rattlesnake

Rumak addressed that point.

Maybe it's time you gave it à rest?

Indeed, and a lot of this forum's users are going to become strangely silent, all of a sudden.

As expected it is finally starting to come out… and getting increasingly harder to deny.

The only problem on that table is the Coke ???? Replace that by a beer and it's perfect.

Or too many… I noticed that lots of people I know who gave up meat these past few years have put on weight.

I've noticed that too… and they often tend to look pretty unhealthy.

Don't give yourself too much importance.

I covered this in the below topic, as you well know. I asked three questions at the top of page 5 which you conveniently avoided answering by asking other questions (see what I meant earlier by accusatory inversion?):

I think we have both made our points. Thank you for giving me this opportunity and I trust we will be exchanging again in the future.

Yeah it's called empirical observation and it's gaining unprecedented momentum in this world of unilateral pharma-funded "truth", if I were you I would pay attention. I am genuinely curious to see how long your denial will go on for.

You're not ready to see the truth yet but you will be one day.

I find it utterly disgusting that some users actually post a laughing emoticon when you say you've suffered an adverse effect. I hope you're feeling better.

In theory, it's taxpayer-funded regulation bodies. In practice, a large chunk of the money these bodies receive comes from the companies whose products they are vetting, which is very problematic: https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-2/#

Nothing indeed.

We're going round in circles. Did you read the article I posted above, which shows that top medical papers are paid by pharmaceutical giants?

I'll second that, MUX highly recommended.

I was not referring to advertising here. I would say the daily, unilateral and unanimous repetition of phrases such as "safe and effective" regarding a product (as well as the systematic vilifying of those who do not wish to take it) qualifies as aggressive promotion to say the least.

We are indeed discussing MSM reporting. Please address these questions: Is it a problem that the MSM receive millions from Pfizer and then aggressively promote Pfizer's products? Are the MSM credible in their presentation of the safety profiles of Pfizer's products given they receive millions from Pfizer? You mention whistleblowers, there have been several who have spoken out about Covid jabs but they were turned down by the MSM, does that surprise you given the MSM received millions from Pfizer?

Money is the ultimate instrument of power and de facto the ultimate incentive. The pharmaceutical industry pays medical journals to promote their studies and products, it pays government institutions, it pays the media, it pays everybody. https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt This Is The Sickening Amount Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Top Journal Editors https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/pharma/can-cdc-in-the-us-takings-millions-from-pharma-industry-be-unbiased/47357501 Can CDC in the US takings millions from pharma industry be unbiased? https://www.csrxp.org/icymi-new-study-finds-big-pharma-spent-more-on-sales-and-marketing-than-rd-during-pandemic/ NEW STUDY FINDS BIG PHARMA SPENT MORE ON SALES AND MARKETING THAN R&D DURING PANDEMIC Go and see for yourself how many TV shows feature the "brought to you by Pfizer" sponsorship slogan. Here are a few (easily verifiable): Good Μorning America CBS HealthWatch Anderson Cooper 360° ABC News Nightline CNN Tonight

"I don't buy that they are in cahoots to bury credible scientific data. That's just too far out there." That's the gist of the issue, yes. Most people (understandably) just can't fathom that this could actually happen.

You're making a big mistake by letting other people vet information for you, rather than look at it and assess it independently.

And perhaps not. You'll never know as you refuse to look at them.

You have posted an article from September 2021. Excerpt: "The research found that across all ages, vaccine effectiveness was "significantly higher" among Moderna vaccine recipients — at 95% — than among Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients, with vaccine effectiveness of 80% and 60%, respectively." This is December 2022, do you maybe want to rectify your assertion?

It's not about genes, it's about philosophy of life. Western medecine is a sick man's medicine. I am more into a holistic approach as was practiced in ancient civilizations such as India, China, Egypt, Persia, Greece… even Thailand actually.