richard_smith237

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.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Violence is wrong, nobody should be participating in government mandated murder.

Spanish flu ended WW1. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing?

But if the western world wasn't starving and at war would the Spanish flu have been such a problem?

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.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It's easy to rationalise when using abstract notions and representations such as "extremly rare" vs. "overwhelmingly", etc. Empirical observations, however, show a different picture.

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.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

This notion that "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" is problematic to say the least, when you actually have a look at the broken eggs. Watch a couple of testimonies of vaccine-injured people (roughly half an hour each), realise what is actually happening and imagine for a minute if this had happened to you or someone close to you. This is something the vaccine proponents have difficulty doing, in fact I have never managed to convince one to actually go there: it is much preferable and easier for them to remain in the realm of abstract notions and statistics.

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.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I encourage you to go on John Campbell's YouTube channel and watch the videos of Mel, Adam and Kyle (three cases among many more), and confront one of the undeniable facets of what you condone. These were young, healthy people before taking the Covid jab. Intellectual honesty demands that every aspect of an issue, even those we don't like or want to see, be taken into account before taking a stance.

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.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Also notable is the fact that these seriously injured people often have a very hard time having their injuries officially recognised, and therefore they are not included in those statistics which you hold so dearly…

Public health decisions rely on broad evidence, not isolated anecdotes, because protecting millions requires perspective, not cherry-picking - aggregate statistics are key.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

While I definitely agree with the last sentence, I do have reservations about the "scientific integrity" alleged in the first one: look at that article I posted in this thread about the kickbacks paid to physicians per vaccine given. Do you acknowledge the reality of this, and do you consider it ethical?

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.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Fair enough, but I really do think there is an empirical aspect to this. From what I have seen in the "antivaxxer" realm, there are lots of reasonable parents who are not really active on social media (and therefore not that susceptible to it), but who simply realised the temporal causation between their children's vaccination and the appearance of symptoms of autism, hyperactivity, epilepsy etc.

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.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

They would have to and eventually would, whether they liked it or not. Hence the utmost importance of such studies being carried out.

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. 

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

A good first step would be a methodologically rock solid assessment of this issue, which has not happened so far, there have been too many omissions and manipulations by the pharmaceutical industry, which has led us to where we are today.

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.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

There are reasons for this exponential growth of mistrust in "science" and I don't think denying it is a productive approach.

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.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IME woman are most likely to orgasm in the dominant position.

 

Considerate men take this into account when having sex.

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

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

True in theory, but in practice, it is notoriously difficult to log an event on this system and therefore the proportion of fake reports is unlikely to be significant. And again, any statistical anomaly is merely a warning signal warranting further investigation, the anomaly itself can't be used to prove anything.

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.