Allowing the proponents of claims that are either nonsense  and/or intentionally false to  call the claims "theories" is  the start of the problem. They are not theories.  A theory is presented with a factual basis and evidence to support the claim. The burden of proof is on the person promoting the claim to prove its validity. Instead, the proponents of the claims have been allowed to avoid  meeting the obligation to support their claim and worst of all, are not held accountable for the damage caused when it is shown that the claim was intentionally false.  

19 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Calling 150+ years of virology and medicine "compromised quackery" while simultaneously referencing practices that were abandoned over a century ago doesn’t make you look like a truth-seeker—it makes you look like you’re desperately trying to find reasons to reject everything modern science has accomplished.

As for your claim that viruses have "never been isolated"—that’s pure ignorance. Viruses have been isolated, studied, and sequenced in precise detail. The very reason we have vaccines and antiviral drugs is because of the foundational work done in virology.
 

It was you Sir, who said 150+ years. All the medical procedures that were stated, were done during that time.

 

Point me to one study/paper/experiment/trials that has Isolated a virus. I'll save you the trouble. You can't. There are not any.

 

IMO, no vaccine has every been safe. effective or necessary.

 

There is no such entity as an anti-viral drug.

 

The flu is a natural body function.

 

Pseudo-science pretends to be legitimate science, but it lacks key elements like testable hypotheses, peer review, and reproducibility. Common signs include reliance on anecdotes, cherry-picking data, rejection of established science, and using jargon to sound credible – actually in some of the posts here it is just risible due to the posters total ignorance of the appropriate vocabulary. It thrives because it offers simple answers, plays on emotions, and exploits mistrust in authority.
While it may feel empowering, pseudo-science is dangerous—it undermines trust in real science, leads to harmful health choices, and often preys on vulnerable people. Recognizing the red flags is key to stopping its spread.
 

20 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

It was you Sir, who said 150+ years. All the medical procedures that were stated, were done during that time.

 

Point me to one study/paper/experiment/trials that has Isolated a virus. I'll save you the trouble. You can't. There are not any.

 

IMO, no vaccine has every been safe. effective or necessary.

 

There is no such entity as an anti-viral drug.

 

The flu is a natural body function.

 

 

 

It’s important to recognize the evolution of virology and medicine. The first discovery of viruses dates back to the late 19th century, when scientists like Dmitri Ivanovsky and Martinus Beijerinck identified the tobacco mosaic virus, marking the beginning of viral research. Since then, viruses have been isolated, sequenced, and studied in detail, which has led to the development of vaccines and antiviral drugs. Claims that viruses have never been isolated ignore the wealth of evidence from decades of research.

Vaccines, which save millions of lives, undergo extensive testing for safety and efficacy, and antiviral drugs, like Tamiflu for influenza, are proven to reduce the severity of infections. Dismissing these advancements disregards the substantial progress made in combating diseases.

Finally, the flu is far from a "natural body function." It’s a serious viral infection that can lead to severe health complications, which is why public health measures like vaccines are necessary.

 

PS - How do you define a "natural body function"??

 

If you want to isolate which flu virus you have read this....https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5619698/

 

19 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

I hear your story , and I believe that you are mistaken in your evaluation of the hows and why's that you use to form your "critical opinion"  .   But , thank you for expressing it in a mature way .   Here is a very recent post seeing things in a different light.

If you are interested give it a chance .  https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/breaking-news-here-it-comes

btw:   your quote " know that without the vaccine, I probably would have been hospitalized or worse, dead "   seems to me to lack any basis .  Maybe, like the unvaxxed i know,  you would never have been sick at all .    Just saying you know something does not make it true.

 

I base my  belief that I would have been severely ill or dead on the data. The most recent analysis comes from Canada;

 Results: From mid to late-2021, incidence rates for cases and severe outcomes were consistently lowest among those with a completed primary series and highest among those who were unvaccinated. Unvaccinated individuals were much more likely to be hospitalized or to die compared to those with a completed primary series in all variant periods.

COVID-19 outcome trends by vaccination status in Canada

Published by: The Public Health Agency of Canada, Issue: Volume 50-1/2, January/February 2024

 

Remember polio?- Neither do I - thanks science!

 

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

I base my  belief that I would have been severely ill or dead on the data. The most recent analysis comes from Canada;

 Results: From mid to late-2021, incidence rates for cases and severe outcomes were consistently lowest among those with a completed primary series and highest among those who were unvaccinated. Unvaccinated individuals were much more likely to be hospitalized or to die compared to those with a completed primary series in all variant periods.

COVID-19 outcome trends by vaccination status in Canada

Published by: The Public Health Agency of Canada, Issue: Volume 50-1/2, January/February 2024

 

 

that is plenty of real data that is not lying to you.    Red Phoenix posts it all the time, and the substack i posted has the names of many honest prominent experts that you can read .   If you choose to only read mainstreet propoganda that is up to you.

The US govt is also finally putting out the truth ..... again,  as you can start to see by reading the substack i posted .

goodnight folks..... 

10 hours ago, papa al said:

Did Oswald alone shoot Kennedy .?

If you dispute that

you are a conspiracy theorist 

as originally coined/defined by the CIA/FBI .

``````````````

WTC-7

USS Liberty.

A politician's profession is to weave conspiracies. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss politics without conspiracy theories.

20 hours ago, kwilco said:

How to fight back?

Stay calm. Mockery fuels their fire.

 

Also refrain from stooping to the abysmal level of insults, as it says a lot more about you than anything else and does lasting harm to your relevance.

 

14 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Never gave the moon landing a thought till recently.  Was it faked?

 

Yes, I recommend watching American Moon.

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

 

 

So is this:

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

So Musk wanting to colonize Mars is a hoax? 

 

 

Of course.

Reminds me of a topic last year about Peter Hotez writing a book on "why so many people don't believe in 'science' anymore and what 'we' can do about it".

 

There is nothing you can do about it. There are more "conspiracy theorists" each passing month for a reason, and those who are stuck in their default position of perceived superiority, trying to attribute this to some passing societal malfunction are going to become increasingly dissatisfied.

 

Truth is an unstoppable force, like a plant growing under concrete: it is a slow process, but the concrete eventually cracks open.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Vaccines, which save millions of lives, undergo extensive testing for safety and efficacy,

common misconception.

47 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Also refrain from stooping to the abysmal level of insults, as it says a lot more about you than anything else and does lasting harm to your relevance.

 

 

 

 

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

― Thomas Jefferson

34 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

 

 

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

― Thomas Jefferson

 

I look forward to observing your learning curve:

  

21 hours ago, kwilco said:

Stay calm. Mockery fuels their fire.

Ask questions. Get people thinking, not defending.

Share sources they might trust—not just "mainstream."

Most importantly: build trust. No one listens to someone they think looks down on them.

It’s not about winning arguments. It’s about planting seeds.

 

NASA  =  Never A Straight Answer

 

ScientISM = adapts of gaslighting

 

To the Overlords the Profane are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed bullshxxt.

 

I have no idea what the truth is but I know it's not what I've been fed.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Remember polio?- Neither do I - thanks science!

 

Some compelling facts from Dr. Suzanne Humphries, regarding “polio”:

First off, polio never actually disappeared. According to Dr. Humphries, “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well.”

 

What changed? The definition. Once the vaccine was introduced, the medical establishment redefined what counted as “polio.”

 

Humphries explains: “Polio is called different things today. Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts – everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.”

 

Suddenly, cases that would’ve been labeled polio were now called Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus – or simply chalked up to heavy metal poisoning. “They didn’t have virus, or they had coxsackievirus or echovirus, or they were lead poisoned or mercury poisoned, which was – the mercury and lead were the leading treatments of the day,” she said.

 

But it gets worse.

 

The rise of polio, she says, directly mirrored the use of toxic pesticides like DDT. “The tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio.” And even today, “the countries that still make DDT today is where we’re still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.”

 

According to Dr. Humphries, polio didn’t disappear because of vaccines. It disappeared behind a curtain of redefinitions, misdiagnoses, manmade disasters – and a whole lot of propaganda.

 

She was recently on Joe Rogan's show:

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

It was you Sir, who said 150+ years. All the medical procedures that were stated, were done during that time.

 

Point me to one study/paper/experiment/trials that has Isolated a virus. I'll save you the trouble. You can't. There are not any.

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/9/10/848

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6254221_Ilheus_Virus_Isolate_from_a_Human_Ecuador

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00682-5/fulltext

 

Three very reputable publications...  Information regarding the isolation of viruses is widespread.

 

Isolated SARS-CoV-2 Virus - here >>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/albums/72157712914621487/

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

 

IMO, no vaccine has every been safe. effective or necessary.

 

There is no such entity as an anti-viral drug.

 

The flu is a natural body function.

 

 

Yawn...   seriously - this is similar to listening to someone convinced that the earth is not an oblate spheroid... oh, thats you too... Ok, I'll again, this is similar to listening to someone convinced that circles do not exist... 

 

And yet again, I fell sullied and just a little more stupid for even entering the debate with such silliness.

 

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Some compelling facts from Dr. Suzanne Humphries, regarding “polio”:

First off, polio never actually disappeared. According to Dr. Humphries, “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well.”

 

What changed? The definition. Once the vaccine was introduced, the medical establishment redefined what counted as “polio.”

 

Humphries explains: “Polio is called different things today. Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts – everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.”

 

Suddenly, cases that would’ve been labeled polio were now called Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus – or simply chalked up to heavy metal poisoning. “They didn’t have virus, or they had coxsackievirus or echovirus, or they were lead poisoned or mercury poisoned, which was – the mercury and lead were the leading treatments of the day,” she said.

 

Dr. Suzanne Humphries argues that polio never truly disappeared, but was simply renamed after the introduction of the vaccine - reclassified as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or heavy metal toxicity.

She claims that by changing diagnostic criteria, the medical establishment manufactured a dramatic decline in paralytic polio to credit the vaccine. While this theory has gained traction in alternative health circles, it misrepresents the nature of scientific progress and relies on correlation without causation.

 

In reality, polio - defined specifically as paralysis caused by poliovirus infection - has decreased by over 99.99% worldwide since the launch of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988. From 350,000 paralytic cases annually in 125 countries in the 1980s, we now see fewer than 200 cases per year, primarily limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

The reduction in cases occurred alongside mass vaccination campaigns, not simply a change in how paralysis was labelled. While diagnostic criteria were refined in the 1950s to require laboratory confirmation and longer-lasting paralysis, this was a product of improved technology and understanding- not manipulation.

 

Moreover, Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs at a rate of 1–2 per 100,000 people per year globally, while non-polio enteroviruses like coxsackie and echovirus cause millions of mostly mild infections annually, with only a small fraction leading to neurological symptoms.

These conditions are biologically and clinically distinct from poliomyelitis. And while substances like DDT, mercury, and lead were used widely and are neurotoxic, their epidemiological footprint never matched the scale or seasonal/geographic pattern of true polio outbreaks.

 

Ultimately, polio wasn’t renamed or disguised - it was nearly wiped out through decades of coordinated vaccination, surveillance, and public health efforts.

 

If it had simply been reclassified, we’d still be seeing tens of thousands of children in wheelchairs or iron lungs worldwide. Instead, those numbers have plummeted - because the virus, not just the diagnosis, has been driven to the edge of extinction.

 

 

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But it gets worse.

 

The rise of polio, she says, directly mirrored the use of toxic pesticides like DDT. “The tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio.” And even today, “the countries that still make DDT today is where we’re still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.”

 

According to Dr. Humphries, polio didn’t disappear because of vaccines. It disappeared behind a curtain of redefinitions, misdiagnoses, manmade disasters – and a whole lot of propaganda.

 

Polio is caused by a virus (poliovirus), not a toxin.

The virus was isolated in the 1900s, well before DDT was invented.

Polio outbreaks occurred before DDT was used, though they were smaller.

Most scientists say the apparent correlation is just that - a correlation, not causation.

However, DDT is a known neurotoxin, and it can affect the immune system, so it’s not impossible that it made polio infections more severe in some people.

 

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

She was recently on Joe Rogan's show:

 

So was Eddie Bravo - a flat earth fruit cake...    just because someone gets airtime on The Joe Rogan Experience it doesn’t automatically make their ideas valid or truthful.

 

Joe Rogan gives a platform to anyone, no matter how wild or unconventional their views might be, which allows for a wide range of perspectives, whether they’re controversial or not.

 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So was Eddie Bravo - a flat earth fruit cake...    just because someone gets airtime on The Joe Rogan Experience it doesn’t automatically make their ideas valid or truthful.

 

I agree. This is about Humphries, not Rogan.

 

As for the rest of your post, thanks for the reminder on the official version, that is useful indeed.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

As for the rest of your post, thanks for the reminder on the official version, that is useful indeed.

 

It’s easy to think of yourself as an independent thinker, but leaning into fringe theories while avoiding mainstream, fact-based science often leads to conspiracist thinking rather than an informed understanding. 

 

As interesting and thought provoking as your input is, its readily debunked.

 

You are ultimately an example of why this thread exists.

 

 

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

It’s easy to think of yourself as an independent thinker, but leaning into fringe theories while avoiding mainstream, fact-based science often leads to conspiracist thinking rather than an informed understanding. 

 

As interesting and thought provoking as your input is, its readily debunked.

 

You are ultimately an example of why this thread exists.

 

 

 

You are mistaken in your assumption that I avoid mainstream content. I don't, in fact I follow it just as intently as I follow fringe content. I reject nor adhere to neither blindly, I try (as difficult as that is) to look at things as objectively as possible.

 

My various interactions with a multitude of people has led me to conclude that perhaps my "difference" (for lack of a better word) lies in my willingness to entertain the notion that mass-scale deception is absolutely possible.

33 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You are mistaken in your assumption that I avoid mainstream content. I don't, in fact I follow it just as intently as I follow fringe content. I reject nor adhere to neither blindly, I try (as difficult as that is) to look at things as objectively as possible.

 

My various interactions with a multitude of people has led me to conclude that perhaps my "difference" (for lack of a better word) lies in my willingness to entertain the notion that mass-scale deception is absolutely possible.

 

In other discussions, I’ve noticed you challenged Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which is a bold stance stance, to say the least.

 

At the same time, your insights into the sonoluminescence of distant celestial bodies have genuinely intrigued me.

 

No offence intended, by the way - I enjoy our exchanges and the intelligence with which you write.... But I have also observed that you often diverge from mainstream perspectives. Perhaps it’s a case of playing devil’s advocate to stimulate discussion, or perhaps you genuinely lean toward alternative frameworks because you want to be an 'alternative thinker' and naturally have 'anti-establishment' bias.

 

Some of the ideas you've posted directly contradict well-established, demonstrable physics, while others carry a hint of plausibility - especially given the inherent gaps in our understanding of phenomena occurring far beyond our reach (such as distant celestial bodies).

 

It’s always an engaging debate with you, and I find myself genuinely pausing to consider my responses carefully - rather than instinctively thinking, “Oh, give over, you utter fool.” .....

That alone makes our exchanges far more worthwhile than, say, arguing whether circles exist (a point I made in the thread).

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

In other discussions, I’ve noticed you challenged Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which is a bold stance stance, to say the least.

 

At the same time, your insights into the sonoluminescence of distant celestial bodies have genuinely intrigued me.

 

No offence intended, by the way - I enjoy our exchanges and the intelligence with which you write.... But I have also observed that you often diverge from mainstream perspectives. Perhaps it’s a case of playing devil’s advocate to stimulate discussion, or perhaps you genuinely lean toward alternative frameworks because you want to be an 'alternative thinker' and naturally have 'anti-establishment' bias.

 

Some of the ideas you've posted directly contradict well-established, demonstrable physics, while others carry a hint of plausibility - especially given the inherent gaps in our understanding of phenomena occurring far beyond our reach (such as distant celestial bodies).

 

It’s always an engaging debate with you, and I find myself genuinely pausing to consider my responses carefully - rather than instinctively thinking, “Oh, give over, you utter fool.” .....

That alone makes our exchanges far more worthwhile than, say, arguing whether circles exist (a point I made in the thread).

 

 

 

 

I appreciate that, and can honestly respond that it is reciprocal.

On 4/18/2025 at 9:57 PM, kwilco said:

Why Wild Ideas Are Thriving (And How to Push Back)

Twenty years ago, flat Earth, fake moon landings, anti-vax fear, and fringe politics were laughed off. Now? They're everywhere. Why?

No more gatekeepers. Anyone can post anything, and shock spreads faster than truth.

Social media rewards outrage, not accuracy.

People have lost trust in institutions after wars, recessions, and pandemics.

Echo chambers reinforce beliefs, no matter how wild.

Simple lies beat complex truths. It's easier to blame a conspiracy than understand science.

Identity politics. Beliefs become tribal, not logical.

How to fight back?

Stay calm. Mockery fuels their fire.

Ask questions. Get people thinking, not defending.

Share sources they might trust—not just "mainstream."

Most importantly: build trust. No one listens to someone they think looks down on them.

It’s not about winning arguments. It’s about planting seeds.

Good post. 2 more things: 

 

Conspiracy theories are a very American thing,  to a lesser degree European. People there have learnt that smooth talking/rhetorics is everything - they have forgotten that there exists a reality (e.g. a virus) which you cannot "talk away" - it won't disappear.  Countries where people still manufacture or plant physical things are less affected. You cannot argue with an assembly line or a flock of sheep.

 

And: cui bono?

The Nazis, who had people believe that the Jews are the root of all evil, put a bounty on Albert Einstein's head. (They couldn't get him, s.o they went after his cousin Robert. He hid, so they murdered his wife Nina and his daughters Cici and Luce.) The Nazis knew very well  why they hated people who would think. Who profited from the Nazis? The industrialists.

As for today's conspiracy theories - you know for whom these people vote,  and who profits.

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Not so Sir. 150+ years of compromised quackery more like.

 

I'm not saying there have not been some medical advances. But lobotomy, blood-letting, injecting mercury and aluminum into the body, are not advances of any description in my book.

 

A virus - any virus - has never been isolated.

 

Basic principle of the "Big Lie " propaganda technique, tireless repetition of the lie.

49 minutes ago, Lorry said:

Conspiracy theories are a very American thing,  to a lesser degree European. People there have learnt that smooth talking/rhetorics is everything - they have forgotten that there exists a reality (e.g. a virus) which you cannot "talk away" - it won't disappear.  Countries where people still manufacture or plant physical things are less affected. You cannot argue with an assembly line or a flock of sheep.

PS further reading (long!):

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/19/opinion/extinction-technology-culture.html

 

" a sense that real-world life is fundamentally obsolete "

20 hours ago, kwilco said:

This video presents typical flat Earth arguments, but they're based on misunderstandings of physics and observation. Earth's curvature can be measured (e.g., via high-altitude footage and ship visibility), and apparent anomalies like distant visibility are explained by atmospheric refraction. Flight paths follow great circles on a globe, and satellite data from multiple countries shows Earth is round. Gravity naturally forms large bodies into spheres, and circumnavigation/time zones only make sense on a globe. These claims have been debunked many times by science and direct observation.

 

That demo shows that we would rather believe the science we've been brainwashed with than believe our own eyes. Clearly something off when you hold a model plane up to a globe. 

 

On 4/19/2025 at 6:58 AM, ukrules said:

Why act at all? Who cares what someone else believes?

 

You might not realise it but many people are completely and utterly incapable of thinking for themselves, they repeat what they hear - like parrots.

Don't listen to the parrots and leave them to it.

Hmm, though I agree, unfortunately it isn't that simple. Some are growing and one or two have books that are being considered to be used in school. Flat Earth is an example (see picture). Here, because the item is based on bible hence the considration.