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

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

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

 

Which is why I am responding here to your persistent lies and misinformation.

 

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

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.  

 

The mRNA shots developed for COVID-19, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, are vaccines, not gene therapy. They were classified and regulated as vaccines from the start, because they meet the longstanding scientific and medical definition of a vaccine: a substance that stimulates the body's immune system to recognise and fight off a pathogen, in this case, the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

 

What mRNA vaccines actually do:
They use a snippet of messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a harmless piece of the virus (the spike protein). This stimulates an immune response, training the body to recognise and respond more effectively to future infection. The mRNA does not alter a person's DNA - it never enters the cell nucleus, and it degrades naturally within hours to days.

 

Not gene therapy:
Gene therapy involves making permanent or semi-permanent changes to a person’s genetic code to treat or cure a disease, often by inserting genetic material into DNA. mRNA vaccines don’t do that. They temporarily deliver instructions to produce an immune response — they don’t modify genes or integrate into the genome.

 

Definition of a vaccine:
While the CDC and other health agencies refined the wording of their vaccine definition during the pandemic (to better encompass mRNA technology and avoid confusion), the core concept - inducing immunity without causing disease - hasn't changed.

Medical dictionaries and immunology textbooks had already recognised this kind of immune stimulation as vaccination.

 

So no, it wasn’t a sneaky redefining to “pave the way” - it was an update to reflect innovation. The technology evolved, and so did the language, but the purpose and function stayed the same.

 

The language was changed because: 

The old definition was too narrow:
Prior to the COVID pandemic, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine (on their website, not in law or scientific texts) emphasised that a vaccine provided immunity by introducing a weakened or killed virus. That worked well for traditional vaccines like polio or measles, which used whole virus particles.

But mRNA vaccines don’t contain the virus at all - just instructions to make one viral protein. And their primary aim is to prevent severe disease, not always to block infection entirely.

 

Evolving science:
Science moves forward. The understanding of immunity has expanded - we now recognise that vaccines can provide strong protection without necessarily stopping every infection. Think of the flu shot: you can still catch the flu, but you're far less likely to end up hospitalised. That’s still successful vaccination.

 

Weaponised misunderstanding:
During the pandemic, some critics cherry-picked the old, narrower CDC wording to falsely claim that mRNA vaccines “aren’t real vaccines.” This led to confusion. So, the CDC updated the definition (as of September 2021).

 

This latter point is precisely why updating the definition - IF they had not, people like yourself would have 'weaponised' misunderstanding and highlighted that the mRNA vaccines do not contain the virus... Instead you have 'weaponised' a perfectly reasonable modernisation of the definition of a vaccine to fit your broken narrative.

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

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.   

 

 

Idiocy - Are you suggesting normal viruses that are not harmful to us have been isolated and their existence proven... but harmful (pathogenic viruses) have not and can't be because they don't exist ?

 

Do you realise the ridiculousness of this?

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

> 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. 

 

I do acknowledge that naturally acquired herd immunity is, in many ways, more robust and enduring than immunity induced by vaccination. However, achieving such widespread natural immunity would come at a staggering cost - the loss of millions of lives.

 

Centuries from now, the numbers may be reduced to lines in a textbook, a distant memory to future generations. But for us, in this moment, every life matters. The cost is not theoretical - it's tangible, it's human.

 

And let there be no illusion: if all vaccines were to cease today, it would not take long - merely a few years - before the fatality rates of viral diseases surged dramatically.

 

Vaccination is not just a convenience of modern medicine; it's a shield against a return to an era of mass suffering and untimely death.

[atpeace]

18 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Yes, I shun ALL vaccines as well as anti-biotics.  Can't remember when I had the last one of either, but must be at least 30 years.

Note that I will not mandate my convictions onto others, only providing them with food for thought so they can make up their own mind. 

I'm not anti vaccine or antibiotics.  Think there is sufficient evidence that many have benefited society. What I abhor are people disregarding opinions because the person is not an expert. This is a herd mentality that the weak seem to adhere to and use to defend their positions.  Pathetic IMO...

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

17 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.

 

18 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.

 

mRNA vaccines are intramuscular injections, always have been. No vaccines are direct injections into a vein.

 

If there has been 'medical malpractice' and any vaccines (mRNA or otherwise) have been 'shot' directly into the vein, then thats human error, not a vaccine flaw. Doing so and would be just as bad as a diabetic injecting insulin directly into their vein.

 

Marc Girardot's BOLUS theory attempts to mitigate the risk of 'accidentally' injecting a vaccine directly into the bloodstream / intravenously. Girardot advocates for alternative vaccine delivery methods, such as intranasal administration for respiratory vaccines or subcutaneous injections.

 

I actually agree with this - I'm all for safer delivery methods of any vaccine and accept that there is an extremely small risk of an 'idiot' injecting a vaccine directly into a vein either by mistaken when attempting an intramuscular injection, or worse, deliberately due to poor knowledge / training.

 

[richard_smith237]

18 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yes, I shun ALL vaccines as well as anti-biotics.  Can't remember when I had the last one of either, but must be at least 30 years.

 

I missed that - shunning ALL vaccines as well as antibiotic.... 

 

The probability that without 'anti-biotics' and vaccines that you would still be alive today is extremely slim.

 

The World Today Without Antibiotics or Vaccines would be far less populated.. .

 

Current world population (2025): ~8.1 billion people.

If w removed two of the greatest life-saving tools in human history…

 

Without Vaccines:

Vaccines have eradicated or drastically reduced diseases like:

Smallpox (once killed 30% of infected, now eradicated)

Measles (caused millions of deaths annually pre-vaccine)

Polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis, etc.

Before vaccines, childhood mortality was staggering. In some areas, 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 children died before age 5.

 

Impact:

Millions more deaths annually, especially among infants and children.

Major pandemics would have had far deadlier tolls (e.g., COVID-19 without vaccines likely = tens of millions of deaths globally).

 

Without Antibiotics:

No penicillin, no sulfa drugs, no modern infection control. The implications are brutal:

Simple infections = deadly (a scratch could kill you).

Pneumonia, tuberculosis, strep throat, gonorrhoea, syphilis, and wound infections would be major killers.

Surgical procedures and childbirth would be far riskier - infection was the #1 killer in both contexts before antibiotics.

Antibiotics added an estimated 20+ years to average life expectancy in developed countries.

 

Estimates:

Historians and epidemiologists suggest that without vaccines or antibiotics, global population growth would have been far slower due to:

- High childhood mortality

- Lower life expectancy

- Epidemics and pandemics regularly culling large portions of the population

 

The world population in 2025 without vaccines or antibiotics might range from 3 to 4 billion, possibly even less.

 

 

In short, vaccines and antibiotics didn’t just save lives - they enabled modern civilisation as we know it. Without them, we'd be stuck in a perpetual cycle of plagues, early death, and medical helplessness.

 

Without them - the probability that you'd even be alive at 67 years old is tiny.

[rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, atpeace said:

I'm not anti vaccine or antibiotics.  Think there is sufficient evidence that many have benefited society. What I abhor are people disregarding opinions because the person is not an expert. This is a herd mentality that the weak seem to adhere to and use to defend their positions.  Pathetic IMO...

 

I definitely agree. This rejection seems to occur only in the context of Covid/vaccination refutation, which, in a way, is tacit admission that this is a taboo issue.

 

I don't recall there being the same stringent requirement for other societal issues (e.g. nobody says one needs to be a firearms expert to formulate an opinion on gun control…).

[Stiddle Mump]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Vaccines have eradicated or drastically reduced diseases like:

Smallpox (once killed 30% of infected, now eradicated)

Measles (caused millions of deaths annually pre-vaccine)

Polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis, etc.

Before vaccines, childhood mortality was staggering. In some areas, 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 children died before age 5.

Simply not true. Where do you copy this garbage from Sir?

[Stiddle Mump]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Idiocy - Are you suggesting normal viruses that are not harmful to us have been isolated and their existence proven... but harmful (pathogenic viruses) have not and can't be because they don't exist ?

You are confusing yourself Richard.

 

A virus is cell debris. Probably takes the form it does to help the cells removal from the blood and body.

 

I have to keep telling you Richard; pathogenic viruses do  not exist. They are only found in computers.

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Vaccines have eradicated or drastically reduced diseases like:

Smallpox (once killed 30% of infected, now eradicated)

Measles (caused millions of deaths annually pre-vaccine)

Polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis, etc.

Before vaccines, childhood mortality was staggering. In some areas, 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 children died before age 5.

Simply no true. Where do you copy this garbage from Sir?

 

"a circle is not a circle" - you simply reject any data that does not fit your delusional agenda. 

 

Such fundamentally flawed thinking cannot be argued with....   All I have to do in response to your comments is state... "not true, not true, not true"...    As such, this isn’t a discussion - it’s an idiot show - the only only real contributor for educated debate from the “anti-vaxx” perspective is rattlesnake... 

 

The rest of you, yourself included, are just parroted nonsense masquerading as a “debate.” Every word you type can been debunked so many times, it’s practically begging for its own obituary.

 

You’ve managed to create a sad little circle jerk of idiocy. Posts such as your have turned this thread into a group therapy session for the willfully ignorant.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You are confusing yourself Richard.

 

A virus is cell debris. Probably takes the form it does to help the cells removal from the blood and body.

 

I have to keep telling you Richard; pathogenic viruses do  not exist. They are only found in computers.

 

Simply not true. Where do you copy this garbage from ?

 

 

[Airalee]

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I definitely agree. This rejection seems to occur only in the context of Covid/vaccination refutation, which, in a way, is tacit admission that this is a taboo issue.

 

I don't recall there being the same stringent requirement for other societal issues (e.g. nobody says one needs to be a firearms expert to formulate an opinion on gun control…).

How about the recent thread about “conspiracy theorists” and “what we need to do with them”?

 

Before Covid, nobody cared about what anybody thought about moon landings, flat earth theories, etc.

 

They only care about the jabs.

 

BTW….have you noticed the absence of a few of the more prolific posters as of late?

 

I wonder if they had a “coincidence”

[richard_smith237]

45 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

2 hours ago, atpeace said:

I'm not anti vaccine or antibiotics.  Think there is sufficient evidence that many have benefited society. What I abhor are people disregarding opinions because the person is not an expert. This is a herd mentality that the weak seem to adhere to and use to defend their positions.  Pathetic IMO...

 

I definitely agree. This rejection seems to occur only in the context of Covid/vaccination refutation, which, in a way, is tacit admission that this is a taboo issue.

 

I don't recall there being the same stringent requirement for other societal issues (e.g. nobody says one needs to be a firearms expert to formulate an opinion on gun control…).

 

As someone who is clearly capable of forming intelligent, well-reasoned arguments, it’s evident you possess the ability to assimilate complex information, interpret it thoughtfully, and articulate your perspective with clarity. Your approach demonstrates that a deep and meaningful discussion doesn't require formal credentials - only critical thinking, curiosity, and a willingness to engage with ideas on their merit.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone shares that capacity. It becomes painfully obvious when some resort to parroting content from anti-vaccine websites or recycling deeply flawed opinions, mistaking repetition for reason and ideology for insight. Their contributions lack the intellectual rigour needed for genuine discourse, revealing not just a gap in knowledge, but a troubling absence of the cognitive tools required to bridge it.

 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Airalee said:

 

BTW….have you noticed the absence of a few of the more prolific posters as of late?

 

 

They can't be bothered to lower themselves to the ridiculous levels of such discussions...  Especially when threads such as this turn into an anti-vax circle jerk of misinformation... 

 

I'm only here to see what extent and extremes some posters will go to when denying scientifically proven fact....

 

So far we have:

- Pathogenic viruses do not exist

- Viruses cannot be isolated

- Vaccines are not necessary

- Antibiotics are not necessary

- Herd Immunity is flawed

- mRNA vaccine is not a vaccine

- Polio Vaccine had no impact

- Measles Vaccine had no impact

 

 

 

 

[johng]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

it never enters the cell nucleus, and it degrades naturally within hours to days.

 

Just one thing, which you will dispute obviously, it can last for months  hence "long Covid"  there seems to be no off switch.

[Red Phoenix]

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

They can't be bothered to lower themselves to the ridiculous levels of such discussions...  Especially when threads such as this turn into an anti-vax circle jerk of misinformation... 

 

I'm only here to see what extent and extremes some posters will go to when denying scientifically proven fact....

 

So far we have:

- Pathogenic viruses do not exist

- Viruses cannot be isolated

- Vaccines are not necessary

- Antibiotics are not necessary

- Herd Immunity is flawed

- mRNA vaccine is not a vaccine

- Polio Vaccine had no impact

- Measles Vaccine had no impact

 

A very disingenuous dumb-downed summary.

I agree with only 2 of these 8 statements {#1 and #6). 

And the remaining 6 are of the half-truth or full-lie kind, and challenge you that I made one of those 6 statements.

 

[Stiddle Mump]

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So far we have:

- Pathogenic viruses do not exist

- Viruses cannot be isolated

- Vaccines are not necessary

- Antibiotics are not necessary

- Herd Immunity is flawed

- mRNA vaccine is not a vaccine

- Polio Vaccine had no impact

- Measles Vaccine had no impact

Getting there Richard bud.

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Airalee said:

BTW….have you noticed the absence of a few of the more prolific posters as of late?

 

I wonder if they had a “coincidence”

 

Indeed I have. I'll tell you one thing, people don't seem to be in great shape these days. The reason why is anybody's guess… but in my opinion, the Spike protein can harm the body and I don't regret not receiving the Covid jab.

[rattlesnake]

36 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Just one thing, which you will dispute obviously, it can last for months  hence "long Covid"  there seems to be no off switch.

 

As forewarned by several doctors such as Tenpenny, Bhakdi… but they are "conspiracy theorists", they couldn't possibly be onto something.

[Mark Nothing]

I didn't know much about vaccinations five years ago.  Just what the experts said.

 

So I read books about antivaccination principles and was astounded what a scam it is.  The Poisoned Needle, by Elanor McBean, Phd was written about 1950 is by far the best book.  She breaks down each component into easily understandable terms for the layman.

 

Basically she says viruses don't exist and were created as a marketing scam to juice sales and profits for the newly established pharmaceutical companies. Even including debates between doctors that made for entertaining reading.  Further stating clean drinking water, better sanitation and eliminating pesticides from farm crops were key to elimating health problems, not vaccines.  In fact, wherever vaccinations were required the disease and mayhem increased well above nonvaccinated areas.  She studied European and American health dept data to compile her study.

 

During the course of my research I was able to identify the language of mistruth in books and lectures.  The main thing I idetified was spokesmen with fancy suits and ties, advanced university degrees, speaking eloquently but saying nothing but medicalese nonsense while being sponsered by those firms reaping the financial rewards of fear.

 

It appears some on here are hypnotized by the experts and parroting the nonsense acting superior without having completed their homework.  It would be beneficial to learn something rather then remaining illiterate.

[rattlesnake]

12 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

I didn't know much about vaccinations five years ago.  Just what the experts said.

 

So I read books about antivaccination principles and was astounded what a scam it is.  The Poisoned Needle, by Elanor McBean, Phd was written about 1950 is by far the best book.  She breaks down each component into easily understandable terms for the layman.

 

Basically she says viruses don't exist and were created as a marketing scam to juice sales and profits for the newly established pharmaceutical companies. Even including debates between doctors that made for entertaining reading.  Further stating clean drinking water, better sanitation and eliminating pesticides from farm crops were key to elimating health problems, not vaccines.  In fact, wherever vaccinations were required the disease and mayhem increased well above nonvaccinated areas.  She studied European and American health dept data to compile her study.

 

During the course of my research I was able to identify the language of mistruth in books and lectures.  The main thing I idetified was spokesmen with fancy suits and ties, advanced university degrees, speaking eloquently but saying nothing but medicalese nonsense while being sponsered by those firms reaping the financial rewards of fear.

 

It appears some on here are hypnotized by the experts and parroting the nonsense acting superior without having completed their homework.  It would be beneficial to learn something rather then remaining illiterate.

 

Thanks for the reference. Will check it out.

[Stiddle Mump]

1 hour ago, johng said:

 

Just one thing, which you will dispute obviously, it can last for months  hence "long Covid"  there seems to be no off switch.

70 years ago 'long ????' was never mentioned. But 'slow ????' was discussed instead.

 

Simply unscientific words to distract from the truth.

[Stiddle Mump]

49 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

It appears some on here are hypnotized by the experts and parroting the nonsense acting superior without having completed their homework.  It would be beneficial to learn something rather then remaining illiterate.

McBean's book is a gem. She certainly spells it out in common sense terms.

 

Other books to consider.

 

What really makes you ill. ---David Parker & Dawn Lester.

Virus Mania. -- Sam & Mark Bailey.

Can you cat a cold? -- Daniel Roytas.

 

There are quite a few posters on AN, that simply will not do research, if it doesn't fit their narrow narrative. But instead resort to silly insults and statements. I've had a few. Still here. Truth can take any criticism.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

[xylophone]

20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Which is why I am responding here to your persistent lies and misinformation.

 

 

The mRNA shots developed for COVID-19, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, are vaccines, not gene therapy. They were classified and regulated as vaccines from the start, because they meet the longstanding scientific and medical definition of a vaccine: a substance that stimulates the body's immune system to recognise and fight off a pathogen, in this case, the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

 

What mRNA vaccines actually do:
They use a snippet of messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a harmless piece of the virus (the spike protein). This stimulates an immune response, training the body to recognise and respond more effectively to future infection. The mRNA does not alter a person's DNA - it never enters the cell nucleus, and it degrades naturally within hours to days.

 

Not gene therapy:
Gene therapy involves making permanent or semi-permanent changes to a person’s genetic code to treat or cure a disease, often by inserting genetic material into DNA. mRNA vaccines don’t do that. They temporarily deliver instructions to produce an immune response — they don’t modify genes or integrate into the genome.

 

Definition of a vaccine:
While the CDC and other health agencies refined the wording of their vaccine definition during the pandemic (to better encompass mRNA technology and avoid confusion), the core concept - inducing immunity without causing disease - hasn't changed.

Medical dictionaries and immunology textbooks had already recognised this kind of immune stimulation as vaccination.

 

So no, it wasn’t a sneaky redefining to “pave the way” - it was an update to reflect innovation. The technology evolved, and so did the language, but the purpose and function stayed the same.

 

The language was changed because: 

The old definition was too narrow:
Prior to the COVID pandemic, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine (on their website, not in law or scientific texts) emphasised that a vaccine provided immunity by introducing a weakened or killed virus. That worked well for traditional vaccines like polio or measles, which used whole virus particles.

But mRNA vaccines don’t contain the virus at all - just instructions to make one viral protein. And their primary aim is to prevent severe disease, not always to block infection entirely.

 

Evolving science:
Science moves forward. The understanding of immunity has expanded - we now recognise that vaccines can provide strong protection without necessarily stopping every infection. Think of the flu shot: you can still catch the flu, but you're far less likely to end up hospitalised. That’s still successful vaccination.

 

Weaponised misunderstanding:
During the pandemic, some critics cherry-picked the old, narrower CDC wording to falsely claim that mRNA vaccines “aren’t real vaccines.” This led to confusion. So, the CDC updated the definition (as of September 2021).

 

This latter point is precisely why updating the definition - IF they had not, people like yourself would have 'weaponised' misunderstanding and highlighted that the mRNA vaccines do not contain the virus... Instead you have 'weaponised' a perfectly reasonable modernisation of the definition of a vaccine to fit your broken narrative.

Great, informative post @richard_smith237as are your following posts on the subject of vaccines, their history and how they work. 

 

I am surprised that you are even entering into discourse with these dipsticks and bozos, because you are clearly at a level so far above them and all they can do is to repeat nonsense that they "pick up" from somewhere, probably from a book like, "how to appear stupid without really trying" or from damaged grey matter.

 

You will also note that the "thumbs down" emoji has been applied, probably by this little cabal of idiots, so best move on as you have no hope of "educating" them, thank you for your intelligent and reasoned responses and just for the record I have these dipsticks on ignore because I saw the low level of their intelligence many posts ago.

 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

57 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Great, informative post @richard_smith237as are your following posts on the subject of vaccines, their history and how they work. 

 

I am surprised that you are even entering into discourse with these dipsticks and bozos, because you are clearly at a level so far above them and all they can do is to repeat nonsense that they "pick up" from somewhere, probably from a book like, "how to appear stupid without really trying" or from damaged grey matter.

 

You will also note that the "thumbs down" emoji has been applied, probably by this little cabal of idiots, so best move on as you have no hope of "educating" them, thank you for your intelligent and reasoned responses and just for the record I have these dipsticks on ignore because I saw the low level of their intelligence many posts ago.

Plenty of words there bud. But precious litle in the way of content. Unlike Richard, who, although I don't agree with on most things, at least puts forward an argument; along with silly-billy remarks just like you.

 

Here is some good reading for you bud:

 

The poison needle. ++ Eleanor McBean.

 

Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying.  ++ Vernon Coleman.

 

Virus Mania. ++ Sam and Mark Bailey.

 

Can you catch a cold? ++ Daniel Roytas.

 

What really makes you ill? ++ Dawn Lester and David Parker

 

Plenty there to start your vaccine education bud.

 

[atpeace]

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Plenty of words there bud. But precious litle in the way of content. Unlike Richard, who, although I don't agree with on most things, at least puts forward an argument; along with silly-billy remarks just like you.

 

Here is some good reading for you bud:

 

The poison needle. ++ Eleanor McBean.

 

Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying.  ++ Vernon Coleman.

 

Virus Mania. ++ Sam and Mark Bailey.

 

Can you catch a cold? ++ Daniel Roytas.

 

What really makes you ill? ++ Dawn Lester and David Parker

 

Plenty there to start your vaccine education bud.

 

Read a page or two of Xylophones content on his content page.  He is full of anger and has a major superiority complex.  Fun to disagree with him and watch him lose his shhtt.  He starts every debate with some variation how stupid you are and then endless use of labels.  He has put so many people on his ignore list, as he bragged, to create a fantasy world where he is the genius among fools.

[Stiddle Mump]

40 minutes ago, atpeace said:

Read a page or two of Xylophones content on his content page.  He is full of anger and has a major superiority complex.  Fun to disagree with him and watch him lose his shhtt.  He starts every debate with some variation how stupid you are and then endless use of labels.  He has put so many people on his ignore list, as he bragged, to create a fantasy world where he is the genius among fools.

Make you right there bud.

 

There are quite a few like that on the forum. Although one of the worst offenders has gone back to the joke section. 

 

I think the tide is gradually turning. There is now doubt, where once there was certainty. There is now, not so much automatic belief in MSM narratives as once there was.

 

TBH, I'm not bothered what side of the fence someone sits; on any subject. Or even on it. But I prefer debate, rather than reading insults. And, if I may, I'd like to say why. Very few, if any, posters agree with my position. Many agree with big bits of it. Some even a little. Some none. That's OK. I'm the same with them. Even high rankers like McCullough and Coleman. and big hitters like Kennedy, I have only partly common ground with. 

 

In another life - and not so long ago - I had suspension after suspension on TV/AN, for saying what I say now. 14 holidays in all. Now I'm here again, saying my bit. The times, they are a'changing.

 

[Airalee]

17 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

There are quite a few like that on the forum. Although one of the worst offenders has gone back to the joke section. 

Many have just plain disappeared.  Even a couple of the forums most prolific long time posters in the last couple months.  

 

Won’t name names of course.

 

Coincidence?

 

 

[atpeace]

11 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Make you right there bud.

 

There are quite a few like that on the forum. Although one of the worst offenders has gone back to the joke section. 

 

I think the tide is gradually turning. There is now doubt, where once there was certainty. There is now, not so much automatic belief in MSM narratives as once there was.

 

TBH, I'm not bothered what side of the fence someone sits; on any subject. Or even on it. But I prefer debate, rather than reading insults. And, if I may, I'd like to say why. Very few, if any, posters agree with my position. Many agree with big bits of it. Some even a little. Some none. That's OK. I'm the same with them. Even high rankers like McCullough and Coleman. and big hitters like Kennedy, I have only partly common ground with. 

 

In another life - and not so long ago - I had suspension after suspension on TV/AN, for saying what I say now. 14 holidays in all. Now I'm here again, saying my bit. The times, they are a'changing.

 

Those were strange times and the weak controlled AN.  They just used the herd mentality to drown you out and of course report you in mass to administrators here.  The strategy worked but was ethically disgusting behaviour. 

 

I actually agree with many of the herds pro vaccine beliefs but they became so obnoxious that I had a hard time consuming their message regardless if it was valid or not.  I don't like Trump but would even vote for someone I like less than him if it meant having more free speech and choice.  This herd mentality we experienced a few years back was evil and   when the group becomes one cohesive mob the empowerment they gained was sickening.  I can only hope those days are gone ...

[Stiddle Mump]

On 4/21/2025 at 10:25 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Every single thing you’ve written, Stiddle Mump, reads like the deranged scribblings of a crank who mistook their own ignorance for insight. It’s not just wrong — it’s pathetically wrong, like watching a child insist the moon is made of cheese.

Thanks for that bit of wisdom Richard.

 

A virus, any viirus, has never been isolated and never been shown to cause disease.

 

Do you Sir, have a problem with the word 'isolation'? For sure virologists do. They follow Enders' 1954 procedures in principle to this day. Get some mucus/snot. Put it a petri dish. Mix in this. Add that. A bit more of this preservative. A little dye. Some molecular metal. Then starve the soup/mix.

 

Deterioration occurs!!

 

Ah see! That virus has shown its true self. Put the sample into the PCR and let's have a closer butchers. We have the code Sir; but not all of it. Put it into the computuer to fill in the missing parts. Eureka! a new variant.

 

It's all utter nonsense. 

 

We are told that a person with covid can sneeze out a million viruses in one go. They only go as far as 2 metres however. Then they hit the invisible wall. Would it not be possible to capture some and isolate them? Of course not. Wouldn't want to let the cat out of the bag now would we?! Far better to prove their existence in the traditional Enders way. Keeps us in a job.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.