ALL VACCINES WILL KILL YOU - The evidence is overwhelming

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Which country and region was this, if you don't mind saying?

Morayshire, in NE Scotland.

 

[cjinchiangrai]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The point was consistant with the OP, the gullible are easily led.

It was a deliberate misdirection. There is no viral infection transmitted by unpasteurized beer.

[BritManToo]

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

US CDC: Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger

 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf

I wonder how many of those children gave their informed consent to be vaccinated?

I wasn't asked once ...... and when I started refusing (age 13) they clearly hadn't even considered asking for their patients consent!

 

Anyways, the pro-vaxxers have lost, after the coerced COVID vaccinations I'm betting at least 25% of western populations will be refusing many vaccinations, unless force or deception is used.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

That is why draft beer is delivered cold. It has a shelf life of a few weeks. 

It is not that long ago draft beer was never "cold".  Served from wooden firkins behind the bar, kept cool with a wet towel and cleared with finings.

Of course some nationalities have never seen real ale.

[kiwikeith]

On 4/25/2025 at 8:40 AM, save the frogs said:

theory is nonsense.

we all had a bunch of vaccines as kids.

people generally die of cancer, diabetes, heart issues, which is caused by lifestyle and also genetics 

 

Lifestyle is the leader in cancer, genetics a distant second 

[Briggsy]

Why are there several anti-vaccination threads?

 

This is a ridiculous fad based on political ideology and mistrust of authorities. It seems to be popular amongst those leaning to the current version of the hard right but is not limited to this group as it is also popular amongst blacks. (an unusual alliance) It lacks any scientific evidence and indeed flies in the face of it.

 

Social media has sadly replaced critical thinking in the minds of many.

[cjinchiangrai]

3 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Why are there several anti-vaccination threads?

 

This is a ridiculous fad based on political ideology and mistrust of authorities. It seems to be popular amongst those leaning to the current version of the hard right but is not limited to this group as it is also popular amongst blacks. (an unusual alliance) It lacks any scientific evidence and indeed flies in the face of it.

 

Social media has sadly replaced critical thinking in the minds of many.

And those leaning to the hard right also happen to be leaning to the hard stupid. Fascists love the poorly educated,

[hotsun]

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I wonder how many of those children gave their informed consent to be vaccinated?

I wasn't asked once ...... and when I started refusing (age 13) they clearly hadn't even considered asking for their patients consent!

 

Anyways, the pro-vaxxers have lost, after the coerced COVID vaccinations I'm betting at least 25% of western populations will be refusing vaccinations, unless force or deception is used.

OP should stick with anti covid stuff. The antivax on a forum of people living in thailand with dengue and polio still possible is dumb as <deleted>

[cjinchiangrai]

6 minutes ago, kiwikeith said:

Lifestyle is the leader in cancer, genetics a distant second 

Particularly  since many diseases that killed us younger were under control. The anti-vax movement is a ploy to depopulate YOU.

[BritManToo]

12 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

This is a ridiculous fad based on political ideology and mistrust of authorities. It seems to be popular amongst those leaning to the current version of the hard right but is not limited to this group as it is also popular amongst blacks. (an unusual alliance) It lacks any scientific evidence and indeed flies in the face of it.

 

Social media has sadly replaced critical thinking in the minds of many.

Science says eating less and exercising more will give me a long and healthy life.

Presumably you're in favour of our governments forcing us all to participate.

Or do you not believe in critical thinking?

[cjinchiangrai]

Just now, BritManToo said:

Science says eating less and exercising more will give me a long and healthy life.

Presumably you're in favour of our governments forcing us all to participate.

Or do you not believe in critical thinking?

Good luck, and when you get sick, don't waste the hospitals time.

[cjinchiangrai]

12 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is not that long ago draft beer was never "cold".  Served from wooden firkins behind the bar, kept cool with a wet towel and cleared with finings.

Of course some nationalities have never seen real ale.

And some don't live in cold rainy places.

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Good luck, and when you get sick, don't waste the hospitals time.

Hospitals make money from treating me

I doubt they consider me turning up as wasting their time.

I'd imagine their thinking would be more like, that's a nice profit!

[sandyf]

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I wonder how many of those children gave their informed consent to be vaccinated?

I wasn't asked once ...... and when I started refusing (age 13) they clearly hadn't even considered asking for their patients consent!

 

Anyways, the pro-vaxxers have lost, after the forced COVID vaccinations I'm betting at least 25% of western populations will be refusing vaccinations, unless force or deception is used.

When I joined the RAF what you already had was irrelevant, we were all marched down to sick quarters weekly until we had received all available jabs.

How would any military or essential  services function if all anti vaxxers that had gone sick in an outbreak.

Time people grew up and accepted some social responsibility.

[cjinchiangrai]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

When I joined the RAF what you already had was irrelevant, we were all marched down to sick quarters weekly until we had received all available jabs.

How would any military or essential  services function if all anti vaxxers that had gone sick in an outbreak.

Time people grew up and accepted some social responsibility.

We found out in WWI with the Spanish Flu. There is a reason we don't care if children don't like needles.

[BritManToo]

26 minutes ago, sandyf said:

When I joined the RAF what you already had was irrelevant, we were all marched down to sick quarters weekly until we had received all available jabs.

How would any military or essential  services function if all anti vaxxers that had gone sick in an outbreak.

Time people grew up and accepted some social responsibility.

Violence is wrong, nobody should be participating in government mandated murder.

Spanish flu ended WW1. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing?

But if the western world wasn't starving and at war would the Spanish flu have been such a problem?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 hours ago, rumak said:

 

The media , the MAIN street media, which until recently controlled the "information" fed to the masses........... has been shown now, over and over, to have lied and continue to remain 100% biased even as they are now sinking, sinking, sinking.

This has been proved beyond any doubt . Even showing the clips on TV of the covid pushers making false claims ( you will NEVER get covid.  you can not transmit covid , simple cloth masks  and distancing will protect you,  staying home will save your grandmother.....etc etc etc.  .....finally to   just need more boosters !)..... can not penetrate their thick defenses. 

 

There is no reasoning with the manic defenders of the status quo that is trying to maintain that control .  The control which even the ordinary man who does not write in arrogant , superior feeling attitudes.....  can see with their own eyes what is true. 

 

I need no scientific evidence to know when someone is only fighting for one main reason;  to be right.   To win.   At that point... they are just a waste of time to me. 

The game is so easy to see ,  and yet the carousel keeps going on and on. 

The game is so simple ! :

the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

Trump gets it .   No more BS .   Rumak gets it .  No more BS.  

 

 

 

Here we have the classic victim post. Boo hoo. People didn't get it totally right all of the time and therefore I am going to paint them bad. False claims? Some were mistakes on the run, some actually correct e.g. masks can stop spread and staying home did help. How easy is it for people watching on to criticise those who have to act and make tough decisions. Things can be learnt, mistakes were made, some big ones but the vast majority did there best to keep people safe. 

Trump and RFK Jnr are the scammers ready to make the victims feel better about themselves. 

[richard_smith237]

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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?

 

I agreed that the US medical industry has serious issues with integrity - including documented kickbacks to physicians for administering vaccines, I agree that this is not only unethical, its morally reprehensible IMO.

 

That said important to recognise that the broader scientific consensus on vaccines comes from outside the US as well, from countries whose healthcare systems are not plagued by the same corruption and profit motives.

 

In Europe, Australia, Japan, and many other regions, independent research has repeatedly confirmed the safety and effectiveness of vaccines without the same financial entanglements.

 

Ironically, the rampant corruption within the US system may actually be a major reason why so many Americans distrust vaccines: their own institutions have taught them to be sceptical. But that doesn’t negate the findings of the global scientific community, who operate in systems with far more transparency and accountability.

 

I'd ask if you, Middle Stump, Red Phoenix, Rumak and johng are from any other nation than the USA.

 

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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.

 

It's understandable that parents seek explanations when something traumatic happens to their child, it’s human nature to search for external causes - especially ones that feel tangible and immediate.

 

Temporal association doesn’t prove causation, and when distressing symptoms like autism or epilepsy emerge, it's natural for parents to want a clear reason. Vaccines, being a recent and visible event, become an easy target.

 

But, this tendency doesn’t necessarily reflect an empirical reality - it reflects a deeply emotional and psychological need to find something to blame.

 

Just because symptoms appear after a vaccination doesn't mean the vaccination caused them, any more than rain the day after washing a car means the car wash caused the storm. Correlation and causation are dangerously easy to confuse, especially when emotions are involved.

 

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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

 

I agree that such studies should indeed be conducted, though my reasons differ from yours. I believe the anti-vaccine movement is causing significant harm, and it is vital to lay these misconceptions to rest - though I doubt this will ever fully be achieved.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the convictions held by many anti-vaxxers are rooted not in clear evidence but in deeply entrenched ideologies and self-reinforcing misinformation. No matter how much rigorous data is produced, their position remains largely impervious to reason. Thus, even with renewed studies and undeniable proof, I suspect that anti-establishment, anti-vaccine sentiment will persist indefinitely. 

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It's easy to rationalise when using abstract notions and representations such as "extremly rare" vs. "overwhelmingly", etc. Empirical observations, however, show a different picture.

 

While personal testimonies of vaccine injury are genuinely moving and deserve compassion, it is crucial to approach public health decisions based on rigorous evidence, not anecdote. Empirical observations at a population level overwhelmingly show that vaccines have saved millions of lives globally. This isn’t abstract theorising - it's hard data from countless studies, across nations, across age groups, across different vaccines.

 

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

This notion that "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" is problematic to say the least, when you actually have a look at the broken eggs. Watch a couple of testimonies of vaccine-injured people (roughly half an hour each), realise what is actually happening and imagine for a minute if this had happened to you or someone close to you. This is something the vaccine proponents have difficulty doing, in fact I have never managed to convince one to actually go there: it is much preferable and easier for them to remain in the realm of abstract notions and statistics.

 

The "broken eggs" metaphor is misused: vaccines are not casual sacrifices. Every serious side effect is taken seriously, monitored, studied, and continuously reassessed. That's why adverse event reporting systems exist, like VAERS in the US and the Yellow Card scheme in the UK. If underreporting exists, it still doesn't alter the clear, repeated finding that the risk from viral diseases themself is far, far greater than the risk from vaccines, including for young people.

 

Additionally, the argument that "watching a few testimonials" somehow overturns the scientific consensus misunderstands the nature of evidence. Individual cases, tragic as they may be, do not invalidate broader trends any more than a few bad car accidents prove that driving should be banned. Public health policy is not based on emotional snapshots; it's design is based on reproducible, statistically sound data. Vaccines reduce hospitalisations, severe disease, and deaths by orders of magnitude - including among the young and healthy.

 

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I encourage you to go on John Campbell's YouTube channel and watch the videos of Mel, Adam and Kyle (three cases among many more), and confront one of the undeniable facets of what you condone. These were young, healthy people before taking the Covid jab. Intellectual honesty demands that every aspect of an issue, even those we don't like or want to see, be taken into account before taking a stance.

 

John Campbell's later work, particularly during the pandemic, has been criticised for cherry-picking evidence and drifting into sensationalism. Seeking truth requires consulting the full spectrum of high-quality evidence - not just emotive, selective cases that confirm pre-existing biases.

 

Finally, real intellectual honesty demands recognising scale. It demands acknowledging that public health will always involve weighing risks and benefits for everyone, not just reacting to the most visible or heartbreaking outliers. The vaccine programme wasn’t perfect - no major intervention ever is - but it remains one of the greatest contributors to the ending of the worst phases of a pandemic. That’s not abstraction. That’s reality.

 

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Also notable is the fact that these seriously injured people often have a very hard time having their injuries officially recognised, and therefore they are not included in those statistics which you hold so dearly…

 

Public health decisions rely on broad evidence, not isolated anecdotes, because protecting millions requires perspective, not cherry-picking - aggregate statistics are key.

 

[impulse]

On 4/25/2025 at 7:59 AM, Red Phoenix said:

Okay, no more pussyfooting, here the blunt in-your-face truth supported by overwhelming factual evidence:

ALL VACCINES WILL KILL YOU

 

 

…not only is there not a single vaccine that is safe, effective, or in any way necessary, but they will all harm you in varying degrees over time; to wit:

 

 

And autism is a particularly devastating vaccine adverse event that drains entire families of resources and generational wealth. 

 

 

What are the odds of triplets all coming down with autism at the same exact time right after getting their poison childhood vaccines?

 

If Bobby Kennedy and his HHS do not commence the process of stripping all of the liability protections for the entire vaccine schedule by September, then we may need to rethink the entire MAHA movement. In the meantime, Kennedy needs all of our support as he not so much investigates the cause of autism — he full well knows already — but finally publicly admits that which has been so painfully obvious to anyone paying even a scintilla of attention…

 

> The above is a shortened intro-text by 

to the article by Jeffrey A. Tucker from the Brownstone Institute on Vaccines and autism (to be rendered in another thread).  

 

Citation:

https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/all-vaccines-will-kill-you-vaccines

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com

https://chd.tv/

 

 

= = =

 

While I'm pleased that we are finally able to discuss the topic, I'll also be pleased when the statistics are better attributed and understood. 

 

The problem I see here (the OP) is that the comparison is the death rate in a vaccinated populace, which may be very different from the death rate if there were no vaccines.  That may indicate very different best practices.

 

In another post, someone claims that the death rate for measles is 3/800 which is the death rate of measles patients, but not the death rate of the average Joe wondering whether to get the MMR or not.  That death rate is 3/350,000,000.  But that's the death rate for a mostly vaccinated populace, confusing the numbers even more.

 

Someone else claims (accurately) that the death rate for rabies is 100%.  But that's not the death rate for people who have been bitten, only those few who contract rabies.  And definitely not the death rate for the average Joe whose odds of even being bitten are miniscule.

I'm just hoping RKK, Jr and his team make some sense of the data that is out there, but not being honestly compiled, collated and reported.  Whether that's to push a narrative, sell a product, or just because there are a few hacks in science that think they're geniuses.

 

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Violence is wrong, nobody should be participating in government mandated murder.

Spanish flu ended WW1. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing?

But if the western world wasn't starving and at war would the Spanish flu have been such a problem?

 

This statement is emotionally charged but intellectually shallow. Phrases like "government mandated murder" are inflammatory, not reasoned - they substitute outrage for argument, which isn't serious discussion.

 

Saying "Spanish flu ended WWI" is historically lazy; the war was ending for many reasons, and reducing complex geopolitical events to a virus is neither accurate nor thoughtful.

 

I think you point to question whether the Spanish flu would have been "such a problem" had the world not been at war is a valid. Especially if we consider the impact of wartime conditions. Overcrowding in military camps, widespread malnutrition, and the overall weakened state of soldiers contributed significantly to the rapid transmission and increased lethality of the virus. These conditions created a perfect storm for the flu to spread unchecked. However, this does not mean that the pandemic was an inevitable or insurmountable catastrophe.

Had a vaccine been available at the time - as we are fortunate to have today - it is highly plausible that the pandemic could have been mitigated to a far greater extent.

 

Vaccination has proven time and again to be one of the most effective tools in preventing the spread of infectious diseases and reducing mortality rates, and its absence during the Spanish flu certainly played a role in the extent of the devastation.

 

 

[Hamus Yaigh]

On 4/25/2025 at 6:59 AM, Red Phoenix said:

ALL VACCINES WILL KILL YOU

The statement is fundamentally flawed and dangerous due to its reliance on misinformation, exaggeration, and conspiracy-driven rhetoric. Here's a brief breakdown of what's wrong and why someone might say it:

What's Wrong:

1. False Claims About Vaccines: The assertion that "all vaccines will kill you" or are universally harmful is not supported by scientific evidence. Vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy. Decades of data show they prevent millions of deaths annually from diseases like polio, measles, and smallpox. Side effects are rare and typically mild; severe adverse events, like anaphylaxis, occur in less than 0.01% of cases.
2. Misrepresentation of Autism: The claim that vaccines cause autism, particularly with the dramatic example of triplets, is baseless. Numerous studies, including a 2014 meta-analysis involving over 1.2 million children, found no link between vaccines and autism. Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition with genetic and environmental factors, not a "vaccine adverse event."
3. Conspiracy and Distrust: The statement invokes a distrust of institutions (e.g., HHS, vaccine manufacturers) and suggests a cover-up without evidence. Liability protections for vaccines exist to ensure supply stability, not to hide harm. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in the U.S. addresses rare cases of harm.
4. Hyperbolic Language: Terms like "poison" and "devastating" exaggerate risks and ignore the overwhelming benefits of vaccines, such as herd immunity and disease eradication. This emotional rhetoric obscures factual discussion.

Why Someone Might Say It:

1. Misinformation Echo Chambers: Individuals may be exposed to anti-vaccine content on platforms like X, where sensational claims spread rapidly. Confirmation bias leads them to accept unverified anecdotes over peer-reviewed science.
2. Distrust in Institutions: Historical events like the Tuskegee experiment or pharmaceutical scandals fuel skepticism about medical systems, making some receptive to blanket anti-vaccine narratives.
3. Emotional Appeal: Personal stories, like a family affected by autism, resonate emotionally. People may attribute complex conditions to a single cause (vaccines) for simplicity or to assign blame.
4. Political or Ideological Alignment: The reference to "Bobby Kennedy" and "MAHA" suggests alignment with figures or movements skeptical of mainstream science. Such statements can be a rallying cry to galvanize supporters or push political agendas.

In summary, the statement is a mix of debunked myths, emotional manipulation, and distrust, likely said to provoke fear or rally a specific audience. For accurate vaccine information, consult sources like the CDC or WHO, who idiots that spout the propaganda also want to de-fund surprise surprise.

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I wonder how many of those children gave their informed consent to be vaccinated?

I wasn't asked once ...... and when I started refusing (age 13) they clearly hadn't even considered asking for their patients consent!

 

Your refusal to take the smallpox vaccine at 13, as you admitted, wasn’t a decision made through informed consent, but out of vanity - a desire to avoid a scar before summer. This perfectly illustrates why parental consent should outweigh that of children.

 

At 13, a child lacks the maturity to fully understand the consequences of their choices, especially when influenced by superficial concerns. Parents, with their responsibility, are tasked with making decisions that protect a child's health and future, just as they guide them in other matters like education - its why you were  'sent to school' when you may not have wanted to go.

 

Parental consent in these matters is not about denying autonomy, but about ensuring that decisions are made with the gravity and understanding that a child simply cannot possess. It is an acknowledgment that, in many situations, a child’s immediate desires must be weighed against their future health, safety, and development.

 

 

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Anyways, the pro-vaxxers have lost, after the coerced COVID vaccinations I'm betting at least 25% of western populations will be refusing many vaccinations, unless force or deception is used.

 

The term "pro-vaxxers" is a misnomer - it's a label coined by 'anti-vaxxers' to create an opposing group to argue against. You could just as easily call us 'pro-science' because our position is grounded in the scientific evidence that vaccines work.

It's like calling someone a "pro-spherical-earther" - a label so absurd that it highlights how illogical and unnecessary the term "pro-vaxxer" truly is. The science doesn’t need a side; it just is, and those who trust it are just advocating for the facts.

 

If your claim is correct, that 25% of the Western population will refuse vaccines, then we can indeed expect to see increased outbreaks. In fact, we are already witnessing this with measles outbreaks in areas where vaccine rejection is higher, particularly in communities in the U.S. where vaccination rates have dropped.

 

These outbreaks are a direct consequence of the lower levels of herd immunity, which can only be maintained when a large majority of the population is vaccinated. The evidence is clear: rejecting vaccines puts entire communities at risk, and the consequences are already playing out in real time.

 

 

[rumak]

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Just because symptoms appear after a vaccination doesn't mean the vaccination caused them, any more than rain the day after washing a car means the car wash caused the storm. Correlation and causation are dangerously easy to confuse, especially when emotions are involved.

 

This insane comparison given by RS  gives a very clear insight into the mind of someone continually trying to impose opinions disguised as facts . 

Also a master of the classic bait that I exposed before :  the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

R Phoenix and others have posted numerous articles and studies by very knowledgable and credible sources..... only to be dismissed by the "opposing never to be convinced genuises here as  crazy <deleted> "  .  Meaning, not from the sources they are chained to.  

 

Then, when someone like me expresses my opinion.... based on my life experiences, they get sooooo upset and resort to the old bash Rumak  crap .  Like children .

My only objection was to the stupid ad hominem attacks and name calling .  Which of course RS and that chiangrai professor tried to turn around by saying I was the bad one attacking others.    hahah  Yep... the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

ok boys........... more fodder for the troops  😅

[Magictoad]

You have hijacked this forum to promote your lies and propaganda.

Nothing you say has any truth. The truth is vaccines saved millions of lives and prevented misery. YOU ARE DOING THE OPPOSITE.  SHAME ON YOU.

[Magictoad]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I wonder how many of those children gave their informed consent to be vaccinated?

I wasn't asked once ...... and when I started refusing (age 13) they clearly hadn't even considered asking for their patients consent!

 

Anyways, the pro-vaxxers have lost, after the coerced COVID vaccinations I'm betting at least 25% of western populations will be refusing many vaccinations, unless force or deception is used.

RUBBISH! Little children are not informed enough to give consent about medical matters.  I remember my Polio vaccination, at the time Polio was a serious problem in Europe. It was pitiful and frightening to see 'spastics' damaged by polio in their steel and leather leg irons. Thank you. I was informed.  Some illness have visible damage such a Polio. ANYONE arguing against a vaccine for Polio, Diphtheria, Measles and all the current illnesses are no better than mass murderers.

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Saying "Spanish flu ended WWI" is historically lazy; the war was ending for many reasons, and reducing complex geopolitical events to a virus is neither accurate nor thoughtful.

 

I think you point to question whether the Spanish flu would have been "such a problem" had the world not been at war is a valid. Especially if we consider the impact of wartime conditions. Overcrowding in military camps, widespread malnutrition, and the overall weakened state of soldiers contributed significantly to the rapid transmission and increased lethality of the virus. These conditions created a perfect storm for the flu to spread unchecked. However, this does not mean that the pandemic was an inevitable or insurmountable catastrophe.

Had a vaccine been available at the time - as we are fortunate to have today - it is highly plausible that the pandemic could have been mitigated to a far greater extent.

 

Yep, that's the official 'authorized narrative' regarding the Spanish Flu. 

If only we would have had those magical vaccines then, we would have prevented the 50-100 million deaths attributed to the Spanish Flu. 

But the Spanish Flu, didn't originate in Spain, it wasn't a Flu and was most probably caused by an early experimental vaccine given to US troops at Fort Riley in Kansas in 1918, that were then sent to Europe.

Here a summary from a 2018 article aptly titled: Did a Vaccine Experiment on U.S. Soldiers Cause the “Spanish Flu”?

Source: https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/did-a-military-experimental-vaccine-in-1918-kill-50-100-million-people-blamed-as-spanish-flu/

• The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.
• More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.
• The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus.
• The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas.
• From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.
• During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.
• One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
• The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime.  Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immuno-compromised.
• When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.
• During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the anti-meningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.

 

[richard_smith237]

21 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

This insane comparison given by RS  gives a very clear insight into the mind of someone continually trying to impose opinions disguised as facts . 

Also a master of the classic bait that I exposed before :  the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

R Phoenix and others have posted numerous articles and studies by very knowledgable and credible sources..... only to be dismissed by the "opposing never to be convinced genuises here as  crazy <deleted> "  .  Meaning, not from the sources they are chained to.  

 

Then, when someone like me expresses my opinion.... based on my life experiences, they get sooooo upset and resort to the old bash Rumak  crap .  Like children .

My only objection was to the stupid ad hominem attacks and name calling .  Which of course RS and that chiangrai professor tried to turn around by saying I was the bad one attacking others.    hahah  Yep... the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

ok boys........... more fodder for the troops  😅

 

You seem to think your life experiences are somehow more valid than science - now that’s genuinely comical.

 

There’s really no point in debating you when you’re incapable of bringing anything other than half-baked arguments to the table. Then, when someone calls you out, you throw a tantrum like a child who’s been “hurt” because you can’t handle the fact that all you’ve got are substandard attacks.

 

This isn’t personal - it’s a debate. But first, you’ve got to be able to actually engage in the debate itself, which, let’s be honest, you clearly aren’t which is why you keep trying to make it personal.  Neither is Middle, who just repeats the same tired nonsense over and over. Red might throw out a bunch of info, but it’s basically just a copy-paste job from anti-vax sources, its interesting to read and understand the Anti-vax line of thinking, but it rarely adda anything new or credible to the discussion. At least Rattlesnake does a decent job of presenting thoughtful anti-vaccination arguments that spark actual discussion and intelligent debate, even if he’s dropped the ball a few times. It’s a shame the rest of you can’t seem to keep up.

 

 

 

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Here we have the classic victim post. Boo hoo. People didn't get it totally right all of the time and therefore I am going to paint them bad. False claims? Some were mistakes on the run, some actually correct e.g. masks can stop spread and staying home did help. How easy is it for people watching on to criticise those who have to act and make tough decisions. Things can be learnt, mistakes were made, some big ones but the vast majority did there best to keep people safe. 

Trump and RFK Jnr are the scammers ready to make the victims feel better about themselves. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

46 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

This insane comparison given by RS  gives a very clear insight into the mind of someone continually trying to impose opinions disguised as facts . 

Also a master of the classic bait that I exposed before :  the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

R Phoenix and others have posted numerous articles and studies by very knowledgable and credible sources..... only to be dismissed by the "opposing never to be convinced genuises here as  crazy <deleted> "  .  Meaning, not from the sources they are chained to.  

 

Then, when someone like me expresses my opinion.... based on my life experiences, they get sooooo upset and resort to the old bash Rumak  crap .  Like children .

My only objection was to the stupid ad hominem attacks and name calling .  Which of course RS and that chiangrai professor tried to turn around by saying I was the bad one attacking others.    hahah  Yep... the age old practice of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

 

ok boys........... more fodder for the troops  😅

But your posts come across as attacking others - you say things like ' The media , the MAIN street media, which until recently controlled the "information" fed to the masses........... has been shown now, over and over, to have lied and continue to remain 100% biased even as they are now sinking, sinking, sinking. '

To me that is an attack on most mainstream  media  that did a really good job and who got a lot right and a little wrong - much better strike rate than the non main stream.

Terms like 'controlled the "information"' and 'lied' suggests a serious conscious conspiracy both from the medical establishments and the media and I don't think this  is representative of overall reality . Doesn't mean bad players don't exist or mistakes weren't made. 

Or you might say you never got it without - it seems - considering that government actions on the pandemic and others taking precautions such as mask wearing and staying separate may have played a role in that. 

I am not trying to be personal but to point how others might interpret your words.