richard_smith237

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Let's delve a bit into this notion of "rare anecdotal evidence":

 

As at February 25, 2023, the European database of suspected drug reaction reports, EudraVigilance, verified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), had reported 50,663 fatalities and 5,315,063 injuries following injections of the EMA-authorised COVID-19 shots.

 

Even without taking into account the established issue of underreporting, do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?

 

 

 

The statement provided misrepresents data from EudraVigilance by implying causation where only suspicion exists, omitting necessary context such as total vaccination numbers and baseline mortality rates, and using emotional rather than scientific framing. As a result, it draws misleading conclusions about vaccine safety without appropriate evidence or analytical rigour...  here is why... 

Misleading interpretation of EudraVigilance data:

Problem: EudraVigilance collects suspected adverse event reports, not confirmed ones.
Anyone - doctors, patients, even lawyers - can submit reports (much like VAERS).
A report in the database does not prove the vaccine caused the outcome. Causality is not established by mere reporting - exactly the same temporal causality flaw exists as it does with VAERS - the criticism are the same.

Contradiction: Claiming that EudraVigilance "reported fatalities" suggests proven causality, but that's false - they reported suspicions, not confirmed causes.

No context for injury numbers:

Problem: 5,315,063 "injuries" sounds enormous without context - but:

The denominator - the total number of COVID-19 shots given - is missing. (Europe administered hundreds of millions of doses.)

Contradiction: Without comparing injury rates to the total number of doses, the claim is sensationalist, not analytical.

Ignoring baseline death rates:

Problem: People naturally die every day from many causes.
Vaccination campaigns target entire populations, including the very old, frail, and sick - groups who already have high baseline mortality rates.

Contradiction: Saying 50,663 deaths followed COVID-19 shots suggests a vaccine effect without asking:

How many deaths would have occurred anyway? Was mortality higher than expected for age-matched, vaccinated cohorts versus unvaccinated ones?

Appeal to emotion, not science:

Problem: The phrase "do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?" emotionally pressures the reader without addressing: Benefit vs. risk (e.g., prevention of millions of deaths and hospitalisations). Risk comparison (e.g., risk of COVID-19 infection vs. risk of vaccine side effects).

Contradiction: The risk of vaccine injury is framed in isolation without weighing against the risk of COVID-19 itself - a basic flaw in any fair risk analysis.

In Summary.....

Misleading causality.... "Suspected" does not equal "Proven" deaths from vaccines.

Missing denominator.... No comparison to number of doses given.

Ignoring background mortality.... Deaths happen regardless of vaccination.

Emotional framing.... Science requires balanced risk assessment.

7 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

I disagree.  First off, let's stop calling them theories. They are  intentional efforts to cause civil disorder and to erode national social cohesion. In effect sabotage. Some people thing it is funny to manipulate and get people upset. Others wish to promote a political agenda. And unfortunately, the majority  originate with foreign agents (Iran, Russia, China) who want there to be  social problems and disruption in western economies. 

 

Almost all are not theories, because they lack factual evidence. Our greatest scientific advances came from theories, and many challenged conventions of the day. They relied on  evidence and honest proof.  Most of the conspiracy claims lack credible factual evidence.  A credible theorist takes ownership of their claim and is willing to defend  it in the appropriate forum. The people who promote the conspiracies almost always hide their identities and refuse to take responsibility  for the damage they cause when they are exposed.

 

The western promoters of the questionable claims almost always have a financial interest in their false claims. Alex Jones who pushed the  false  claims about the  mass murder of children at Sandy Hook school made his money from sales of  dooms day  preparations, and  "health" supplments that he sold to his podcast listeners.  RFK Jr. made his income from filing personal injury lawsuits for people who had false or dubious claims of  vaccine injury.  Others are mentally ill. They are possessed by their obsessions. The mental illness is obvious. Instead of encouraging them, their sabotage and civil  vandalism needs to be terminated.

 

Secondly, the false claims cause serious damage. This is shown by the refusal of some  communities to vaccinate against preventative childhood diseases. The end result is that  everyone else suffers. They prey upon people with limited education and lower than normal intelligence levels. Society punishes those who seek to exploit the intellectually impaired through commercial transactions  , and yet the conspiracy claim promoters take advantage of legal loopholes to do just that. 

I agree.. I'm not sure why you disagreed with me, we singing from a similar hym sheet.... 

1 hour ago, cjinchiangrai said:

My Thai is terrible but It is my job to facilitate communication. Phones and pictures help. Smiling and not yelling help more. Lunch  is easy, a 5mm socket head cap screw is harder.

Agreed..    I've stupidly bitten already...    but with better thought - this thread is nothing more than a 'bob smith' type troll....    

...  why are we even giving this oxygen ?...   I'm out.

3 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

So you walk into a shop and there are younger staff or interns that speak perfect English but some old guy does the entire process.  Does this bother you?

 

I had to go through an entire eye check up at the opticians with some old crow.  She had zero English and at one point she just said "nevermind" in Thai.  Afterwards the assistant spoke to me in perfect English.

 

How about you?  Do you think we should fire the fossils and pay the young people with 2 degrees, 5 languages and masters more?

Does it matter if the process was carried out ???...     

... I mean... does it matter even in the slightest ??..   Op, you're complaining about nothing...

... you're complaining that there were people there who 'could have' helped if struggles evolved within your communication....

Its quite a pathetic complaint really - actually its an exceptionally pathetic complaint.

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

It must killer with his height....legs all cramped up with 30cm legroom.....then his body jammed into a 40cm wide seat, kids all around screaming........surprised he didn't crash and snore.

I've had more than my fair share of comfy flat beds on a flight - its never a decent sleep....

So what... he drifted off in a momentary lull.....   is it really that bad ?    are you offended by that ?

Is the media hunting outrage ?... is it shoehorning out offence where none exists ??  

Its all so very pathetic...    these distractions are a dumb attempt at political scoring - nothing more.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Social media is just chock-full of nut jobs who have hundreds of different theories, about hundreds of different topics. It means absolutely nothing to most of us, and as you get older you have to develop a nonsense filter and just be able to filter out the stuff that is totally ridiculous.

 

Just ignore them, it's like water off a duck's back. 

Agreed, fringe conspiracies like flat earth or moon landing denial are largely harmless - mostly relegated to online nonsense.

But...  anti-vaccine conspiracies are a whole different beast. They weaponise half-truths and emotional manipulation to convince people to reject life-saving science.

The anti-vax movement distorts facts, exploits fears, and spreads outright lies about vaccine safety, resulting in preventable diseases reemerging and harming / killing vulnerable people.

These aren’t just misguided beliefs - they are public health threats. The consequences ripple through society, endangering communities that depend on herd immunity to stay safe.

This isn’t just a personal choice - it’s reckless, dangerous, and criminal...  I don't think they should be ignored.

1 hour ago, tilaceer said:

The images do not prove he was sleeping, (that is not my argument), but what could be reasonably deduced from the information contained within ?

A head of state hops across the Atlantic at the drop of a hat,  through half a dozen time zones, spending nine  hours in a trans-Atlantic flight , and (understandably)... nods off for a moment.

Is civilisation really teetering on the brink ???

Apparently, falling asleep after an intercontinental sprint isn’t human anymore - it's an "international incident." Who knew?

For the record, have any of us sat through a religious ceremony that doesn’t lull us halfway into a coma ???... unless of-course there's a dramatic beheading or a limb flying off....

And if the best the anti-Trump brigade can muster is screeching about the shade of his suit or the fact he caught forty winks? Then, honestly, their arguments are embarrassing..

And... it must be repeated - I'm not pro-Trump or anti-Trump..   I'm just anti-stupidity to the degree that many of the points I'm reading are starting to make me 'anti-anti-Trump'...  because you lot are quite frankly, ridiculous.

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

I wasn't inventing outrage. I was pointing out hypocrisy. All those right wingers who justified the ambush of Zelensky at the White House by saying that his clothing was disrespectful.  They threw hissy fits about Zelensky's attire but so defensive of Trump. There is one Trump supporter on this thread who actually accused Zelensky of stolen valor. Well actually "stolen valour". He spelled valor the British way.

A point which I also agree with...    the distractions are pathetic....   (from both sides).

15 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I feel the same way about posters that can't present a solid argument without calling other posters stupid or idiots or ignorant or mass murderers!

Fair enough but you deserve an exception. Your ant-vax rants are full of dangerous baseless lies. BTW, Black Death is bacterial and easily treated with antibiotics, or don't you believe in them either?

A point I raised earlier - which outs Britman as someone who wishes to make a point without truly understanding the point... 

...  Just bravado without really thinking.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Let's delve a bit into this notion of "rare anecdotal evidence":

To be continued tomorrow...  my inebriated mind (yes I'm drunk tonight) is struggling to handle the figures...  but already I see points of debate.

Intersting stats, I'd like to get into the source and understand the output more clearly.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I am French (though I was born and have lived in the UK).

(I actually knew that from one of your other threads on passport renewal)...

I was striving to maintain a veneer of impartiality while addressing my thinly veiled bigotry towards Americans and the embarrassingly Dunning-Kruger-esque confidence with which many of them spout anti-vaccination rhetoric....

The 'others' mentioned are from the US...  I have little doubt...   Not that it matters, a strong argument is a strong argument - its nice to see one from time to time (from the perspective of forum debate).

9 hours ago, rumak said:

 

your delusions are amazing .   i simply objected to you constantly inferring that others here ( not just me)  were stupid, ignorant, etc .   Others here have also commented on that .  I let it go for a while, till I told you off. 

 

move on professor .......

    

You are making a habit of objecting to facts....

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

31 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Covid - You had covid after being vaccinated and by your own admission was not serious - arguably, either the vaccine worked or the strain of covid you had was minor.

I also had it before, the original strain, straight from the Chinese.

No difference.

Oh, so now you're telling us you've had Covid-19 twice? How convenient.

Funny how that was completely omitted earlier and you only mention that now, right after the flaw in your earlier comment has been pointed out  ((where you stated your case was mild and it was highlited that this was after having the vaccine))...   Suddenly, here comes this new detail...  

Forgive me if I'm a little cynical, but it feels like you’ve pulled this out of thin air to backpedal and fabricate a story that fits your narrative. Especially in the middle of an anti-vax thread - what perfect timing.

You'd never try to cover up a hole in your argument with some strategically placed “facts.” .... would you ???.... 

59 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I guess the leaders who wore black were feeling suicidal that day.

As for your final comment, I think we can file it under I don't like Trump but...

Perhaps this could be filed under observations from someone who applies insights without a political agenda.

Trump manages to make enough missteps on his own, without the need for a fabricated narrative to embellish them.

It was the same with the recent backlash against Blue Origin's suborbital flight. So much misinformation was spread, yet the reality was that the flight itself was already farcical - a spectacle that didn't require any exaggeration to be seen for what it truly was. The criticism didn't need to be built on lies; the flight was ridiculous enough on its own.

The same applies to Trump - he's already his own worst enemy. There's no need to invent outrage where it doesn't exist.

I recall during Trump's previous term, when accusations of racism were rampant. Edited videos circulated, showing him not shaking a bishop's hand, with people crying racism. Then the full video surfaced, revealing that the edits had conveniently removed the bishop's Sceptre (so of course, he couldn't shake hands).

9 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I feel the same way about posters that can't present a solid argument without calling other posters stupid or idiots or ignorant or mass murderers!

If the cap fits... 

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm arguing against smallpox vaccine, which they tried to give me in 1969 when there were no smallpox cases in the UK.

I'm arguing against MMR vaccine, which is 3 vaccines given at once, for 3 trivial diseases which caused no harm in healthy children.

I'm arguing against flu vaccine which doesn't stop anyone getting flu.

I'm arguing against COVID vaccine which just doesn't work.

There is no polio currently in the civilised world, so no need to vaccinated against it there.

Smallpox - valid but moot point: Since ~1980, small pox vaccines have been phased out.

MMR - Proven to work, complications of diseases it vaccinates against are not trivial. 

Influenza - follows antigenic drift and is 40-60% effective at preventing infection and minimises symptoms

Covid - You had covid after being vaccinated and by your own admission was not serious - arguably, either the vaccine worked or the strain of covid you had was minor.

Polio - the disease is still endemic in some countries, and thus remains an issue, its still necessary to vaccinate against it.

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If you believe vaccines work, you are free to have as many as you want, as often as you want. But I'm saying no, my body, my choice.

Which is fine... I’m sure you’d be just fine living alone on a desert island, or maybe with all the other anti-vaxxer - if that’s really your preference. Of course, that’s a rather extreme and daft analogy, but it highlights an important point: by refusing vaccines, you’re not just making a personal choice. You’re actively contributing to the erosion of herd immunity, the very concept that protects vulnerable people in our communities - those who can’t be vaccinated due to health conditions, age, or other factors.

When enough people refuse vaccines, the effectiveness of this collective protection diminishes, and suddenly, everyone is at greater risk, including yourself.

Ignoring vaccines isn’t just about your health; it directly impacts the health of the broader community, and could allow dangerous diseases to spread unchecked. It’s a false sense of security to think that avoiding vaccines won’t eventually affect you when you’re part of a larger, interconnected society.

The reason the unvaccinated are at less risk now is purely because so many others are vaccinated.

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

And I'm only arguing for ME, you want to harm yourself or your kids, have at it.

But.. this is a 'community' issue, not just you - If you want to argue just about you, as mentioned above, isolate yourself.

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Rabies, don't know, I've never been bitten by a rabid dog.

If you consider yourself anti-vaccine, surely that stance extends to the rabies vaccine as well, right? After all, if you were to be bitten by a dog - whether it’s confirmed to be rabid or not - I’m certain you’d waste no time rushing to the nearest hospital for a shot of that very same vaccine you dismiss for other diseases.

It’s funny how quickly the resolve of an anti-vaxxer fades when faced with the very real, immediate threat of a deadly virus like rabies. Suddenly, the logic of vaccine hesitation doesn’t seem to hold up when it’s a matter of life and death.

It’s a stark reminder that vaccines are not some abstract concept but a practical and proven tool to save lives.

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

But I'd suggest killing all the wild dogs might be a better option.

 

Dengue, don't know, mosquitoes don't seen to bite me, and I don't live in a dengue area.

Malaria, same

 

Diphtheria, yellow fever, hepatitis, tetinis, Spanish flu, the black death, don't know.

Showing your ignorance on this subject...  the black death (Bubonic plague) was spread not by virus but a bacteria.

29 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

If you find yourself resorting to posting (copying and pasting) a meme - it’s because you’re unable to present a solid argument.

Instead, you're leaning on superficial influence to sway those who haven't developed the critical thinking skills to question or analyse what they see.

This is the crux of the problem with social media today: it’s become a platform where soundbites and memes dominate the conversation, and too many people, unfortunately, are too complacent to question them - regurgitating them does not strengthen your argument - it actively weakens it.

34 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yep, that's the official 'authorized narrative' regarding the Spanish Flu. 

If only we would have had those magical vaccines then, we would have prevented the 50-100 million deaths attributed to the Spanish Flu. 

But the Spanish Flu, didn't originate in Spain, it wasn't a Flu and was most probably caused by an early experimental vaccine given to US troops at Fort Riley in Kansas in 1918, that were then sent to Europe.

Here a summary from a 2018 article aptly titled: Did a Vaccine Experiment on U.S. Soldiers Cause the “Spanish Flu”?

Source: https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/did-a-military-experimental-vaccine-in-1918-kill-50-100-million-people-blamed-as-spanish-flu/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

• The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.
• More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.
• The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus.
• The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas.
• From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.
• During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.
• One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
• The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime.  Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immuno-compromised.
• When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.
• During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the anti-meningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.

 

More copy and pasted from 'neurotic' ant-vax websites... 

'Authorised' - a daft 'key word' that targets emotion rather than intellect... There is no universally authorised world wide narrative approved by some 'unknown group' that are attempting to pull the wool of the eyes of world history - thats preposterous. 

This content you 'pasted' is based on a combination of half-truths, misinterpretations, and conspiracy theories. The Spanish Flu was caused by the H1N1 influenza virus, and while bacterial pneumonia was a significant secondary complication, it was not the primary cause of the deaths. The idea that an experimental vaccine caused the Spanish Flu is a debunked conspiracy theory, with no scientific evidence to support it.

"The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer."

Modern technology has indeed been able to pinpoint the influenza virus as the cause of the Spanish Flu.

In 2005, scientists successfully sequenced the H1N1 influenza virus from preserved samples of the 1918 flu virus, confirming it was the culprit. This contradicts the claim that influenza was not the cause of the pandemic. The virus was a novel strain that emerged from a reassortment of bird, pig, and human influenza viruses.

Influenza was the killer, not a conspiracy or misidentified pathogen.

"More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets."

 This statement is true, but it needs context. The overall number of deaths from disease during WWI was staggering, including deaths from influenza, pneumonia, and other infections. However, it's important to note that disease deaths were caused by poor sanitation, malnutrition, and overcrowding, not just the flu.

While more soldiers died from disease than bullets, this statistic alone doesn't prove that the Spanish Flu was caused by bacterial pneumonia or any experimental vaccine. Disease was a major factor in WWI, but the primary cause of the 1918 pandemic was the H1N1 influenza virus.

"The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus."

While secondary bacterial pneumonia was a major complication and caused many deaths during the 1918 pandemic, influenza was still the primary cause of the pandemic. The H1N1 influenza virus is well-documented as the initial trigger for the disease, and the bacterial pneumonia came after as a secondary infection.

According to studies, secondary bacterial pneumonia was responsible for many deaths, but 95% of deaths being caused by bacteria is an overstatement. The influenza virus weakened the immune system, making the body more susceptible to bacterial infections, which is why pneumonia followed.

"The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas."

The term "Spanish Flu" is a misnomer. It was called the "Spanish Flu" because Spain, being neutral during WWI, did not have wartime censorship and was able to report the outbreak early. The pandemic likely began in the United States, possibly in Kansas, but there is no direct link between the origin of the flu and bacterial pneumonia.

"From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley."

This is a conspiracy theory with no solid evidence. While there were indeed experimental meningitis vaccines administered to soldiers at Fort Riley, there is no credible scientific evidence that these vaccines caused the Spanish Flu. Vaccines at the time were aimed at preventing bacterial meningitis, not influenza. The idea that these vaccines triggered the Spanish Flu is a misinterpretation of the facts.

"During the remainder of 1918, soldiers... spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France."

It is true that the movement of troops during WWI contributed to the rapid spread of disease, including the Spanish Flu. However, the bacteria that spread were often secondary infections (such as pneumococcal bacteria) that followed the initial viral infection. The H1N1 influenza virus was the first cause, and bacterial infections like pneumonia followed as a complication.

 "One study describes soldiers 'with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others... were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria."

This description of bacterial spread is accurate in describing the spread of pneumonia after viral infections like influenza. However, this study does not imply that the flu virus wasn't the cause; it simply explains how bacterial pneumonia spread after the flu weakened people's immune systems.

"The 'Spanish Flu' attacked healthy people in their prime. Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immuno-compromised."

It is true that the Spanish Flu disproportionately affected healthy young adults. This unusual pattern was likely due to an overreaction of the immune system, called a cytokine storm, which caused damage to the lungs. Bacterial pneumonia, however, does not specifically target young, healthy people in the way the flu did in 1918. Pneumonia usually affects the very young, elderly, or immunocompromised.

The cytokine storm hypothesis explains why healthy young adults were disproportionately affected by the flu, but the claim about bacterial pneumonia being responsible for this is incorrect.

"When WWI ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide."

While soldiers did indeed carry the flu virus back home, spreading it worldwide, the primary cause of death was still the H1N1 influenza virus. The pneumonia came as a complication after influenza.

Soldiers helped spread the flu virus globally, and while bacterial pneumonia was a major cause of death, it was secondary to the viral infection.

"During WWI, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the anti-meningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide."

This is a false connection. The anti-meningococcic serum was not responsible for the Spanish Flu pandemic. It was aimed at bacterial meningitis, which is a different infection altogether. The flu spread rapidly due to human-to-human transmission of the influenza virus, not because of a vaccine or serum.

21 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

This insane comparison given by RS  gives a very clear insight into the mind of someone continually trying to impose opinions disguised as facts . 

Also a master of the classic bait that I exposed before :  the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

R Phoenix and others have posted numerous articles and studies by very knowledgable and credible sources..... only to be dismissed by the "opposing never to be convinced genuises here as  crazy <deleted> "  .  Meaning, not from the sources they are chained to.  

 

Then, when someone like me expresses my opinion.... based on my life experiences, they get sooooo upset and resort to the old bash Rumak  crap .  Like children .

My only objection was to the stupid ad hominem attacks and name calling .  Which of course RS and that chiangrai professor tried to turn around by saying I was the bad one attacking others.    hahah  Yep... the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

ok boys........... more fodder for the troops  😅

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.

4 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Of all the stupid excuses this has to be the winner! Trump broke with protocol for security reasons.

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.

24 minutes ago, Agusts said:

I think this birthday thing is a bit confusing. Let me see if I can get it with an example:

 

If my 5 years licence expire 1 June 25 which is always also my birthday. Then I go renew before this date, I get licence valid from that date to 1 June 30.

 

Now if I don't go, say let licence expire, and go renew in say 1 July 25, you think I get a licence from 1 June 25 to 1 June 31 ...!? 

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).

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I wonder how many of those children gave their informed consent to be vaccinated?

I wasn't asked once ...... and when I started refusing (age 13) they clearly hadn't even considered asking for their patients consent!

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.

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Anyways, the pro-vaxxers have lost, after the coerced COVID vaccinations I'm betting at least 25% of western populations will be refusing many vaccinations, unless force or deception is used.

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.