richard_smith237

18 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yes, I shun ALL vaccines as well as anti-biotics.  Can't remember when I had the last one of either, but must be at least 30 years.

I missed that - shunning ALL vaccines as well as antibiotic.... 

The probability that without 'anti-biotics' and vaccines that you would still be alive today is extremely slim.

The World Today Without Antibiotics or Vaccines would be far less populated.. .

Current world population (2025): ~8.1 billion people.

If w removed two of the greatest life-saving tools in human history…

Without Vaccines:

Vaccines have eradicated or drastically reduced diseases like:

Smallpox (once killed 30% of infected, now eradicated)

Measles (caused millions of deaths annually pre-vaccine)

Polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis, etc.

Before vaccines, childhood mortality was staggering. In some areas, 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 children died before age 5.

Impact:

Millions more deaths annually, especially among infants and children.

Major pandemics would have had far deadlier tolls (e.g., COVID-19 without vaccines likely = tens of millions of deaths globally).

Without Antibiotics:

No penicillin, no sulfa drugs, no modern infection control. The implications are brutal:

Simple infections = deadly (a scratch could kill you).

Pneumonia, tuberculosis, strep throat, gonorrhoea, syphilis, and wound infections would be major killers.

Surgical procedures and childbirth would be far riskier - infection was the #1 killer in both contexts before antibiotics.

Antibiotics added an estimated 20+ years to average life expectancy in developed countries.

Estimates:

Historians and epidemiologists suggest that without vaccines or antibiotics, global population growth would have been far slower due to:

- High childhood mortality

- Lower life expectancy

- Epidemics and pandemics regularly culling large portions of the population

The world population in 2025 without vaccines or antibiotics might range from 3 to 4 billion, possibly even less.

In short, vaccines and antibiotics didn’t just save lives - they enabled modern civilisation as we know it. Without them, we'd be stuck in a perpetual cycle of plagues, early death, and medical helplessness.

Without them - the probability that you'd even be alive at 67 years old is tiny.

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

17 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

A direct bloodstream injection would bypass this process, potentially cause harmful reactions, and be far less effective at building long-term immunity.

 

18 hours ago, johng said:

It should not be directly injected into a vein  and there was  a bit of conversation about jabbing then pulling the plunger back to see if any blood is drawn before shooting the concoction in and whether this longstanding practice was adhered to during the rush to jab the whole planet  and perhaps that accounts for some of the vaccine injuries ?

 

> Yes, and for those that interested in this matter, you can look up Marc Girardot's BOLUS theory.  In short that theory advocates that shooting the mRNA straight into a vein is the very likely cause of people dropping dead within minutes after having gotten the mRNA-shot.  And such misfortune is in most cases due to unskilled/poorly trained shot-providers.

mRNA vaccines are intramuscular injections, always have been. No vaccines are direct injections into a vein.

If there has been 'medical malpractice' and any vaccines (mRNA or otherwise) have been 'shot' directly into the vein, then thats human error, not a vaccine flaw. Doing so and would be just as bad as a diabetic injecting insulin directly into their vein.

Marc Girardot's BOLUS theory attempts to mitigate the risk of 'accidentally' injecting a vaccine directly into the bloodstream / intravenously. Girardot advocates for alternative vaccine delivery methods, such as intranasal administration for respiratory vaccines or subcutaneous injections.

I actually agree with this - I'm all for safer delivery methods of any vaccine and accept that there is an extremely small risk of an 'idiot' injecting a vaccine directly into a vein either by mistaken when attempting an intramuscular injection, or worse, deliberately due to poor knowledge / training.

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

> You do realize that instead of getting 'herd immunity' the natural way, by people getting infected and then their immune system overcoming the infection, that that very concept was denied by the vax-promotors in order to push their product on the total population.   

Just as you probably well know that natural acquired immunity is vastly superior over vax-induced immunity. 

I do acknowledge that naturally acquired herd immunity is, in many ways, more robust and enduring than immunity induced by vaccination. However, achieving such widespread natural immunity would come at a staggering cost - the loss of millions of lives.

Centuries from now, the numbers may be reduced to lines in a textbook, a distant memory to future generations. But for us, in this moment, every life matters. The cost is not theoretical - it's tangible, it's human.

And let there be no illusion: if all vaccines were to cease today, it would not take long - merely a few years - before the fatality rates of viral diseases surged dramatically.

Vaccination is not just a convenience of modern medicine; it's a shield against a return to an era of mass suffering and untimely death.

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Let's try to clear up the confusion here.

Nobody denies that 'something' can be detected using electronic diagnostics. 

And that something is then called a 'virus'. 

What @Stiddle Mump is challenging, is that that something that was detected is a potential disease-spreading living organism.  And I agree with him.

The diagnostic tools cannot distinguish between dead cell-debris and that so-called disease-provoking 'something'.  And SM is fully correct that a 'live pathogenic virus' has never been isolated. 

The whole science of virology is based on the (faulty) assumption that invisible germs are a provoker of disease, and as so-called evidence, they provide photos of the 'something' or computer-simulations.   

 

Idiocy - Are you suggesting normal viruses that are not harmful to us have been isolated and their existence proven... but harmful (pathogenic viruses) have not and can't be because they don't exist ?

Do you realise the ridiculousness of this?

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

A half truth is worse than a full-blown lie. 

Which is why I am responding here to your persistent lies and misinformation.

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The mRNA shots are NOT vaccines, but experimental gen-therapy. 

And you are undoubtedly aware they had to change the definition of what is a vaccine, to pave the way for the roll-out of these mRNA shots.  

The mRNA shots developed for COVID-19, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, are vaccines, not gene therapy. They were classified and regulated as vaccines from the start, because they meet the longstanding scientific and medical definition of a vaccine: a substance that stimulates the body's immune system to recognise and fight off a pathogen, in this case, the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

What mRNA vaccines actually do:
They use a snippet of messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a harmless piece of the virus (the spike protein). This stimulates an immune response, training the body to recognise and respond more effectively to future infection. The mRNA does not alter a person's DNA - it never enters the cell nucleus, and it degrades naturally within hours to days.

Not gene therapy:
Gene therapy involves making permanent or semi-permanent changes to a person’s genetic code to treat or cure a disease, often by inserting genetic material into DNA. mRNA vaccines don’t do that. They temporarily deliver instructions to produce an immune response — they don’t modify genes or integrate into the genome.

Definition of a vaccine:
While the CDC and other health agencies refined the wording of their vaccine definition during the pandemic (to better encompass mRNA technology and avoid confusion), the core concept - inducing immunity without causing disease - hasn't changed.

Medical dictionaries and immunology textbooks had already recognised this kind of immune stimulation as vaccination.

So no, it wasn’t a sneaky redefining to “pave the way” - it was an update to reflect innovation. The technology evolved, and so did the language, but the purpose and function stayed the same.

The language was changed because: 

The old definition was too narrow:
Prior to the COVID pandemic, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine (on their website, not in law or scientific texts) emphasised that a vaccine provided immunity by introducing a weakened or killed virus. That worked well for traditional vaccines like polio or measles, which used whole virus particles.

But mRNA vaccines don’t contain the virus at all - just instructions to make one viral protein. And their primary aim is to prevent severe disease, not always to block infection entirely.

Evolving science:
Science moves forward. The understanding of immunity has expanded - we now recognise that vaccines can provide strong protection without necessarily stopping every infection. Think of the flu shot: you can still catch the flu, but you're far less likely to end up hospitalised. That’s still successful vaccination.

Weaponised misunderstanding:
During the pandemic, some critics cherry-picked the old, narrower CDC wording to falsely claim that mRNA vaccines “aren’t real vaccines.” This led to confusion. So, the CDC updated the definition (as of September 2021).

This latter point is precisely why updating the definition - IF they had not, people like yourself would have 'weaponised' misunderstanding and highlighted that the mRNA vaccines do not contain the virus... Instead you have 'weaponised' a perfectly reasonable modernisation of the definition of a vaccine to fit your broken narrative.

58 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

IF 'anyone' can catch Pneumonia, why didn't her siblings catch it ?... the answer is clearly both children (who died) caught Secondary Pneumonia as a direct consequence of contracting measles and the body weakening.

 

"Anyone", not "everyone". Her four siblings (not three, I made a mistake in my previous post) did not catch pneumonia – though she did – because of a multitude of factors which neither of us know. Portraying her pneumonia infection solely as a consequence of her unvaccinated status is the result, as pointed out previously, of a bias in favour of vaccination.

No, it's based purely on the fact that she had measles, which - when severe - can lead to secondary pneumonia. Her siblings were simply fortunate that their illness didn’t escalate to the same extent.

That’s not bias; it’s straightforward logical causation.

I do acknowledge that the development of secondary pneumonia could have been influenced by other, unknown factors. However, to suggest that without considering the glaringly obvious role measles played is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room.

58 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

*You can always spot a conspiratorial tone when someone starts talking about “them” or “they.”

Makes me wonder - who exactly are they supposed to be?

 

You are reading and interpreting according to your predisposition to see my posts as conspiratorial. In this case, if you look at the paragraph I wrote, it is grammatically clear that "they" refers to the media:

 

"Which brings us to a fundamental issue: why did the media claim this child died of measles? Because they are pushing a specific viewpoint. If they were pushing for the opposite viewpoint, they would give lots of visibility and credibility to studies such as the one below, which gives credence to the notion that measles spreads among vaccinated people."

Why do I find myself inclined to view your posts as conspiratorial? Perhaps it’s because, quite frankly, they often are - apologies if that sounds blunt. You're now accusing media sources that do not report in an anti-vaccination manner of having an agenda, which only reinforces that conspiratorial tone.

And of course, measles can still spread among vaccinated individuals - it remains a virus, after all. When someone is exposed to a high viral load, transmission is possible. However, vaccination serves to mitigate this risk, limiting both the severity and the spread.

This principle applies to many vaccines. Some argue that if a vaccine doesn’t offer 100% protection, then it’s ineffective. But that entirely misses the point of community or herd immunity, which relies on widespread uptake to shield the vulnerable and reduce overall transmission.

58 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Reasons Why Immunity May Fail Post-Vaccine (as per the NYC 2011 case study).

 

Waning immunity:
Even though the MMR vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella) is highly effective, antibody levels can decline over time, especially if only one dose was received. Some individuals may lose protection years after vaccination.

Imperfect protection:
The MMR vaccine is about 93% effective after one dose and 97% after two doses. That still leaves a small percentage of people vulnerable, even with full vaccination.

High-exposure settings:
In close-contact environments like households or healthcare settings, even partially immune individuals can get infected if exposed to a large viral load.

 

This study doesn’t mean the vaccine doesn't work - it actually shows how effective it is, because:

- The outbreak was limited in size.

- The majority of vaccinated people did not get sick, even if exposed.

- It emphasises the importance of two doses and potentially checking antibody levels in high-risk groups

Expand  

 

This is the point I was making: conversely to the above, if there was an endeavour to demonstrate the opposite stance, it would be done just as compellingly, with no shortage of material to support it.

 

The video below presents a dissenting viewpoint. On a personal note, my own nephew (UK-based) was hospitalised in a critical condition after taking the MMR vaccine (causation acknowledged and vaccine exemption issued by the NHS, though my sister still gets regularly harassed with "encouragements" to jab him), so when Polly Tommey says you can die from it, I know she isn't kidding.

Sorry for your nephew, I now understand the reason for your stance - you mentioned causation acknowledged and vaccine exemption issues - is that because of  anaphylaxis (an allergy) to some of the vaccine ingredients which then likely means he's allergic to many vaccines....  Or was VITT, febrile seizure or something else ?

58 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

RFK recently said “We don’t know the risks of many of these products, they’re not adequately safety-tested": is it really rational and reasonable to simply retort that he is nuts and that his current position is the result of some eccentric mishap?

Yes, when they openly lie it becomes obvious they're peddling misinformation - Brain Hooker meantions VAERS data, then lies in the same sentence - There are not more deaths from MMR vaccine than Measles.

A 2003 study of VAERS data over 10 years found:

- 55 reports of death after MMR (alone or in combination).

- None had confirmed causation directly linked to the vaccine.

- Detailed investigations often revealed unrelated medical conditions (e.g., congenital defects, infections, SIDS).

58 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Could it not be that there is perhaps some truth in all this? If I was a pro-vaxxer, I would take a step back and give this some serious thought.

I'm neither a pro-vaxxer or an anti-vaxxer - I'm pro-statistics, they tell the truth (the issue there of course is how the stats are collected and reported - nevertheless, in such large numbers the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of vaccination).

Extensive studies and surveillance have found no deaths attributable to the MMR vaccine in healthy individuals. Rare fatalities have occurred among immunocompromised individuals, for whom the vaccine is contraindicated. Historical data from 1979 to 1990 reported 16 deaths following MMR vaccination; however, these instances are exceedingly rare and often involved individuals with underlying health conditions.

In 2023, there were an estimated 107,500 measles-related deaths worldwide, predominantly among children under five years old.

Just now, jts-khorat said:

I think he got off lightly, learned a lesson and has a nice story to tell. All that for not sleeping well for a night is a steal.

I think so...   We have other forum members on here who've admitted to regularly driving while stoned... others who brag about DUI after 14 beers...

They're the proper cockroaches...  This guy wasn't driving while drunk, he was merely over the lower limit for the Temp License.

Just now, jts-khorat said:

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There was no reason to Jail him - he is married and lives here, he was not a 'flight risk' and the BiB knew it.

 

Its clear (to me at least) from the Ops story that they wanted the 20,000 baht not as bail, but as 'fee' not to be jailed for the night.

 

I would say: there was no reason for him to drink and then drive -- especially if he had his wife with him. If she also drank, a Bolt taxi is so cheap to basically cost nothing to a westerner.

 

Don't do the crime, if you cannot do the time.

While I agree with your sentiment - the Ops BAC measurement was apparently equivalent to 0.027% BAC  - which places him a grey area of being over the limit for someone without a license (or a temp license), but well under the limit of someone on a full licence. 

As a comparison - the DUI limit in the UK is 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (0.08% BAC equivalent) - the Op was still under the UK DUI limit.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Her three siblings, whom it is reasonable to assume are also unvaccinated, also caught measles and recovered with no problem. This child caught pneumonia (which anybody can catch, regardless of any vaccination status) and died because of medical malpractice. She did not die of measles, unlike what the media have reported.

Measles doesn't have a 100% case fatality rate in the unvaccinated.

The CFR is actually about 0.1 to 0.3% in healthy populations.

IF 'anyone' can catch Pneumonia, why didn't her siblings catch it ?... the answer is clearly both children (who died) caught Secondary Pneumonia as a direct consequence of contracting measles and the body weakening.

I agree that they died 'also' because of medical malpractice, but they needed treatment as a direct result of contracting the measles which vaccination could have protected her from.

All of that said: I wonder if the treatment the children received actually did more harm than good - in which case, if this can be proven (or shown), then it might be that the children died as a direct result of malpractice when they might have recovered with a well-managed natural recovery, supported by proper monitoring and symptom relief.

Thus: it certainly seems they 'could' have been saved with the correct medical intervention, but that medical intervention was necessary in the first place because of the lack of vaccination.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Which brings us to a fundamental issue: why did the media claim this child had died of measles?

Because arguably, she did..  Its the same as when someone dies of HIV... they don't actually die of HIV they die of complications as a result of having HIV.

These poor children died due to complications from having the Measles - but as pointed out above, its possible the treatment they received caused more harm than natural recovery.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Because they are pushing a specific viewpoint.

I don't think so at all - the child would very likely (97%) not have died had she been vaccinated.

Its not as if she died in a car-accident after contracting measles and *they* reported measles was the cause of death.

*You can always spot a conspiratorial tone when someone starts talking about “them” or “they.”

Makes me wonder - who exactly are they supposed to be?

Just now, rattlesnake said:

If they were pushing for the opposite viewpoint, they would give lots of visibility, credibility and, ultimately, funding, to studies such as the one below, which gives credence to the notion that measles spreads among vaccinated people.

In the "Background" section, the first sentence is de facto an opinion, the second sentence is factual.

 

Outbreak of measles among persons with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011

Background: Measles was eliminated in the United States through high vaccination coverage and a public health system able to rapidly respond to measles. Measles may occur among vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24585562/

Reasons Why Immunity May Fail Post-Vaccine (as per the NYC 2011 case study).

Waning immunity:
Even though the MMR vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella) is highly effective, antibody levels can decline over time, especially if only one dose was received. Some individuals may lose protection years after vaccination.

Imperfect protection:
The MMR vaccine is about 93% effective after one dose and 97% after two doses. That still leaves a small percentage of people vulnerable, even with full vaccination.

High-exposure settings:
In close-contact environments like households or healthcare settings, even partially immune individuals can get infected if exposed to a large viral load.

This study doesn’t mean the vaccine doesn't work - it actually shows how effective it is, because:

- The outbreak was limited in size.

- The majority of vaccinated people did not get sick, even if exposed.

- It emphasises the importance of two doses and potentially checking antibody levels in high-risk groups.

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Here is an interesting take:

Expert Medical Record Reviews Of The Two Girls In Texas Who Purportedly Died of Measles

I have long reviewed medical records of patients harmed by poor medical care. Here, I present clear evidence of what actually caused the 2 girls deaths in Texas. It wasn't measles. Not by a long shot.

 

https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/my-expert-review-of-the-medical-records?triedRedirect=true&sfnsn=mo

So according to Dr. Pierre Kory on is 'musings' website - Both girls contracted Measles and developed secondary pneumonia.

He concludes that the children died not from measles itself but from preventable complications due to mismanagement - because they were treated with Vancomycin which is ineffective against atypical bacteria like Mycoplasma due to its mechanism of action targeting cell walls, which Mycoplasma lacks.

Therefore, using vancomycin instead of an agent covering atypicals such as ceftriaxone combined with azithromycin or a quinolone likely led to inadequate treatment and contributed to the deaths.

[Note:  After measles, the immune system is weakened, making the body more vulnerable to infections like Mycoplasma pneumonia. The bacteria can then take hold in the lungs, leading to secondary atypical pneumonia.]

Thus: Measles made the two children sick enough to contract secondary pneumonia - their medical management failed them beyond that.

Had the children been vaccinated against measles (with the MMR vaccine), it is highly unlikely they would have developed measles in the first place - and therefore extremely unlikely to have gone on to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia as a complication.

Failure to vaccinate is arguably the cause root of death, secondary cause is poor medical practice.

Or, if someone doesn't like that comment - If the children had been vaccinated, would they still be alive today ?

46 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Spanish flu , Black death ,Leprosy, there's 3 diseases that were spread

person to person ,  although you will differ ! 

 

regards Worgeordie 

I don't think he's denying the diseases - they are 'undeniable' (but then so is the 'fact' that viruses exist).

I think Stiddle's point is that viruses (or Pathogenic viruses - he keeps adjusting) don't exist, and thus can't be the cause of transmission. 

In which case - what is the source of 'transmission' ?  Its not bacteria.

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

There is no spike in measles, though there have always been sporadic outbreaks. There was one measles death between 2006 and 2015, and two between 2016 and 2025. This is a very weak case to make from a pro-vax viewpoint.

 

 

Data from large meta-analyses show that measles vaccination is highly effective and safe, reducing the chances of getting measles by 95% - both the chart you presented above (logarithmic) and I presented below (linear) are both great examples of the effectiveness of the Measles vaccine.... 

There has been an outbreak of measles in the use 2025, with ~800 cases reported - 50 people hospitalised.

3 people (1 adult, 2 children) have died, they were unvaccinated individuals.

CDC reported outbreak:

NYT reported outbreak:

The first measles vaccine became available in 1963 in the United States, developed by Dr. John Enders (yes, the same Nobel Prize-winning virologist who helped grow the poliovirus in culture) and Dr. Thomas Peebles.

1960s–1970s: Introduction and Widespread Adoption of the Measles Vaccine

1963: The first measles vaccine was introduced in the United States.

1968: An improved version of the vaccine was developed, leading to increased effectiveness.

1970s: Mass vaccination campaigns were launched globally, resulting in a significant decline in measles cases.

1980s: Resurgence of Measles Cases

Mid-1980s: A resurgence in measles cases occurred, Vaccine coverage had plateaued, and many children were receiving only one dose, which wasn’t always enough to create lifelong immunity.

Additionally, outbreaks clustered in urban areas and among low-income, under-vaccinated populations.

1993-2000: Measles cases remained very low due to high vaccination rates.

2000: U.S. declared measles-free (no ongoing transmission for 12 months).

2010-2019: A resurgence of cases, due to vaccine hesitancy, local outbreaks, and declining vaccination rates in certain areas, especially in anti-vaccine communities.

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Most of your post is unscientific nonsense.

 

The PCR is a magnification tool. For it to detect a virus sequence; first catch your virus. Not yet been done Richard bud.

And there is your argument  'a circle does not exist'...   

You've said before viruses do not exist...

You've said before viruses cannot be isolated (they do exist then ?)

In this thread you've evolved that comment to Pathogenic Viruses do not exist... 

So non-Pathogenic viruses do exist ?

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Pathogenic viruses do not exist. They have never been isolated and therefore cannot be shown to cause illness.

OK - so HIV, HPV, HSV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, HTLV, and Molluscum Contagiosum viruses don't exist... 

... because you claim Pathogenic Viruses do not exist.

Would you go to Eswatini and without protection (condom) sleep with a load of sex workers then.... ??  

In Eswatini the HIV infection estimated amongst sex workers between 50% to 70%.

The rate within the general population is approximately 27.5% of adults aged 15–49.

Of course, its a silly proposition - however, run with it - would you be wholly confident in your belief that these viruses don't exist and you couldn't catch them ???

Or, as I suspect you will answer: These are not viruses, they are 'other illnesses' not caused by a virus, but by something else...    Is that something else still transmitted ?  what is it then ?

22 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

My 3 children are not vaccinated (not even for the mandatory ones).  They are now 3 very healthy adults, 34, 32 and 26 years of age. 

 

And that is the very inconvenient truth: unvaccinated people are in stellar health.

Those who didn't die in childhood already...   

Lucky for them, everyone around them has likely been vaccinated and herd immunity has protected them.

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Cell Culture: Enders never isolated any virus. He did a control, and got the same result. (Read the paper Richard).

You mean this paper titled: "Cultivation of the Lansing Strain of Poliomyelitis Virus in Cultures of Various Human Embryonic Tissues" published in 1949 in the journal Science ??

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.118.3056.107

Quote: "The poliomyelitis virus (Lansing strain) has been propagated in cultures of human embryonic tissues (skin, muscle, and intestine) and of rhesus monkey kidney tissue. The highest yields of virus were obtained from cultures of human embryonic tissues. The virus was detectable after 2-3 days of inoculation and was demonstrated in the cultures by its ability to cause cytopathogenic effects..."

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Virus Detection: A virus cannot be detected in a computer or by a PCR test.

Except for the tiny detail that PCR tests are literally the gold standard in virus detection.

PCR specialises in detecting viral genetic material, amplifying small amounts of viral RNA or DNA until they’re detectable, even if there’s just a minuscule amount in a sample.

So, while you might say, “A virus can’t be detected by PCR,” what you’re overlooking is that PCR tests are designed to identify viruses.

Over the years, PCR has revolutionised virology and diagnostics. From SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) to HIV, PCR tests have been the primary method used in detecting these viruses, helping save lives and control outbreaks. It’s actually the best tool for the job, with accuracy that other methods can’t match. So, claiming that a PCR test can't detect a virus is like saying a thermometer can’t measure temperature - it’s exactly what it’s made to do.

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Genetic Analysis: It is the same challenge now, as it was back in 1950s. Can't find the elusive, pathogenic virus. No evidence of a virus. No virus = no need for vaccines.

Total tosh..  Thanks to advances in technology, like next-generation sequencing and PCR, we can pinpoint viral genomes faster than ever. We don’t just guess anymore—we know what a virus looks like on the genetic level.

Genomes of viruses have been sequenced for decades, from HIV to SARS-CoV-2, providing crystal-clear evidence of their existence and how they function. The idea that a pathogenic virus doesn’t exist just because it’s “elusive” doesn’t hold water in the face of modern science.

I've given you way too much oxygen... (please don't tell my oxygen doesn't exist either !!!)..

56 minutes ago, FlorC said:

Let's make a clear distinction between vaccines and the mRNA shots.

The mRNA 'shots' are vaccines...

But..  do you wish to make a clear distinction between all Vaccines, including the Covid Vaccines and mRNA vaccines ?

Noting below the following Covid-19 vaccines and type:

Inactivated Virus Vaccines: Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) / Sinovac (CoronaVac) / Covaxin (BBV152) 

Protein Subunit Vaccines: Novavax (Nuvaxovid/Covovax) / Zifivax (ZF2001) / Covovax

Viral Vector Vaccines: AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria/Covishield) / Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) / Sputnik V  /CanSino (Convidecia) 

mRNA Vaccines: Pfizer-BioNTech / Moderna (Spikevax/mRNA-1273) /CureVac (CVnCoV) 

38 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

42 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In other threads I've provided you with links to scientific journals and papers that show Pathogenic Viruses have not only been isolated, but photographed. 

This is simply not true. The studies do not show any isolation what-so-ever. They use the same procedure that Dr Enders did in 1954.

The very same John Franklin Enders who earned a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his groundbreaking advancements in isolating and cultivating viruses, particularly poliovirus - which is what ???  - a Pathogenic Virus !!!  

And while Enders work was similar and laid the foundation for modern virology, today’s techniques allow for faster, more precise, and less resource-intensive virus isolation and analysis.

The differences: 

Cell Culture: While Enders used human and monkey cell cultures, today we have a wider variety of cell lines, some of which are engineered for better virus growth.

Virus Detection: Modern techniques rely on advanced molecular biology (e.g., PCR, sequencing), whereas Enders relied mainly on CPE and biological tests.

Genetic Analysis: In 1954, genetic sequencing didn’t exist, whereas today we can sequence entire viral genomes rapidly.

The following publications are examples of how modern techniques have been utilised to isolate pathogenic viruses.

Isolation of a Novel Coronavirus from a Man with Pneumonia in Saudi Arabia: This study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2012, reports the isolation of a novel coronavirus (later known as MERS-CoV) from a patient with pneumonia.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1211721?

A New Orthonairovirus Associated with Human Febrile Illness: Published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023, this paper describes the isolation and characterization of a new orthonairovirus linked to human febrile illness.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2313722?

A New Segmented Virus Associated with Human Febrile Illness in China: This 2018 study in The New England Journal of Medicine details the isolation of a novel segmented virus associated with human febrile illness in China.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1805068?

Evidence for Camel-to-Human Transmission of MERS Coronavirus: Published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2014, this paper provides evidence of MERS-CoV transmission from camels to humans, including virus isolation and genetic analysis.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1401505?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Every single thing you’ve written, Stiddle Mump, reads like the deranged scribblings of a crank who mistook their own ignorance for insight. It’s not just wrong — it’s pathetically wrong, like watching a child insist the moon is made of cheese.

The examples above make it abundantly clear: trying to reason with you is like playing chess with a pigeon -  you just knock over the pieces, poop on the board, and strut around like you’ve won.

I’ve already given your incoherent babble more attention than it ever deserved. Feeding your nonsense with oxygen is like fuelling a dumpster fire and pretending it's a revolution.

And if you’ve genuinely spent 45 years “lecturing” on virology while peddling the fantasy that viruses can’t be isolated and don’t exist, then I weep for every poor soul subjected to your pseudoscientific bedtime stories. You weren’t educating — you were hosting a live-action misinformation séance.

22 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

38 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I believe this would fall under the purview of the President of the State Audit Commission and the Auditor General of the State Audit Office.

 

In one of the most 'extreme examples if irony that could be encountered, it was their very building that collapsed.

 

In the aftermath, a staggering amount of mismanagement and corruption has come to light.

 

Expand  

Barking up the wrong tree there.

 

The State Audit Office (Thai: สำนักงานการตรวจเงินแผ่นดิน), previously known as the Office of the Auditor General, is an independent, constitutionally mandated state agency of Thailand. It is tasked with examining the accounts and finances of the government to ensure transparency and to prosecute financial fraud.

It is my understanding that the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) / State Audit Office is responsible for auditing government spending and ensuring that funds allocated for public infrastructure, including government buildings, are used appropriately and transparently. It investigates any irregularities or misuse of public funds.

The reason the building collapsed is ultimately due to corruption and misuse of public funds.