Food for Thought > A Common Sense vaccine statement and a BS one...

[rattlesnake]

26 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

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

 

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

 

 

I doubt it would be worthwhile or productive to continue this debate now. If RFK does what he has promised he would do, we can pick up this discussion in a few months.

 

The MMR vaccine is particularly problematic. A CDC whistleblower leaked information to Steve Kirsch about the irrefutable link with autism (pasting the article below for the users who are interested), but this is just 'crazy conspiracy theory' of course…

 

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/over-300-pages-of-evidence-from-the

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Where is there evidence to show that an illness can be caught, by a healthy person, from a sick one? My finding show the opposite.

 

Here is a case study for you, Stiddle, and I am interested in knowing your take on it:

 

When he was still a little boy (about four if I recall correctly), my son was hospitalised because of "the flu" (at least that is what they called it) which he caught at school. During his hospital stay, he passed it on to me and I spent the entire day in bed feeling terrible, typical "flu" symptoms (no energy, just getting up to walk two metres to go to the toilet was an epic quest, aching everywhere…). Anyway by the end of the day, we both felt fine again and went home (so my son had been ill for about 30 hours and I for about 10 hours).

 

My question is, if the flu virus doesn't exist, what did we catch? The transmission factor is undeniable so it was definitely something.

[richard_smith237]

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.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

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

 

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

[richard_smith237]

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 ?

 

 

[rattlesnake]

40 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Failure to vaccinate is arguably the cause root of death

 

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.

 

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.

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/

[richard_smith237]

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.

[rattlesnake]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour 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."

 

1 hour 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

 

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.

 

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? 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.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

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.

[rattlesnake]

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

However, to suggest that without considering the glaringly obvious role measles played is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room.

 

Of course the measles didn't help, however we don't know what main factors led to this unfortunate outcome: she died of respiratory failure after having been given the wrong antibiotic, that much is certain.

 

On a macro-level, three deaths is statistically insignificant and can't reasonably be used as a basis to draw conclusions and/or principles.

 

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

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.

 

I have no problem with my posts being seen as conspiratorial, but in this instance, it led to a misreading and erroneous conclusion.

 

26 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

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 ?

 

It isn't the sole reason for my stance, but it certainly didn't help… To be honest, I don't recall the details, I just know some doctors (not all of them) backed my sister in her decision to not give him any more jabs, and she managed to get the required paperwork, though it wasn't easy and as I said, she still is regularly "pushed" to reconsider.

 

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

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).

 

Well that's where my conspiratorial mind kicks in… The VAERS system is notoriously flawed and doesn't catch most injuries. In any case, the vaccine industry is worth hundreds of billions, can I imagine inconvenient stats being left aside? Yes, I certainly can.

 

A 2025 study, 22 years after this one, will be welcome. 

 

[fredwiggy]

9 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Any evidence would be good to show that a vaccine does what the white-coats say it does.

I can't see any Fred mate. Cause there is not any.

You might be alive because of a previous vaccine. As far as the Covid one, they still don't know.

[fredwiggy]

10 hours ago, johng said:

 

Many got the "vaccines" and boosters  due to  fear and coercion  in the first place.

Yes, but fear of death, seeing so many die so fast, is a lot harsher than fear from side effects that might happen.

[fredwiggy]

10 hours ago, johng said:

 

People die all the time.

Yes, but not from vaccines.

[Red Phoenix]

10 hours ago, FlorC said:

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

Yes, you are correct.  The mRNA shots are not 'vaccines' but are experimental gen-therapy. 

And their adverse effects are a multifold of the harms that a traditional vaccine can cause (just look at the VAERS statistics that show that the number of Covid-19 reported adverse effects is larger than the adverse effects reports of ALL other vaccines combined over the last 30-40 years). 

I know its unwise and detrimental to your health to take even traditional vaccines, but will not sound the 'alarm bell' when people get such a traditional vax-shot.  Except of course for the completely off-the-charts US childhood vaccine schedule. 

And it's a more than worrying development that research is done and plans are made to replace the most common  traditional vaccines with a 'new improved' mRNA version. 

Also with the latest self-replicating mRNA technology that is now on the table, you cannot even make the conscious choice anymore NOT to get the mRNA shot.  

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

10 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

We are giving you guys a chance to shine. To put it all out there. 

Yes, and grateful that AseanNow now provides a sub-forum, where these matters can be discussed freely instead of being censored or deleted (as was the case during the 4-year scamdemic period). 

[Red Phoenix]

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

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) 

 

 

 

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

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.  

 

[Red Phoenix]

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

... 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.

...

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.   

 

[Red Phoenix]

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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

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

 

> 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. 

[gargamon]

They need to add an anti-vax forum. One you can set to ignore like you can for quizzes.

[johng]

13 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.

 

13 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 ?

 

[Red Phoenix]

5 minutes ago, gargamon said:

They need to add an anti-vax forum. One you can set to ignore like you can for quizzes.

There is a dedicated covid/vaccine sub-forum on AseanNow, where these issues can be freely discussed, and obviously pro- and anti-vax stances lead to heated discussions there. 

https://aseannow.com/forum/466-covidvaccine/

 

Unfortunately that dedicated covid/vaccine sub-forum is 'hidden' on top of the Off the Beaten Track forum, with no overview of threads and hence difficult to find.

But several covid/vaccine threads are posted in the Off the Beaten Track forum too. 

And note that there is also the 'regular' moderated forum where Covid-19 is addressed

https://aseannow.com/forum/245-covid-19-coronavirus/

 

[Red Phoenix]

Posted 3 minutes ago

13 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.

 

13 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.

[gamb00ler]

15 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

The point is that injecting a substance with a needle by-passes your natural outer protective body-mechanisms.

I guess we should all stop breathing according to your kooky notions since we could inhale things that end up in a nice warm, moist environment.

[Stiddle Mump]

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Surely you can't deny it has happened that way even if you think the link between vaccine and decrease in sickness is fortuitous and the reduction in illness due to other reasons. Or do you think it's all made up - the statistics and figures over so many decades. 

Most of it is made up, by compromised Big Pharma disciples.

[xylophone]

13 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Which is why I'm not interested in entering debate with you...

 

You refuse to accept viruses exist...   I won't debate with someone who thinks black is white or a circle doesn't exist - the exercise is futile...

 

You post total misinformation and argue and counter comment is 'Big Pharma, white-coat nonsense'... 

 

 

 

You have stated numerous times that viruses don't exist - make your mind up !!!... 

 

You are wasting your time with this nut job.....I quoted viruses that are known to exist and which are capable of killing humans, but to no avail.

 

As my dear old Mum used to say, "he isn't the full quid" and that is why I put him on ignore some time ago as I have no time for his nonsense.

[Red Phoenix]

7 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I guess we should all stop breathing according to your kooky notions since we could inhale things that end up in a nice warm, moist environment.

Nope, there is a layer of protection in your lungs, just like there are layers of protection on all surfaces of the body that can come in direct contact with outside sources. 

As I wrote:

15 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

The point is that injecting a substance with a needle by-passes your natural outer protective body-mechanisms.

[gamb00ler]

14 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Where is there evidence to show that an illness can be caught, by a healthy person, from a sick one? My finding show the opposite

so what method did you use to establish your finding?  Did it consist of multiple searches on your phone/tablet/computer?

[Stiddle Mump]

13 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You refuse to accept viruses exist...   I won't debate with someone who thinks black is white or a circle doesn't exist - the exercise is futile.

So be it Richard bud. If I can't educate you!! Well never mind, keep reading the CDC and NIH's handbook.

 

I'll tell you what it's like with viruses.

 

In a game of football, a player is tackled, and is injured. The ref sees that it was Jimmy Smith who did the bad tackle. The ref is reluctant to address the issue. The players crowd the ref and insist it was the dastardly, notorious Chopper Munroe.

 

It is pointed out that Chopper is on the bench. The ref is unmoved however. So he gets the red card. Once the card is issued there is no need to look any further for the bad tackler. From then on, all bad tackles are attributed to Chopper. Any dissenting voices are ignored.

 

After the match someone asks the ref why he gave Chopper Munroe the card, when he wasn't even playing, and everyone knew it was Jimmy Smith. ''I am the authority out there. Chopper's sister refused me sex once. And Jimmy Smith's dad is my wife's boss at work.''

 

And that's about it. Rather than seek the truth, the unscientific, compromised white-coats cling onto their wage packets, and point the finger at something that has no basis in science.

 

[Stiddle Mump]

51 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

so what method did you use to establish your finding?  Did it consist of multiple searches on your phone/tablet/computer?

More attempts at humour there GambOOler Sir.

 

However, you do raise an interesting point. Where does one obtain hidden, sensitive information?

 

As transmission goes - in the way we understand it to be - there have been hundreds of studies down the decades. Many during the period 1918 -- 1930. And most of these were carried out by the military medical establishments. They were very well documented, but not put onto the www (for obvious reasons). So one has to go to the library archives, get out the files, and start reading.

 

It is not always as easy as simply searching for them on the www. Indeed no! Some that are on the www, are not available for 'unauthorised' viewing. And special clearances are often required. FOIs come in handy here.