ALL VACCINES WILL KILL YOU - The evidence is overwhelming

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, Airalee said:

You have so many cut and past comments from things that you’ve googled (and failed to attribute the source) that blathering on about others intellectual mediocrity is laughable.

 

Feel free to deny it and I’ll post the proof.

 

Go ahead - post the proof of 'my cut and paste'... 

[Mike_Hunt]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

There were over 1.2 million COVID deaths in the USA. Many had associated co-morbidities.

 

I really doubt a nation with 40% obesity can be described as healthy.

As of 2022, two-thirds of Australian adults were overweight or obese, with 34% being overweight and 32% being obese.42 The prevalence of obesity is rising among Australian adults, with severe obesity (Class III, defined as a Body Mass Index [BMI] of 40 or more) more than doubling from 2.2% in 2007-08 to 4.6% in 2022-23.2 By 2025, it is predicted that the Australian adult obesity rate alone will reach 35%, and the rate of severe obesity will reach 13%.

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, Airalee said:

He constantly cuts and pastes from google.  Never gives credit either.

 

Intellectual fraud.

 

Which is it ?? am I cutting and pasting from Google, or I am an AI bot ???  

 

Such stupid comments.

[ElwoodP]

Flame removed 

@richard_smith237

While this section of the forum allows personal opinions to be aired and discussed that may be considered less than factual or scientific, you still need to be polite and civil to other forum members.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Delete

[BLMFem]

On 4/25/2025 at 5:53 PM, BritManToo said:

In 1998 I was indirectly involved in making a documentary for Channel 4.......

Doorman?

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Doorman?

Tea lady, an important role in any office.

[cjinchiangrai]

3 hours ago, MicroB said:

Why do the Moderators of the forum tolerate this nonsense?

 

Because this forum is moderated by the same right wing morons posting this disinformation nonsense.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I refused vaccines from age 13, and I'm still here.

Polio and tetanus were given to me before I learned to say no.

My first refusal was smallpox, I didn't like the look of the scar, and they tried to give it to me at the start of the summer hols, not to go swimming for 6 weeks. NO!

 

The tetanus shot was interesting, done by the school nurse, 30 of is lined up in a corridor, all injected with the same shared needle, what could possibly have gone wrong!

 

I regret caving into COVID X2 but I did because of all the threats to my personal freedom. Without the coercion, I would never have allowed them.

There is a vaccination for rabies. Also for Japanese encephalitis.

 

Both affect the brain, you should be safe.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Because this forum is moderated by the same right wing morons posting this disinformation nonsense.

What are you nuts 

 

Think you got that wrong, I'm pretty sure the Mods lean a wee bit left.  Irrelevant, what ever you post, if reported, better have an acceptable link, from a credible source.

[cjinchiangrai]

35 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

What are you nuts 

 

Think you got that wrong, I'm pretty sure the Mods lean a wee bit left.  Irrelevant, what ever you post, if reported, better have an acceptable link, from a credible source.

That would be a first for you.

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

 

That's real science, man. 

 

I believe that to be relevant, a meme must fulfill two criteria:

 

- Be grounded in truth

- Shine light on an issue worthy of debate

 

Regarding this one, let's have a closer look then:

 

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8255173/

[cjinchiangrai]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I believe that to be relevant, a meme must fulfill two criteria:

 

- Be grounded in truth

- Shine light on an issue worthy of debate

 

Regarding this one, let's have a closer look then:

 

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8255173/

VAERS is unverified raw data posted by any idiot with a computer. it is useless as a data source for any meaningful analysis. Any paper referencing VAERS is as bogus as the data they started with. 

[rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

VAERS is unverified raw data posted by any idiot with a computer. it is useless as a data source for any meaningful analysis. Any paper referencing VAERS is as bogus as the data they started with. 

 

It is very flawed, that much I agree with. But the main flaw is related to underreporting. So if you have an alarming statistic showing up, that is a red flag warranting investigation. And refusal to carry out said investigation in a second red flag.

[cjinchiangrai]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

It is very flawed, that much I agree with. But the main flaw is related to underreporting. So if you have an alarming statistic showing up, that is a red flag warranting investigation. And refusal to carry out said investigation in a second red flag.

Without verification, there is no valid data at all, 

[rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Without verification, there is no valid data at all, 

 

Indeed, and verification there should be, that's the purpose of the tool.

 

VAERS is a tool designed for assessing the safety of vaccines. This data will be assessed and any causation (or lack thereof) with the vaccines will be established. Any significant variation in data, while not proving anything taken alone as you said, is a warning sign to be taken into account and assessed.

 

From the VAERS website:

 

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can often quickly detect an early hint or warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. VAERS is one component of CDC's and FDA's multifaceted approach to monitoring safety after vaccines are licensed or authorized for use. There are multiple, complementary systems that CDC and FDA use to capture and validate data from different sources. VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also referred to as “safety signals.”

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html#:~:text=The strengths of VAERS are,licensed or authorized for use.

[cjinchiangrai]

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Indeed, and verification there should be, that's the purpose of the tool.

 

VAERS is a tool designed for assessing the safety of vaccines. This data will be assessed and any causation (or lack thereof) with the vaccines will be established. Any significant variation in data, while not proving anything taken alone as you said, is a warning sign to be taken into account and assessed.

 

From the VAERS website:

 

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can often quickly detect an early hint or warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. VAERS is one component of CDC's and FDA's multifaceted approach to monitoring safety after vaccines are licensed or authorized for use. There are multiple, complementary systems that CDC and FDA use to capture and validate data from different sources. VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also referred to as “safety signals.”

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html#:~:text=The strengths of VAERS are,licensed or authorized for use.

And the weakness is that any anti-vax MAGA moron with a computer account can post unverified lies on VAERS. Anything based on VAERS data is badly skewed nonsense, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt 

[rattlesnake]

3 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

And the weakness is that any anti-vax MAGA moron with a computer account can post unverified lies on VAERS. Anything based on VAERS data is badly skewed nonsense, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt 

 

True in theory, but in practice, it is notoriously difficult to log an event on this system and therefore the proportion of fake reports is unlikely to be significant. And again, any statistical anomaly is merely a warning signal warranting further investigation, the anomaly itself can't be used to prove anything.

[cjinchiangrai]

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

True in theory, but in practice, it is notoriously difficult to log an event on this system and therefore the proportion of fake reports is unlikely to be significant. And again, any statistical anomaly is merely a warning signal warranting further investigation, the anomaly itself can't be used to prove anything.

Anything based on VAERS is nonsense. Full stop!

[rattlesnake]

Just now, cjinchiangrai said:

Anything based on VAERS is nonsense. Full stop!

 

Anything based on VAERS could be nonsense. Refusal to investigate is dubious to say the least.

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I believe that to be relevant, a meme must fulfill two criteria:

 

- Be grounded in truth

- Shine light on an issue worthy of debate

 

Regarding this one, let's have a closer look then:

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8255173/

 

I've seen that article before, and have heard of Neil Z. Miller too. He's a known anti-vaxxer, not exactly someone I'd call impartial. That said, the article itself makes some strong points.

 

Here’s what Miller claims:

Temporal Clustering: He looked at 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, and found that 58% of them happened within three days of vaccination, and 78.3% within seven days. Statistically significant (p < 0.00001) — no denying that.

 

Literature Review: Miller pulls in a number of studies and case reports suggesting a possible link between vaccines and sudden unexplained infant deaths.

 

Proposed Mechanisms: He throws out a few possible biological explanations — like inflammatory cytokines messing with the infant medulla, adjuvants crossing the blood-brain barrier and affecting respiratory control, and the idea that giving multiple vaccines at once could cause synergistic toxicity.

 

 

BUT... While the study raises some interesting points, there are some major issues that undermine its conclusions...  I'll list those below.. 

 

Nature of VAERS Data: Passive System: VAERS is passive - it relies on people voluntarily reporting events. That means underreporting, over-reporting, and a lot of noise in the data.

No Causality: Just because an event is reported to VAERS doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. It just means the two happened around the same time.

 

Temporal Association ≠ Causation: Just because deaths happened shortly after vaccination doesn’t prove the vaccine was to blame.

Babies get a lot of vaccines in their first few months - which also happens to be the peak window for SIDS.
So you get an overlap that looks suspicious, but it doesn’t automatically mean one caused the other.

 

No Control Group: There’s no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated babies in Miller’s study. Without that, you can’t really say if the rates he’s pointing at are unusual at all.

For context: From 1990 to 2019, there were about 130,000 SIDS deaths in the US. Only 2,605 were reported in VAERS. So the data’s incomplete - though, to be fair, it’s all they’ve got to work with.

 

Author Bias: Miller’s reputation as an anti-vaccine activist isn’t exactly a secret. His past work has been rightly criticised for cherry-picking and bias, and that definitely colours this study too.

 

Selective Literature Review: He mainly cites studies that support his theory and conveniently ignores the mountain of research that supports vaccine safety.
That’s not how honest science is done.

 

Speculative Mechanisms: Sure, the biological mechanisms he proposes are theoretically possible.
But there's no direct, solid evidence linking those mechanisms to vaccine-related sudden infant death.

 

 

Now, stepping back a little... 

Extensive research absolutely supports the safety of infant vaccines - and it pretty much dismantles Miller’s arguments:

 

Epidemiological Studies: Massive studies, like one published in The Journal of Pediatrics, found no increased risk of SIDS after immunisation.

 

Public Health Data: Since widespread infant vaccination programmes started, SIDS rates have actually dropped in many countries - not gone up.

 

Regulatory Oversight: Organisations like the CDC and WHO keep a constant watch on vaccine safety — and they haven’t found any causal link between vaccines and SIDS.

 

---------------

 

I want to add a little about the flaws in Miller's work...

 

Misuse of VAERS Data: He leans on VAERS reports to push vaccine scare stories, despite the fact that VAERS is a messy, unverified data set that can’t establish causality.

Experts constantly warn against using VAERS this way - it’s straight up misleading.

 

Ecological Fallacies: In stuff like his 2011 paper (co-authored with Gary Goldman), Miller claims that more vaccines = higher infant mortality across countries.
But critics have pointed out (correctly) that these kinds of studies are riddled with confounding factors and can't actually prove anything.
David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and fierce critic of pseudoscience, has labeled these conclusions as "bad science" that misrepresents data to promote anti-vaccine narratives. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-and-infant-mortality-rates-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement-again-12-years-later

 

Lack of Peer Review:
A lot of Miller's papers are published in sketchy journals with minimal (or nonexistent) peer review - like Medical Veritas. That alone should raise big red flags about the scientific quality of his work.

 

Confirmation Bias: In his books like Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, he only highlights studies that support his anti-vaccine stance and ignores the much larger body of evidence showing that vaccines are safe and effective - its not an impartial study by any means.

 

 

------------

 

Thus: While the article presents data indicating a temporal association between infant vaccinations and sudden deaths, it does not establish a causal relationship. The reliance on passive reporting data, absence of control groups, potential author bias, and selective literature review limit the study's validity.... and thats just what I can pick out from the paper. Experts would tear it a apart !

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

True in theory, but in practice, it is notoriously difficult to log an event on this system and therefore the proportion of fake reports is unlikely to be significant. And again, any statistical anomaly is merely a warning signal warranting further investigation, the anomaly itself can't be used to prove anything.

 

I completely agree with this. VAERS serves as an initial "flag" to identify potential patterns that may justify further investigation. However, any subsequent inquiry must be impartial and robust, avoiding the pitfall of using VAERS data as the sole basis for conclusions. It is essential that the investigation be independent of the biases inherent in the VAERS system itself.

[rattlesnake]

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I've seen that article before, and have heard of Neil Z. Miller too. He's a known anti-vaxxer, not exactly someone I'd call impartial. That said, the article itself makes some strong points.

 

Here’s what Miller claims:

Temporal Clustering: He looked at 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, and found that 58% of them happened within three days of vaccination, and 78.3% within seven days. Statistically significant (p < 0.00001) — no denying that.

 

Literature Review: Miller pulls in a number of studies and case reports suggesting a possible link between vaccines and sudden unexplained infant deaths.

 

Proposed Mechanisms: He throws out a few possible biological explanations — like inflammatory cytokines messing with the infant medulla, adjuvants crossing the blood-brain barrier and affecting respiratory control, and the idea that giving multiple vaccines at once could cause synergistic toxicity.

 

 

BUT... While the study raises some interesting points, there are some major issues that undermine its conclusions...  I'll list those below.. 

 

Nature of VAERS Data: Passive System: VAERS is passive - it relies on people voluntarily reporting events. That means underreporting, over-reporting, and a lot of noise in the data.

No Causality: Just because an event is reported to VAERS doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. It just means the two happened around the same time.

 

Temporal Association ≠ Causation: Just because deaths happened shortly after vaccination doesn’t prove the vaccine was to blame.

Babies get a lot of vaccines in their first few months - which also happens to be the peak window for SIDS.
So you get an overlap that looks suspicious, but it doesn’t automatically mean one caused the other.

 

No Control Group: There’s no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated babies in Miller’s study. Without that, you can’t really say if the rates he’s pointing at are unusual at all.

For context: From 1990 to 2019, there were about 130,000 SIDS deaths in the US. Only 2,605 were reported in VAERS. So the data’s incomplete - though, to be fair, it’s all they’ve got to work with.

 

Author Bias: Miller’s reputation as an anti-vaccine activist isn’t exactly a secret. His past work has been rightly criticised for cherry-picking and bias, and that definitely colours this study too.

 

Selective Literature Review: He mainly cites studies that support his theory and conveniently ignores the mountain of research that supports vaccine safety.
That’s not how honest science is done.

 

Speculative Mechanisms: Sure, the biological mechanisms he proposes are theoretically possible.
But there's no direct, solid evidence linking those mechanisms to vaccine-related sudden infant death.

 

 

Now, stepping back a little... 

Extensive research absolutely supports the safety of infant vaccines - and it pretty much dismantles Miller’s arguments:

 

Epidemiological Studies: Massive studies, like one published in The Journal of Pediatrics, found no increased risk of SIDS after immunisation.

 

Public Health Data: Since widespread infant vaccination programmes started, SIDS rates have actually dropped in many countries - not gone up.

 

Regulatory Oversight: Organisations like the CDC and WHO keep a constant watch on vaccine safety — and they haven’t found any causal link between vaccines and SIDS.

 

---------------

 

I want to add a little about the flaws in Miller's work...

 

Misuse of VAERS Data: He leans on VAERS reports to push vaccine scare stories, despite the fact that VAERS is a messy, unverified data set that can’t establish causality.

Experts constantly warn against using VAERS this way - it’s straight up misleading.

 

Ecological Fallacies: In stuff like his 2011 paper (co-authored with Gary Goldman), Miller claims that more vaccines = higher infant mortality across countries.
But critics have pointed out (correctly) that these kinds of studies are riddled with confounding factors and can't actually prove anything.
David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and fierce critic of pseudoscience, has labeled these conclusions as "bad science" that misrepresents data to promote anti-vaccine narratives. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-and-infant-mortality-rates-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement-again-12-years-later

 

Lack of Peer Review:
A lot of Miller's papers are published in sketchy journals with minimal (or nonexistent) peer review - like Medical Veritas. That alone should raise big red flags about the scientific quality of his work.

 

Confirmation Bias: In his books like Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, he only highlights studies that support his anti-vaccine stance and ignores the much larger body of evidence showing that vaccines are safe and effective - its not an impartial study by any means.

 

 

------------

 

Thus: While the article presents data indicating a temporal association between infant vaccinations and sudden deaths, it does not establish a causal relationship. The reliance on passive reporting data, absence of control groups, potential author bias, and selective literature review limit the study's validity.... and thats just what I can pick out from the paper. Experts would tear it a apart !

 

I could give you more testimonies, opinions and papers, such as from Dr. Paul Thomas or Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (I have "antivaxxer" sources which list them and have them readily available), but ultimately, your comments don't strike me as irrelevant.

 

Of course these people have confirmation bias and everything it entails, in fact I do to, and so do you, that's just the way it is. So what should be done? A good first step would be a methodologically rock solid assessment of this issue, which has not happened so far, there have been too many omissions and manipulations by the pharmaceutical industry, which has led us to where we are today. There are reasons for this exponential growth of mistrust in "science" and I don't think denying it is a productive approach.

 

I hope RFK's coming studies will be beyond reproach from a methodological viewpoint: whatever the results are, they need to be indisputable (especially given his antivaxxer reputation). 

 

Let's wait and see.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

A good first step would be a methodologically rock solid assessment of this issue, which has not happened so far, there have been too many omissions and manipulations by the pharmaceutical industry, which has led us to where we are today.

 

While I consider the existing body of scientific evidence as robust, I also agree with you that additional, rigorous assessments are necessary - albeit for different reasons.

 

The growing influence of the anti-vaccine movement is (IMO) causing harm to public health, and this issue must be addressed.

 

To combat this, it is essential that future studies be conducted with complete impartiality and transparency, ensuring that the findings are not only credible but also accessible to the public.

 

By providing clear and unbiased data, we can counter misinformation and foster trust in vaccines, which are one of the most effective tools in safeguarding global health.

 

 

But even if impartial and transparent studies were conducted, conclusively proving that vaccines are safe, would the anti-vaccination movement ever change their stance?

 

Conversely, If it could be conclusively proven that vaccines were dangerous for even a tiny minority, would existing opinions, medical expertise, and even the stance of governments and big pharmaceutical companies change ? - I think they would.

 

And... that’s where the fundamental divide lies.... On one side, there are those whose beliefs are driven by deeply held ideologies or misinformation, and no matter how much evidence is presented, their stance remains unwavering. Their resistance to change often stems from a complex mix of emotional, social, and cognitive factors, with the spread of misinformation exacerbated by social media amplifying their views.

 

On the other side, you have those committed to public health and scientific integrity - healthcare professionals, governments, and regulatory bodies. These entities are bound by a duty to protect the public, and their stance is not rooted in ideology but in evidence and data. If credible, irrefutable evidence were presented showing vaccines to be harmful, this side would have to adapt, recalibrate, and even shift public health strategies, as they are grounded in the evolving understanding of science.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

There are reasons for this exponential growth of mistrust in "science" and I don't think denying it is a productive approach.

 

Yes, the reason lies primarily with social media. Too many laypeople have the platform to spread alarmist misinformation far and wide, often without fully understanding the science behind the claims.

 

Many people, swayed by persuasive arguments and partial truths, fail to critically assess the information they encounter. This unchecked flow of misleading content spreads rapidly, shaping opinions based on incomplete or distorted facts, rather than on the solid evidence.

[rattlesnake]

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

On the other side, you have those committed to public health and scientific integrity - healthcare professionals, governments, and regulatory bodies. These entities are bound by a duty to protect the public, and their stance is not rooted in ideology but in evidence and data. If credible, irrefutable evidence were presented showing vaccines to be harmful, this side would have to adapt, recalibrate, and even shift public health strategies, as they are grounded in the evolving understanding of science.

 

While I definitely agree with the last sentence, I do have reservations about the "scientific integrity" alleged in the first one: look at that article I posted in this thread about the kickbacks paid to physicians per vaccine given. Do you acknowledge the reality of this, and do you consider it ethical?

 

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yes, the reason lies primarily with social media. Too many laypeople have the platform to spread alarmist misinformation far and wide, often without fully understanding the science behind the claims.

 

Many people, swayed by persuasive arguments and partial truths, fail to critically assess the information they encounter. This unchecked flow of misleading content spreads rapidly, shaping opinions based on incomplete or distorted facts, rather than on the solid evidence.

 

Fair enough, but I really do think there is an empirical aspect to this. From what I have seen in the "antivaxxer" realm, there are lots of reasonable parents who are not really active on social media (and therefore not that susceptible to it), but who simply realised the temporal causation between their children's vaccination and the appearance of symptoms of autism, hyperactivity, epilepsy etc.

 

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

But even if impartial and transparent studies were conducted, conclusively proving that vaccines are safe, would the anti-vaccination movement ever change their stance?

 

They would have to and eventually would, whether they liked it or not. Hence the utmost importance of such studies being carried out.