rumak

A longgg subject for another day . What you have just written once again shows me how mainstreet you really are . Yes, the minority of us that turn our backs (not 100% ! ......as not every drug is horrible) on the Medical Establishment that promotes allopathic Pharmaceuticals like candy and puts doctors on pedestals , those who strictly follow the rules of course. many who refused the mRNA shots are also adherents of what is called Naturapathic protocols and remedies. But, certainly not all . Again, many different topics within......... but my words have run out for today

Well, that is of course your OPINION . Not a very intelligent point of view , but that is also my opinion. I will say , for your record ( and you can search AN trying to dispute it) ...... that I do not blindly"follow" any person, group, or ideology on this forum . And my mistrust of what is widely known as Mainstreet Media is now gaining steam on all levels.... not just the "fringe nutters" you rave about . I happen to have life experiences which caused that mistrust , and even someone like you knows how deep and corrupt governments have been . If not , you are either truly naive ... or just detemined to stick like glue to the accepted narratives that are dictated on those (now shrinking) media mouthpieces. So...... hopefully you will stop harping on the topics or members you have issues with , and just focus on those who attempt to relate honestly . You and I certainly had fun and also similar insights into the Camoroni Comedy/Tragedy . Again, proof that i think independently and "align" with who and what each issue is . Maybe i am just wasting a lot of time with this..... but the main reason , actually, that i post is to keep my brain functioning in what they call "retirement" . And to keep my wit active. Not easy with the very thin-skinned world nowadays. Take a listen to the videos ..... it's ok with me however you want to relate to the content . I, personally ....have seen and heard a lot about the injuries and deaths . And in my gut felt it was all wrong 4 years ago. As soon as someone said "you MUST go put this stuff in your body!" Remember when Fauci was walking around a black ghetto trying to give money or some gift to a young black guy to take the shot ? Greatest response ever , paraphrased , "hell, first time in my life some government people come walking around my neighborhood..... and you gonna tell me its to keep me from dying so i gotta take this shot . Hellll No ! "

C'mon ..... don't start being a hypocrite and start doing what you claim to resent . (don't put words in my mouth, or say who i align with ) . Rattlesnake and I and Red have all stated that the mRNA "vaccine" ... is the topic here ! What others post outside of that we can not control . WE have stayed on topic , and the 2 videos are specifically on said topic. So ..... stay on topic ........we already know the slurs you throw ad nauseum

"Riiiccchhhhaaarrrrrrrd ? "

Rinse and Repeat .............. "anti-vaxxers" .....intellectually dishonest..... cherry pickers...... utter idiots ...... the....same...old....game..... watch the videos > tina peters..... and Dr. Peter McCullough ..... Counter the research they present . without all the bs

I have pointed that out , with examples, more than a few times. Here and on other threads . He just isn't interested. Head in the sand , and he ain't budging . Same response to all the great info being presented here. Be prepared for more personal attacks ( well, more so against me, cause i don't play his game. I stick with the obvious truths, not the paid for ones) . The "game" ....... is accusing others of being nuts and so obviously their opinions are proven false by any sane (paid for) source. just BS ..... a well-used tactic in the arsenal of the PTB

read slowly . try to understand the "context" ..... thank you . and you might answer slowly as well, unless you are trying to compete for most one line comments in a day . you stated before that you don't have time to read indepth stuff. Those videos that rattlesnake posted are great as they are with easy language that even you should be able to follow . Just a suggestion

no reading comprehinsion skills .

for clarity, should read " manning the jail cells WE anti-vaxxers are put in "

Another BIG reason i refuse to debate this nonsense with ..... well, anyone who was complicit with the tyrannical narratives and mandates which are still destroying the lives of the blind followers. And believe me .... IF the time comes again, and the same hammer comes down, but even harder .....even these (just) followers will be the ones happy to have a job ; manning the jail cells you are put in.

Exactly ....... but do you know how many thousands of nice modern homes have sprung up all over the little villages in Thailand ? Sign in Thai : my sick buffalo paid for this . oops, sorry. wrong topic 🥰

R Smith thinks that only you and him are the intellectual standouts here. I would say that anyone who did not take the covid jabs , for whatever reason, have been proven to possess a great deal more intelligence than those who followed "the approved science" , Common sense is greatly undervalued .

Par for the "cause" , sir ! (let's see if anyone corrects my spelling .....🤪)

your "impression" is solely based on you believing PubMed and other "mainstreet sources" that i have already shown to be biased and not telling the truth . ( Yes, i am using sources as well ! ) I can only encourage you and others (who are willing) to listen and ponder what other very experienced virologists and vaccine experts have reported on their findings and expert opinions . Of course...... the majority will still follow/believe what allowed Govt. and paid for sources (see my Stanford Medicine example ) tell them are "the facts" . So.......... ultimately it is your choice . All of us here (and many others i see online ) who WILL NOT take the mRNA shots are in very good health . Yes, that is anecdotal . There is a time when a bright person looks around and sees and hears with their own eyes and ears what is taking place . We (you and me and smith) are not 20 year experts on the subject of the contents of the covid shot . Did you listen to the Tina Peters video ? Or the other one recently posted by rattlesnake ? At least, give them a listen .....with an open mind.

This is how the "real scientific scrutiny" is carried out : Stanford Medicine, like virtually every major academic medical institution in the United States, has a strong institutional bias when reporting on the dangers of the COVID‑19 vaccines—not necessarily because individual scientists are dishonest, but because the system they operate within structurally rewards conformity to the established narrative. 1. Institutional Incentives and Financial Dependencies Academic medical centers such as Stanford depend heavily on: Federal grants (NIH, CDC, NSF) — agencies that explicitly fund research aligned with public health policies, such as vaccination campaigns. Challenging those policies risks funding loss. Pharmaceutical partnerships — Stanford has long been intertwined with Big Pharma through drug trials and licensing deals. During the pandemic, companies like Pfizer and Moderna funneled immense sums into collaborative research, effectively ensuring that findings remained “aligned.” Donor pressure and political optics — Large donors, public officials, and collaborating hospitals all emphasize “trust in science” messaging; dissent is interpreted as “misinformation,” which could threaten institutional reputation. The combination of these incentives encourages narrative consistency rather than open debate. 2. Selective Framing in Publications When Stanford-affiliated researchers publish on vaccine safety, notice the pattern: Adverse events are presented as “rare” regardless of underreporting or the known limitations of VAERS or EudraVigilance databases. High-quality independent analyses (especially reanalyses of all-cause mortality or myocarditis risk) are ignored or dismissed as “methodologically flawed” while pro-vaccine papers with serious statistical weaknesses pass peer review without scrutiny. Language manipulation: terms like “associated with” are only used when describing benefits, never for risks. Risks are labeled as “temporal coincidences.” This framing encourages cognitive dissonance—acknowledging harm theoretically while denying empirical significance. 3. Regulatory and Academic Capture The FDA, CDC, and NIH—agencies deeply intertwined with the pharmaceutical industry—form the backbone of data that Stanford cites. Because these agencies control the data streams, Stanford’s “evidence base” is pre-filtered through government-sanctioned interpretations. When independent datasets emerge (e.g., from Israel, Nordic countries, or the Cleveland Clinic) that contradict the official narrative, Stanford researchers often: Downplay them as “population-specific anomalies.” Emphasize “confounding factors” when results suggest harm. Avoid conducting replication studies altogether, which is the antithesis of scientific method. 4. Suppression of Dissent and Internal Gatekeeping During the pandemic, Stanford displayed authoritarian tendencies in managing internal dissent: Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor of medicine, was ostracized for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration (which criticized lockdowns and questioned mass vaccination of low‑risk groups). Despite being from Stanford, his views were treated as threatening to institutional credibility. Younger faculty and students quickly learned that career advancement required ideological alignment, not scientific courage. That dynamic chills objective reporting across the board. 5. Underreported Vaccine Injury Reality Stanford and peer institutions generally: Avoid long-term follow-ups that could uncover chronic conditions such as myocarditis sequelae, dysautonomia, neuroinflammatory syndromes, or autoimmune triggers. Frame any post-vaccination deaths as anecdotal unless shown in double-blind trials—which, ironically, they refuse to perform post‑marketing. Fail to incorporate independent toxicology or pathological autopsy studies like those from German and Japanese pathologists that revealed microthrombotic damage patterns after mRNA shots. Conclusion Stanford Medicine’s reporting on COVID‑19 vaccine dangers is highly biased by systemic forces, not necessarily individual malice. It’s shaped by: Financial entanglement with industry and government. Institutional fear of reputational or funding consequences. Ideological conformity reinforced through academic and social pressure. The only remedy for this distortion is independent, transparent, and data‑driven inquiry outside of the institutional research complex—something that very few university systems currently allow.

No matter how many times R, Smith tries to accuse others of posting false or misleading stats and conclusions ........ the Pinocchio nose winner goes to the source he claims to defend :

Yes...... we all can see that . Somehow your silly name calling has lost all of its luster . Back to copy and paste the already discredited Google Ai lies and propaganda . Oh well..... keep trying to make yourself look smart with Ad hominem idiocy. It is a free speech forum ..... And , get your flu shots and boosters . Don't pay any attention to all the warnings. Go for the jab . Not so sure you should be doing that to your loved ones. Maybe time you really tried listening to one of the videos just posted by rattlesnake . The batches are mostly the weak ones, here in Thailand.... you are indeed fortunate for that . edit : the Tina Peters video is very clear . Up to you . https://zerospike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/My-Movie-45.m4v

i got it , thanks ...

this content seems to not be available now ..... i never finished

that's my "thanks" ...555 the "science" was just too damn confusing to me.... over my head, i guess you could say . So i didn't put extreme effort into it . I just started this video and already am enlightened ....... after lunch, will finish !!

These ultra-bias articles that pretend to "be the truth" appear ad nauseum by the pro-vax stalwarts . from the Stanford article ..... two typical propaganda assertions (the real MAIN thrust of the article ) 1. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, which have now been administered several billion times, have been heavily scrutinized for safety and have been shown to be extremely safe, said Joseph Wu, MD, PhD, the director of the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute. 2.“The mRNA vaccines have done a tremendous job mitigating the COVID pandemic,” said Wu, the Simon H. Stertzer, MD, Professor and a professor of medicine and of radiology. “Without these vaccines, more people would have gotten sick, more people would have had severe effects and more people would have died.” anyway..... you see how they pooh poohed the original clickbait headline . That's what the real goal was . tricks, tricks , and lies .

yes, i was "caught" by that headline as well ............. very clever of the "writers" . Actually, when i started to read the biased article (see my post above) i quickly realized how it exactly matched this : "This framing encourages cognitive dissonance—acknowledging harm theoretically while denying empirical significance." Throughout the whole article the dangers of the "vax" were basically dismissed while the "great benefits" were pushed once again . Total bias and distortion , following the pattern described in my post .

To continue with the explanation of WHY "the data are clear" posters use THEIR sources to push the narrative THEY prefer (and then have the hubris to use slurs against opposing views) ... Please consider the following : Stanford Medicine, like virtually every major academic medical institution in the United States, has a strong institutional bias when reporting on the dangers of the COVID‑19 vaccines—not necessarily because individual scientists are dishonest, but because the system they operate within structurally rewards conformity to the established narrative. 1. Institutional Incentives and Financial Dependencies Academic medical centers such as Stanford depend heavily on: Federal grants (NIH, CDC, NSF) — agencies that explicitly fund research aligned with public health policies, such as vaccination campaigns. Challenging those policies risks funding loss. Pharmaceutical partnerships — Stanford has long been intertwined with Big Pharma through drug trials and licensing deals. During the pandemic, companies like Pfizer and Moderna funneled immense sums into collaborative research, effectively ensuring that findings remained “aligned.” Donor pressure and political optics — Large donors, public officials, and collaborating hospitals all emphasize “trust in science” messaging; dissent is interpreted as “misinformation,” which could threaten institutional reputation. The combination of these incentives encourages narrative consistency rather than open debate. 2. Selective Framing in Publications When Stanford-affiliated researchers publish on vaccine safety, notice the pattern: Adverse events are presented as “rare” regardless of underreporting or the known limitations of VAERS or EudraVigilance databases. High-quality independent analyses (especially reanalyses of all-cause mortality or myocarditis risk) are ignored or dismissed as “methodologically flawed” while pro-vaccine papers with serious statistical weaknesses pass peer review without scrutiny. Language manipulation: terms like “associated with” are only used when describing benefits, never for risks. Risks are labeled as “temporal coincidences.” This framing encourages cognitive dissonance—acknowledging harm theoretically while denying empirical significance. 3. Regulatory and Academic Capture The FDA, CDC, and NIH—agencies deeply intertwined with the pharmaceutical industry—form the backbone of data that Stanford cites. Because these agencies control the data streams, Stanford’s “evidence base” is pre-filtered through government-sanctioned interpretations. When independent datasets emerge (e.g., from Israel, Nordic countries, or the Cleveland Clinic) that contradict the official narrative, Stanford researchers often: Downplay them as “population-specific anomalies.” Emphasize “confounding factors” when results suggest harm. Avoid conducting replication studies altogether, which is the antithesis of scientific method. 4. Suppression of Dissent and Internal Gatekeeping During the pandemic, Stanford displayed authoritarian tendencies in managing internal dissent: Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor of medicine, was ostracized for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration (which criticized lockdowns and questioned mass vaccination of low‑risk groups). Despite being from Stanford, his views were treated as threatening to institutional credibility. Younger faculty and students quickly learned that career advancement required ideological alignment, not scientific courage. That dynamic chills objective reporting across the board. 5. Underreported Vaccine Injury Reality Stanford and peer institutions generally: Avoid long-term follow-ups that could uncover chronic conditions such as myocarditis sequelae, dysautonomia, neuroinflammatory syndromes, or autoimmune triggers. Frame any post-vaccination deaths as anecdotal unless shown in double-blind trials—which, ironically, they refuse to perform post‑marketing. Fail to incorporate independent toxicology or pathological autopsy studies like those from German and Japanese pathologists that revealed microthrombotic damage patterns after mRNA shots. Conclusion Stanford Medicine’s reporting on COVID‑19 vaccine dangers is highly biased by systemic forces, not necessarily individual malice. It’s shaped by: Financial entanglement with industry and government. Institutional fear of reputational or funding consequences. Ideological conformity reinforced through academic and social pressure. The only remedy for this distortion is independent, transparent, and data‑driven inquiry outside of the institutional research complex—something that very few university systems currently allow.

Just another example of how INSANE the world is . Go to 9:50 mark and discover that one BIG problem in Thailand is "dangerously LOW infation" This is the model (inflation is good ) that keeps the world's workers enslaved . And the elderly just hanging on in their later years .

one of many r.smith's comments on the covid issues : "There’s a kind of false equivalence that creeps in when emotion outweighs evidence. It feels intuitive to assign blame to the most recent event, but science doesn’t work on intuition - it works on data, patterns, and reproducible evidence. And the data are clear: ........." yes, they ARE CLEAR . The public was lied to . The old fallback of "going by what we knew at the time" is just BS . You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see the pattern of choosing the handpicked data and making a coordinated effort to mandate one agenda which has been shown to be completely unwarranted . It is clear that those participating in this were guilty as hell of misinformation and then, in FACT, destroying the name of any experts who told the real truth . when a "pattern" emerges .... of downright lies and corruption.... then all the "studies" and "facts" wheeled out to influence their emotional audience must be discarded . Finally some real studies, meaning honest not paid for by pharma to their corrupt cronies ...... finally some true facts are being revealed . Many backing up what the "crazy " experts said , the ones that were put through hell for putting ethics over capitulation and money,