ALL VACCINES WILL KILL YOU - The evidence is overwhelming

[cjinchiangrai]

On 4/26/2025 at 4:34 PM, sandyf said:

Where there is contention, always a buck to be made.

AI Overview 

Chang has launched an unpasteurized beer in a screw-top aluminum bottle, aiming to tap into the growing premium beer market in Thailand. This new product is available at 7-Eleven stores nationwide. Chang's unpasteurized beer is designed to appeal to consumers seeking a premium taste and experience, with its innovative packaging and focus on freshness. 

So what? Still off topic.

[MangoKorat]

5 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

What is this crap you speak of Sir?

Nice try but a failure I'm afraid. To rational people the answer is obvious, if you think I'm getting drawn into this ridiculous thread, you're very wrong.

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

[Edit after 20 minutes: shout-out to the person who actually laughed at this post, IMO you epitomise everything wrong with today's world.]

 

100% agree...     

 

I've liked a lot of your content, not because I agree with it - but because I appreciate the intelligence with which you have presented your argument... 

 

We need another emoji - "I respect the point but disagree"...   

 

 

 

 

[cjinchiangrai]

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I feel the same way about posters that can't present a solid argument without calling other posters stupid or idiots or ignorant or mass murderers!

Fair enough but you deserve an exception. Your ant-vax rants are full of dangerous baseless lies. BTW, Black Death is bacterial and easily treated with antibiotics, or don't you believe in them either?

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I am French (though I was born and have lived in the UK).

 

(I actually knew that from one of your other threads on passport renewal)...

 

I was striving to maintain a veneer of impartiality while addressing my thinly veiled bigotry towards Americans and the embarrassingly Dunning-Kruger-esque confidence with which many of them spout anti-vaccination rhetoric....

 

The 'others' mentioned are from the US...  I have little doubt...   Not that it matters, a strong argument is a strong argument - its nice to see one from time to time (from the perspective of forum debate).

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Let's delve a bit into this notion of "rare anecdotal evidence":

 

To be continued tomorrow...  my inebriated mind (yes I'm drunk tonight) is struggling to handle the figures...  but already I see points of debate.

 

Intersting stats, I'd like to get into the source and understand the output more clearly.

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

15 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I feel the same way about posters that can't present a solid argument without calling other posters stupid or idiots or ignorant or mass murderers!

Fair enough but you deserve an exception. Your ant-vax rants are full of dangerous baseless lies. BTW, Black Death is bacterial and easily treated with antibiotics, or don't you believe in them either?

 

A point I raised earlier - which outs Britman as someone who wishes to make a point without truly understanding the point... 

 

...  Just bravado without really thinking.

[sandyf]

22 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?

Good deflection, highlights the disrespect for essential services.

[Stiddle Mump]

8 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Nice try but a failure I'm afraid. To rational people the answer is obvious, if you think I'm getting drawn into this ridiculous thread, you're very wrong.

 

Didn't think you would answer Sir.

 

I've a feeling you get your info from CNN or the BBC. And any evidence you don't see on those two you think is 'crap'.

[BritManToo]

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

A point I raised earlier - which outs Britman as someone who wishes to make a point without truly understanding the point... 

 

...  Just bravado without really thinking.

For all my faults, I consider myself a man of honour.

And if I were to post in a thread my participation was finished.

I'd keep to that!

 

I think less of posters that go back on their word!

 

There's another thread, what is a real man?

I'd have said, a real man is one who tries his best to keep his word.

[richard_smith237]

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Let's delve a bit into this notion of "rare anecdotal evidence":

 

As at February 25, 2023, the European database of suspected drug reaction reports, EudraVigilance, verified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), had reported 50,663 fatalities and 5,315,063 injuries following injections of the EMA-authorised COVID-19 shots.

 

Even without taking into account the established issue of underreporting, do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?

 

 

 

 

The statement provided misrepresents data from EudraVigilance by implying causation where only suspicion exists, omitting necessary context such as total vaccination numbers and baseline mortality rates, and using emotional rather than scientific framing. As a result, it draws misleading conclusions about vaccine safety without appropriate evidence or analytical rigour...  here is why... 

 

Misleading interpretation of EudraVigilance data:

Problem: EudraVigilance collects suspected adverse event reports, not confirmed ones.
Anyone - doctors, patients, even lawyers - can submit reports (much like VAERS).
A report in the database does not prove the vaccine caused the outcome. Causality is not established by mere reporting - exactly the same temporal causality flaw exists as it does with VAERS - the criticism are the same.

Contradiction: Claiming that EudraVigilance "reported fatalities" suggests proven causality, but that's false - they reported suspicions, not confirmed causes.

 

No context for injury numbers:

Problem: 5,315,063 "injuries" sounds enormous without context - but:

The denominator - the total number of COVID-19 shots given - is missing. (Europe administered hundreds of millions of doses.)

Contradiction: Without comparing injury rates to the total number of doses, the claim is sensationalist, not analytical.

 

Ignoring baseline death rates:

Problem: People naturally die every day from many causes.
Vaccination campaigns target entire populations, including the very old, frail, and sick - groups who already have high baseline mortality rates.

Contradiction: Saying 50,663 deaths followed COVID-19 shots suggests a vaccine effect without asking:

How many deaths would have occurred anyway? Was mortality higher than expected for age-matched, vaccinated cohorts versus unvaccinated ones?

 

Appeal to emotion, not science:

Problem: The phrase "do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?" emotionally pressures the reader without addressing: Benefit vs. risk (e.g., prevention of millions of deaths and hospitalisations). Risk comparison (e.g., risk of COVID-19 infection vs. risk of vaccine side effects).

Contradiction: The risk of vaccine injury is framed in isolation without weighing against the risk of COVID-19 itself - a basic flaw in any fair risk analysis.

 

 

In Summary.....

Misleading causality.... "Suspected" does not equal "Proven" deaths from vaccines.

Missing denominator.... No comparison to number of doses given.

Ignoring background mortality.... Deaths happen regardless of vaccination.

Emotional framing.... Science requires balanced risk assessment.

[ericbj]

On 4/25/2025 at 8:30 AM, KannikaP said:

Had all my childhood vax's in 50s & 60s. Others allowing me to travel to certain countries when I was working.

A few Penicillin ones when I had been a naughty boy. Flu and Covid jabs in the last 10 years. Recently a Shingles one. 

Still alive and kicking very well at 77.

 

Play Russian roulette and you can still survive unharmed.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, ericbj said:

 

Play Russian roulette and you can still survive unharmed.

 

The thread title says all vaccines will kill you......so apparently not.

[Will B Good]

On 4/25/2025 at 2:30 AM, KannikaP said:

Had all my childhood vax's in 50s & 60s. Others allowing me to travel to certain countries when I was working.

A few Penicillin ones when I had been a naughty boy. Flu and Covid jabs in the last 10 years. Recently a Shingles one. 

Still alive and kicking very well at 77.

 

Same here.....had everything going at the earliest opportunity, from Yellow fever to Rabies shots.......the only side effect experinced was mild flu like sensation after the yellow fever shot.

[ericbj]

15 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

The thread title says all vaccines will kill you......so apparently not.

 

The statistics provided show there are a lot of empty chambers.  You make your choice.

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

If you like RFK Jnr and have an open mind I recommend you watch John Oliver's show this week on what he has done thus far. It's worse than I thought. Posted this somewhere else but this one seems popular. 

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Appeal to emotion, not science:

Problem: The phrase "do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?" emotionally pressures the reader without addressing: Benefit vs. risk (e.g., prevention of millions of deaths and hospitalisations). Risk comparison (e.g., risk of COVID-19 infection vs. risk of vaccine side effects).

Contradiction: The risk of vaccine injury is framed in isolation without weighing against the risk of COVID-19 itself - a basic flaw in any fair risk analysis.

 

The phrase "do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?" is a straightforward question and not an appeal to emotion. The notion in question is the "safe and effective" mantra which was repeated incessantly during a period when these shots were imposed on the population through various "incentivising", and in fact borderline coercive means.

 

I don't disagree with everything else you said regarding the potential flaws of these figures, hence the necessity to assess them in a transparent and irrefutable manner in order to remove – or confirm – any doubt. The causality (or lack thereof) can only be concluded through this thorough process.

 

So the essential issue is whether the above-mentioned process/investigation was carried out. Was it? Because ultimately, no rationalisation can effectively dismiss these figures preemptively.

 

To make an analogy, if the cops show up at a house following neighbours' reports of screaming, and find a man covered in blood and holding a knife running out, though at that point they can't draw any conclusions, they can justifiably take action to investigate and find out what happened (despite the fact that said individual will be presumed not guilty of anything until the proceedings officially reach their conclusion).

[richard_smith237]

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

To make an analogy, if the cops show up at a house following neighbours' reports of screaming, and find a man covered in blood and holding a knife running out, though at that point they can't draw any conclusions, they can justifiably take action to investigate and find out what happened (despite the fact that said individual will be presumed not guilty of anything until the proceedings officially reach their conclusion).

 

The "smoking gun" argument is both extreme and highly flawed when regarding VAERS and EudraVigilance and any pretty much any such data when attempting to apply temporal causality.

[rattlesnake]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The "smoking gun" argument is both extreme and highly flawed when regarding VAERS and EudraVigilance and any pretty much any such data when attempting to apply temporal causality.

 

It's a bit OTT, but as you like to use such analogies yourself (c.f. the one about the carwash and the storm – if I recall correctly), I thought I would add it there for good measure, though the gist of my message lies in the previous paragraphs.

[richard_smith237]

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The "smoking gun" argument is both extreme and highly flawed when regarding VAERS and EudraVigilance and any pretty much any such data when attempting to apply temporal causality.

 

It's a bit OTT, but as you like to use such analogies yourself (c.f. the one about the carwash and the storm – if I recall correctly), I thought I would add it there for good measure, though the gist of my message lies in the previous paragraphs.

 

You've mixed me up with someone else - I've no idea what the 'carwash and the storm' even is.

 

There's no need to use exaggerated analogies that are so flawed - leave that to those who are trying their hardest to 'fear monger' with misinformation rather that take on an intellectual debate involving data sources.

 

 

[rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You've mixed me up with someone else - I've no idea what the 'carwash and the storm' even is.

 

There's no need to use exaggerated analogies that are so flawed - leave that to those who are trying their hardest to 'fear monger' with misinformation rather that take on an intellectual debate involving data sources.

 

 

 

  

On 4/27/2025 at 7:46 AM, 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.

 

To me, this analogy was absurd, yet I understood how your bias could lead you to make it. I have showed you what that looks like from the opposite bias.

 

I agree we should probably avoid them altogether.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

To me, this analogy was absurd, yet I understood how your bias could lead you to make it. I have showed you what that looks like from the opposite bias.

 

I agree we should probably avoid them altogether.

 

Ah ok - got it now... I was picturing a mechanical car wash or something similar when you mentioned 'car wash'.. 

 

I see both sides of the bias - although my analogy illustrates an improbable temporal causality, yours attempts something different: using circumstantial evidence to justify suspicion, but ultimately sidestepping the underlying problem of flawed causal assumptions.

 

In my analogy - 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 - I highlight the fundamental danger of mistaking correlation for causation, especially when emotions run high.

 

Your analogy - the police responding to screaming and finding a man covered in blood holding a knife - may seem superficially compelling, but it fundamentally differs. In that situation, the police are acting on immediate, tangible evidence of a potential crime - physical indicators that something likely did occur.

However, post-vaccination symptoms are neither direct evidence of causality nor necessarily evidence of harm. They are expected in a biological process that is inherently complex.

 

Thus, your analogy overstates the case: you're comparing obvious forensic clues pointing toward a specific incident with ambiguous, non-specific symptoms that, without clear evidence, cannot be presumed to indicate causation. Investigating is reasonable in both cases - but presuming or implying guilt based on circumstantial timing alone is precisely the logical trap my analogy warns against.

[rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Ah ok - got it now... I was picturing a mechanical car wash or something similar when you mentioned 'car wash'.. 

 

I see both sides of the bias - although my analogy illustrates an improbable temporal causality, yours attempts something different: using circumstantial evidence to justify suspicion, but ultimately sidestepping the underlying problem of flawed causal assumptions.

 

In my analogy - 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 - I highlight the fundamental danger of mistaking correlation for causation, especially when emotions run high.

 

Your analogy - the police responding to screaming and finding a man covered in blood holding a knife - may seem superficially compelling, but it fundamentally differs. In that situation, the police are acting on immediate, tangible evidence of a potential crime - physical indicators that something likely did occur.

However, post-vaccination symptoms are neither direct evidence of causality nor necessarily evidence of harm. They are expected in a biological process that is inherently complex.

 

Thus, your analogy overstates the case: you're comparing obvious forensic clues pointing toward a specific incident with ambiguous, non-specific symptoms that, without clear evidence, cannot be presumed to indicate causation. Investigating is reasonable in both cases - but presuming or implying guilt based on circumstantial timing alone is precisely the logical trap my analogy warns against.

 

True, but I would retort that just as my analogy overstates the case, yours understates it.

 

Nobody in their right mind would ever attempt to draw a causation between the action of washing a car and a meteorological phenomenon occurring the next day. Yet you are implying that raising an eyebrow when looking at data spikes is just as absurd, when it isn't: while it doesn't prove anything at face value, this shift is a safety signal (as defined by the CDC on the VAERS page) which could mean there is a causation between the vaccinations and these adverse effects. So the comparison is flawed in the sense that it draws an equivalence between an impossibility (washing a car causing a storm) on the one hand, and a possibility (vaccinations causing injuries) on the other.

 

We can therefore conclude that analogies should probably be avoided in these controversial threads :-)

 

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

True, but I would retort that just as my analogy overstates the case, yours understates it.

 

Nobody in their right mind would ever attempt to draw a causation between the action of washing a car and a meteorological phenomenon occurring the next day. Yet you are implying that raising an eyebrow when looking at data spikes is just as absurd, when it isn't: while it doesn't prove anything at face value, this shift is a safety signal (as defined by the CDC on the VAERS page) which could mean there is a causation between the vaccinations and these adverse effects. So the comparison is flawed in the sense that it draws an equivalence between an impossibility (washing a car causing a storm) on the one hand, and a possibility (vaccinations causing injuries) on the other.

 

We can therefore conclude that analogies should probably be avoided in these controversial threads :-)

 

You make valid points. I agree that my analogy understated the importance of temporal causality in the context of VAERS and EudraVigilance data, where the emergence of 'any' patterns would clearly warrant further investigation.

 

That said, I do not believe the current VAERS or EudraVigilance data indicate any causality. Nonetheless, I am not opposed to further studies aimed at settling these questions - though I remain sceptical as to whether such inquiries would ever fully resolve them.

 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You make valid points. I agree that my analogy understated the importance of temporal causality in the context of VAERS and EudraVigilance data, where the emergence of 'any' patterns would clearly warrant further investigation.

 

That said, I do not believe the current VAERS or EudraVigilance data indicate any causality. Nonetheless, I am not opposed to further studies aimed at settling these questions - though I remain sceptical as to whether such inquiries would ever fully resolve them.

 

 

 

 

Which leads me to the point I wanted to make by quoting these figures: these studies (I would call them investigations) were not made, which begs the question as to why these reporting systems even exist. An inquisitive mind can only wonder what is hindering the process, or whether it is perhaps purposely hindered as the findings would be undesirable for some lobbyists (we have already established in this thread that there are serious ethical concerns in the US and France with regards to influence peddling from the pharmaceutical industry).

 

Regardless, my conclusion remains the same as previously stated: the only way to resolve this will be to lead a full, transparent end-to-end audit of the process and publish impartial conclusions, not influenced by lobbies or interests.

 

Will RFK deliver what a lot of people expect of him? We will see.

[johng]

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Will RFK deliver what a lot of people expect of him? We will see

Fingers crossed I'm  cautiously optimistic.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Which leads me to the point I wanted to make by quoting these figures: these studies (I would call them investigations) were not made, which begs the question as to why these reporting systems even exist. An inquisitive mind can only wonder what is hindering the process, or whether it is perhaps purposely hindered as the findings would be undesirable for some lobbyists (we have already established in this thread that there are serious ethical concerns in the US and France with regards to influence peddling from the pharmaceutical industry).

 

I don't believe the available information warrants further investigation, particularly when considered against the sheer number of individuals being vaccinated.

 

Where exactly should the 'line in the sand' be drawn? Should we launch a full investigation based on a single report in VAERS or EudraVigilance, or would it take 100,000 reports?

 

The only reason I would advocate for an independent and impartial investigation would be to put conspiracy theories to rest. However, I doubt that even a thorough, unbiased inquiry would satisfy the anti-vaccination crowd. Thus, such an investigation seems largely pointless—unless, of course, the data itself clearly indicates a need for it. And therein lies the crux of the argument: experts maintain that no further investigation is warranted, while anti-vaccination advocates vehemently disagree.

 

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Regardless, my conclusion remains the same as previously stated: the only way to resolve this will be to lead a full, transparent end-to-end audit of the process and publish impartial conclusions, not influenced by lobbies or interests.

 

So who covers the costs ?? - that will always lead to some conspiracist thinking.

 

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Will RFK deliver what a lot of people expect of him? We will see.

 

[rattlesnake]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I don't believe the available information warrants further investigation, particularly when considered against the sheer number of individuals being vaccinated.

 

Where exactly should the 'line in the sand' be drawn? Should we launch a full investigation based on a single report in VAERS or EudraVigilance, or would it take 100,000 reports?

 

The main issue as I see it is the sheer absence of transparency, so regardless of what is decided, it should be stated, justified, debated, and datasets should not be ignored altogether.

[rattlesnake]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So who covers the costs ?? - that will always lead to some conspiracist thinking.

 

If the US government can find millions for 'transgender studies' in remote countries, they can find the money for this. I don't think that is a problem.

[rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The main issue as I see it is the sheer absence of transparency, so regardless of what is decided, it should be stated, justified, debated, and not ignored altogether.

 

And some physicians who have been 'blacklisted' from the medical community – always 'for good reason' of course – should be invited at the table, if only to disprove what they are saying.