (2015); used in some vaccine research; not part of the final injectable product.

or.... broke up with his GF who grassed him up to the police - its then reported as outstanding police work !!!

You sound extremely certain of your statement - proof is in the pudding, you are an overstayer ?

1) Which heavy metals ?... Aluminium salts (adjuvants) - found in some flu vaccines, not MMR. They stimulate a stronger immune response. You actually get more aluminium from food and water than from a vaccine. Thimerosal (ethylmercury) - found only in some multi-dose flu vials (not in MMR). It's a preservative and has been mostly phased out due to public concern, even though studies show it's safe in those tiny amounts. 2) In that 'other thread' you posted a very bold bright alarming infographic which stated a 6 month old baby has had more vaccinations than an us (the reader) ??... You've now changed that to 17 doses of vaccinations. Interesting how the narrative evolves... It was a decade ago - but I dont recall 17 doses for my son... if my count is correct - 5 vaccines is the number (12 doses in total - or if you wanted to be particularly alarmist DTP-Hib-IPV is a combo vaccine, so you could count thats as 15 doses - but to do so would really betray some bias. BCG (Tuberculosis) - 1st dose – At birth (only dose) Hepatitis B - 1st (Birth) / 2nd (2 Mo) / 3rd (6 Mo) DTP-Hib-IPV (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, influenzae type B, Polio) - 1st (2 Mo) / 2nd (4 Mo) / 3rd (6 Mo) Rotavirus - 1st (2 Mo) / 2nd (4 Mo) / 3rd dose (6 Mo) PCV (Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine) - 1st (2 Mo) / 2nd (4 Mo) / 3rd (6 Mo)

Nature would say to take care of yourself. Eat nutritious food. Stay away for vaccines. An apple a day - keeps the doctor away. Wrong - nature would 'say'... 30 to 60% us are dead !... ... or if the infection progresses to septicemic or pneumonic plague - the fatality rate would be 100% ... but sure... take that apple..... ignore antibiotics !!! nature has a way, right ?

They already have.... they called it Vaccination !!!!... The word "vaccination" comes from the Latin word vacca, meaning "cow." In the late 18th century, English physician Edward Jenner discovered that milkmaids who had caught cowpox (a much milder disease) seemed immune to smallpox, a deadly disease at the time. In 1796, he tested this by taking pus from a cowpox sore on a milkmaid’s hand and inoculating it into a young boy. The boy didn’t get smallpox - and voilà, the first vaccine was born. Jenner called the procedure "vaccination" to honour the cow connection - from variolae vaccinae, Latin for "cowpox." Over time, "vaccination" came to refer more broadly to any immunisation procedure.

So at best we have an unhinged child murder walking the streets when he is 23 years old... This is not a fatal assault, its cold blooded murder, the 'man' is 18 years old and should be tried as an adult.

Rubbish - the average life expectancy tells the whole story... medical practices were not carried out on healthy people, most of those who needed medical intervention were already in a serious way. Absolutely.... Is that nature ?? because other animals don't do this. Yes, which is why we have a higher life expectancy... Life expectancy 150 years ago was 30-40 years old - we died of good health did we ? Our children's children are expected to see 150 years old. Comical tosh.... Why A&E - wouldn't you let nature find the way ?... Would you allow A&E to administer antibiotics for sepsis and infections ?

Au contraire cockroach.. Well over 70 pages of posters with the Emoticon M... Most of them probably lurkers... but there are scores of forum members with the same colour emoticon initial. You only jumped to the conclusions you do because you are stupid and don't know what you don't know.

Now where have I seen that blue F before? Awww cockroach.... Cute... but no cigar !!! ... Your observational skills are sorely missing... 'fat is a type of crazy's' emoticon or whatever its called has a badge...

Interesting... So human life expectancy has got worse or improved over the last millennia then ?

I agree...

So you are against human intervention with everything, or just when it comes to medical fitness ?

stupid - you have no idea... just like there are plenty of posters who's 'emoticon' is just a simple M with the same colour !

Further lies from you !!... You pee'd your pants with excitement when you saw three dislikes to one of my comments !!

I don't think it matters he's so outstanding daft I'm sure he's things antibiotics are unnecessary and 'Nature has the answers we seek' !!!

Because he's sensible enough not to - I on the other hand allow myself to fall foul of the very advice I keep giving myself and many others have given me when entering such discussions with you... Quote Mark Twain: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Absolute, monumental hogwash Richard. Don't know where you copied that from, but, if you think that, you, and they, are wrong, Influenza is a natural body function. It is not a disease. it is certainly not caused by some mysterious entity called a virus. There is a reason for the different symptoms of the flu. They do a good maintenance job.. Just like the leaves falling off the tree, to allow fresh growth. Nature has the answers we seek. Oh dear - you keep doubling down on the stupidity...

I'm not sure he's Anti-anti-biotics or just anti-vaxx.... I suspect both given his propensity to go against anything modern science has proven.