rattlesnake

Exactly.

Exactly. Their parents are criminals. I don't see a problem and it's not the US taxpayers' problem.

Indeed. "Peer-reviewed" ultimately just means a bunch a guys publicly took a cohesive stance. And in perhaps the most corrupt and influence-peddling systems ever to exist, well, let's say that stance is of limited relevance to say the least.

Point b) is erroneous, c.f. Suzanne Humphries and the demonstration that pesticides = "polio" symptoms.

Others here disagree with you and think we are a danger to society (a problem to which a final solution should ideally be implemented)…

It is definitely a systemic issue more than anything else.

Terrible situation the powers that be created for you and so many other people. The world cannot rest until justice has been served.

Looking forward to more AI-aided "debunks"

And the premium increases, along with convoluted messages to explain that they are basically going bust: too many claims. But I am sure a certain tall person in the city of angels will have "fact checks" to explain everything (phew!).

Hopefully indeed.

Often more for "specialists". I know a cardiologist in France. Time spent studying: 10 years… with often a lot of debt accumulated in the process, as banks lend to medical people more easily. By the time these doctors enter the professional realm, they are in their 30s, with high mortgages to pay and a decade of "systemic training" in the brain, which leads them to rely on higher authorities as a compass for their information on what is good or bad, with little to no personal initiative involved. This is usually combined with the social prestige and overconfidence of being "those who know". No system produces 'Good Germans' more effectively than the medical system as it exists today.

There is a borderline oxymoronic contradiction in the terms here: you claim adherence to McCullough's work stems from ignorance of the version given by institutionalised bodies. It is, in fact, the opposite: everbody knows the official information about him. Taking a step back nonetheless in order to assess facts independently, without being susceptible to influence peddling, is what "doing your own research" is. It stems from knowledge, not ignorance.

Were they healthy?

The (not so) subtle art of inversion… Here is the reality below (though some will argue with a straight face that this is Covid-related and that it would have been so much worse without the jabs). Why heart attacks are striking young people … It means that one in five heart attack patients are now younger than 40. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14631987/Cardiologist-truth-young-people-heart-attacks.html

You know it is, that's why you said it. I recommend Peter McCullough's Spike protein detox programme (c.f. relavant thread).

Other self-explanatory credentials from outlets hardly anybody listens to anymore: - "Debunked" by factcheck.org - Called "a dangerous misinformation spreader killing Americans" by ABC News "experts" - "Discredited by the scientific community" according to Yahoo News

You should check out Suzanne Humphries' take on that, i.e. the pesticide connection. Also, what is your view on vax-induced polio?

You are making the big mistake of assuming I am religious (dichotomic thinking which flaws the premise and therefore the subsequent reasoning). I am not. I see dogma and intolerance in both religious and atheist types, though the latter are more prone to it in my experience.

As far as I am concerned, I would have no choice but to accept it, whether I liked it or not. The truth is the truth.

And some physicians who have been 'blacklisted' from the medical community – always 'for good reason' of course – should be invited at the table, if only to disprove what they are saying.

If the US government can find millions for 'transgender studies' in remote countries, they can find the money for this. I don't think that is a problem.

The main issue as I see it is the sheer absence of transparency, so regardless of what is decided, it should be stated, justified, debated, and datasets should not be ignored altogether.

Which leads me to the point I wanted to make by quoting these figures: these studies (I would call them investigations) were not made, which begs the question as to why these reporting systems even exist. An inquisitive mind can only wonder what is hindering the process, or whether it is perhaps purposely hindered as the findings would be undesirable for some lobbyists (we have already established in this thread that there are serious ethical concerns in the US and France with regards to influence peddling from the pharmaceutical industry). Regardless, my conclusion remains the same as previously stated: the only way to resolve this will be to lead a full, transparent end-to-end audit of the process and publish impartial conclusions, not influenced by lobbies or interests. Will RFK deliver what a lot of people expect of him? We will see.

True, but I would retort that just as my analogy overstates the case, yours understates it. Nobody in their right mind would ever attempt to draw a causation between the action of washing a car and a meteorological phenomenon occurring the next day. Yet you are implying that raising an eyebrow when looking at data spikes is just as absurd, when it isn't: while it doesn't prove anything at face value, this shift is a safety signal (as defined by the CDC on the VAERS page) which could mean there is a causation between the vaccinations and these adverse effects. So the comparison is flawed in the sense that it draws an equivalence between an impossibility (washing a car causing a storm) on the one hand, and a possibility (vaccinations causing injuries) on the other. We can therefore conclude that analogies should probably be avoided in these controversial threads :-)

If only this were true…