Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Mark Nothing said:

We also have an ethereal power ready to be accessed and used on demand.

 

I suspect there may be a few dyslexics on this forum with prostate issues keen to improve their urethral power... 

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

However, from a medical standpoint, he remains unqualified, lacking the necessary training to make authoritative judgements in this field - particularly when he dismisses vaccines in favour of “terrain optimisation.”

 

Okay, so let's go back to Dr. Redfield, who, according to your criteria, is fully qualified and credible with regards to the Covid vaccines and their effectiveness (or lack thereof). This is the last thing you said about him, in thread Anti-vaxers relying on discredited doctor's claims about COVID vaccines... again!, on May 15:

 

However, while Dr. Redfield has raised concerns about vaccine side effects, there is no verifiable evidence that he has claimed "Long Covid" is a cover-up for mRNA vaccine injuries. Reports making such claims often originate from sources that may not adhere to rigorous journalistic standards. Mainstream scientific consensus maintains that Long Covid is a legitimate condition resulting from COVID-19 infection, characterised by a range of symptoms persisting after the acute phase of the illness.

 

In summary, Dr. Redfield has voiced concerns about vaccine mandates and the need for transparency regarding vaccine side effects. However, attributing statements to him that Long Covid is a cover-up for vaccine injuries lacks substantiation from credible sources.

 

 

At the time, you did not address my reply to this post of yours in that thread. I am adding it below for your convenience, and ask you, in the name of your rigorous scientific criteria, to kindly give your opinion clearly regarding Dr. Redfield's statements:

 

 

46:40:
"I don't think the vaccine industry should have immunity. I think they should have responsibility like any other manufacturer of any other product for their product and I'm particularly concerned about this now because, you know, my clinical practice right now which I'm still in two half days a week, is largely Covid and Long Covid, but among my, quote, "Long Covid" patients are people that don't have long covid but they have mRNA vaccine injury, right, and there's not a clear path for them to have their injury recognized…"

 

Now put this into perspective with what he stated during a Senate hearing last year: he does not administer the mRNA shots in his own practice because he believes the Spike proteins they contain are “toxic to the body” and "the mRNA was persisting much longer than it should" in some patients. He confirmed it crosses the blood-brain barrier and that the jabs don't prevent infection and have side effects which were hidden by the authorities.

 

https://rumble.com/v56ws2r-sen.-ron-johnson-with-cdc-former-cdc-director-dr.-robert-redfield.html

[Red Phoenix]

16 hours ago, dinsdale said:

16 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Perhaps those with previous illness should have had the vax and isolated and leave the healthy to continue as normal

 

This is precisely what should have happened. It didn't because money was the prime motive. Not health care.

 

What you are advocating here (isolation of the vulnerable, and let the world continue as normal) was the proposed approach in the Great Barrington Declaration.  Despite hundred of thousands endorsements, that at first glance sensible - basically protect the vulnerable and create herd-immunity - approach was 'killed' by a mob of hysterics fearful of the Big Bad Virus, led by the evil Big Pharma cronies Collins and Fauci. 

At the time (October 2020) I signed that declaration.  Not because I was fearful of Covid-19 ('cases' were fraudulently boosted to increase the scare-factor, and actual figures showed that there was no global pandemic).  But I signed it because it was a far better alternative than the ridiculous one-size-fits-all mitigation measures that were to be forced on everybody, and were actually meant to pave the way for the disastrous 'vax-solution'. 

On hindsight I should not have signed that Great Barrington Declaration (even though it didn't make a difference), as even at the time I did not believe in its faulty premises.  But it was a choice for the lesser evil...

 

Prof dr Norman FENTON expressed this as follows: 

Also, unlike almost every other public covid dissident (“permitted” or otherwise presumably genuine) I refused to sign the widely acclaimed Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020. There were two reasons for this:

1. Even then, I did not believe there was a major pandemic; the GBD assumed there was.

2. Even if there was a major pandemic, I was repulsed by the idea that anybody should be forced into a lockdown. The GBD was recommending “targeted protection” for “the elderly and infirm”. So, while the GBD was asserting that the young and healthy should be allowed to to go about their lives as normal, it was also asserting that the elderly and infirm should be locked down even if it was against their will.

[frank83628]

Excess deaths since vaccine roll out are higher than ever before..... wonder what could be the cause

[SAFETY FIRST]

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I am not "bothering you", just don't answer this and everything will be OK

This is the bloody exact reason I don't interact on AN forums.

You say you are not bothering me, I said you were.

How the bloody hell can you say this, these are signs of narcissism. 

 

I will make comment to the OP or article but that's it, I very, very seldom get into conversation, most here are just looking for an argument 

 

Now leave me alone 

[SAFETY FIRST]

14 hours ago, dinsdale said:

15 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Again, you're OFF TOPIC.

I'm not here for an argument. I choose not to interact.

 

Google is your friend, google can help you?

 

I'm responding to your comment therefore it must be your comment that's OFF TOPIC

You're talking infant cancer, I know nothing about this subject, I DON'T want to get into conversation. 

 

I know with my regular exercise, eating 3 to 5 servings of fruit and vegetables everyday, avoid processed, packaged foods, rubbish foods, remain happy, with my superior genes I will survive, I will SURVIVE 

 

BTW, having green eyes is important 👀

[rumak]

19 hours ago, dinsdale said:

You never post anything other than tripe. No cited articles and no counterarguments of any substance, simply ad hominem, insults and puerile comments complete with the obligatory negative emojis. Quite frankly in all these years I can't remember an example where you've actually directly answered a poster's question. In actual fact you contribute nothing of any substantive nature to any discussion.

 

As i have recently pointed out .... and others before me... this member is the epitome of a TROLL.  Here is an applicable definition of our beloved master troll :  "A peer reviewed study claims that every internet troll has a different backstory and therefore different reasons for feeling the need to troll a community or an individual on the internet.  Often lonely  , sex deprived, and needing attention , the degree to which the troll suffers can often be measured by how many emojis they use to try to hide their inability to verbally communicate .  It is also the sign of a very very small pee pee."
 

[faraday]

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I suspect there may be a few dyslexics on this forum with prostate issues keen to improve their urethral power... 

 

Very funny, Richard, although it pain's me ( not in the pelvic region, though) to give you praise. 

 

🤣🤣

[richard_smith237]

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

46:40:
"I don't think the vaccine industry should have immunity. I think they should have responsibility like any other manufacturer of any other product for their product and I'm particularly concerned about this now because, you know, my clinical practice right now which I'm still in two half days a week, is largely Covid and Long Covid, but among my, quote, "Long Covid" patients are people that don't have long covid but they have mRNA vaccine injury, right, and there's not a clear path for them to have their injury recognized…"

 

Now put this into perspective with what he stated during a Senate hearing last year: he does not administer the mRNA shots in his own practice because he believes the Spike proteins they contain are “toxic to the body” and "the mRNA was persisting much longer than it should" in some patients. He confirmed it crosses the blood-brain barrier and that the jabs don't prevent infection and have side effects which were hidden by the authorities.

 

Dr Robert Redfield, former CDC Director, has expressed a clear preference for traditional "killed protein" vaccines (which use inactivated virus or protein subunits) making it evident that he is not anti-vaccine by any stretch.

....  Just to put that particular discussion to bed: he not only supports vaccination but has administered vaccines himself. So, citing him as a credible source, but using authority selectively while ignoring his broader, pro-vaccine stance is somewhat questionable from perspective of an anti-vax debate....

 

His concerns are not about vaccines in general, but specifically about the novel mRNA platforms used during the COVID-19 pandemic. He noted, "I prefer the killed protein vaccines," and explained this by pointing out that mRNA was persisting in the body longer than expected in some patients - a point that deserves scientific scrutiny, not political spin...  and I completely agree.

 

Rather, his concerns and public commentary focus specifically on the newer mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines.

In one statement, he said, "I prefer the killed protein vaccines," citing the persistence of mRNA in the body, which, in some patients, appears to last far longer than originally expected - a point that deserves scientific scrutiny, not political spin...  and I completely agree.

This observation has raised questions about how long synthetic spike protein is produced, and whether such persistence could have unintended effects - particularly in susceptible individuals.

 

Dr Redfield also stressed that more comprehensive information should have been shared with the public from the outset of the vaccine rollout. I agree. Transparency would almost certainly have led some people to hesitate or decline the vaccine, especially early on - but informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle.

 

At the time, however, public health officials were acting under intense pressure amid a global pandemic, with limited data and overwhelming uncertainty - undoubtedly mistakes were made... I don't think anyone is arguing they weren't.

 

 

During the discussion, the interviewer [Senator Jonson] shifted towards highly specific concerns, not mentioning, but clearly alluding to the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis. One pointed question asked what might happen if the spike protein produced by the mRNA vaccine were to bind to heart muscle tissue. While this is a valid question, worthy of serious inquiry, it lacked necessary context. Namely, that COVID-19 infection itself poses a far greater risk of causing myocarditis and pericarditis than the vaccine (as does influenza and the common cold).

Multiple studies have demonstrated that the rate of cardiac inflammation is significantly higher in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 than in those who receive an mRNA vaccine.

 

This raises the broader and often-misused question: is the cure worse than the disease? In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, especially during the early waves of the pandemic, the evidence strongly suggests that the benefits of vaccination far outweighed the risks - particularly in older or high-risk populations.

 

That said, as data has evolved, so too should our assessment of risk-benefit balances in various demographics, particularly for young, healthy individuals - and the Dr mentioned this need for continued evaluation and study.

 

 

Dr Redfield also raised concerns about the vaccine industry's accountability, arguing that manufacturers should not be immune from liability. I fully agree. There should be no double standard for public health products. If anything, there should be more transparency and oversight. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with the processed food industry - whose products have contributed massively to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease - corporate accountability and public health interests don’t always align.

 

 

To summarise: as we are posting this is thread concentrated with Ant-vax sentiment... The expert you have referenced;

Dr Redfield, holds a position which reflects a pro-vaccine stance with a measured, scientifically grounded critique of specific technologies and the systems around them. It's not vaccine scepticism - it’s vaccine scrutiny, and that distinction matters....

 

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

 

I'd like to address the issue of the blood-brain barrier - a term that, understandably, tends to provoke alarm. Much like the words myocarditis or pericarditis, it sounds severe and clinical, often triggering strong reactions among lay audiences. Yet, in reality, many of these conditions can be mild, transient, or even asymptomatic - common after viral infections such as the flu, and often passing unnoticed.

 

So, back to the blood-brain barrier - just the phrase itself seems to send a chill down the spine. It evokes images of something sacred being breached, of a dangerous foreign agent invading the most protected part of the body. But what does the science actually say?

 

Do mRNA vaccines cross the blood-brain barrier?

Based on current research and scientific consensus, the risk of mRNA vaccines, or their components - crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is extremely low. The BBB is a remarkably effective, selective barrier that shields the brain from pathogens, toxins, and large molecules, including synthetic mRNA.

 

There is no robust evidence that either the mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines or the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that deliver them routinely cross the BBB in humans at any clinically significant level. In animal studies, particularly in rodents and under high-dose or artificial conditions, researchers have detected tiny traces of LNPs in brain tissue. However, these findings are not representative of real-world vaccine doses or how the human body processes them.

 

What about the spike protein?

This is where some concern is often raised. In a small number of cases, circulating spike protein has been detected in plasma following vaccination (as discussed earlier), leading to questions about its potential impact on endothelial cells, including those in the brain's blood vessels.

However, the spike protein levels observed post-vaccination are very low, transient, and no evidence has shown that they cause clinically meaningful neurological harm. Conversely, natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in much higher levels of spike protein, produced in a less controlled and more systemic fashion, and is far more likely to affect the brain.

 

COVID-19 itself has been associated with well-documented neurological complications, including encephalitis, stroke, seizures, and prolonged cognitive issues - commonly referred to as brain fog.

 

What are the known neurological side effects of mRNA vaccines? Rare events such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s palsy, or brief neurological symptoms have been reported post-vaccination. But the incidence is very low - typically fewer than 1 in 100,000 doses, and often equal to or lower than the risk posed by COVID-19 itself or even by other common vaccines.

 

Thus: The notion that mRNA vaccines may cross the blood-brain barrier and cause harm makes for an emotive discussion, but the scientific evidence doesn’t support it strongly enough. If any components do cross, it appears to be in quantities so minute as to be biologically insignificant, with no proven link to serious neurological outcomes in the general population.

 

What we do know is that COVID-19 poses a far greater neurological threat. The balance of evidence continues to support vaccination as the safer path, mRNA vaccines too, particularly during high transmission periods or in vulnerable populations.

 

All of that said, I agree with your underlying sentiment and that of Dr Robert Redfield and firmly believe that there must be ongoing, open, and transparent investigation into these mechanisms. Public confidence is not built on blanket assurances, but on honesty, data, and the willingness to ask hard questions.

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

18 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

BOMBSHELL Report: Amyloid Fibrils Found in 3-Year-Old After In-Utero mRNA Injection Exposure

The child was born 1 week after mother’s 2nd Pfizer shot—no vital signs at birth, required resuscitation, and has been chronically ill since: recurrent infections, multiple surgeries, immune dysfunction.

• At age 3, shows persistent amyloid-like fibrils circulating in blood

• Confirmed by fluorescence microscopy & SEM—not typical clots or plaques

• Fibrils exhibit cross-β sheet binding, prion-like folding, and autofluorescence

> While I do not deny the impact of genetics on a child's health profile, the refusal to consider the child immunization schedule as a likely candidate for health issues is tell-tale. 

Note: In the above case the impact of the mother's Pfizer-shot on her baby's health problems is obvious.

 

 

The mere fact that the term "Bombshell report" was used - is surely sufficient to highlight sensationalism and lack of scientific integrity in the reporting here... 

 

We have a one off tragic event - but, correlation of a one off event does not imply causation:

 

When two events or phenomena appear together or show some kind of association, it’s called a correlation. For example,  that a child was born prematurely and later developed certain blood fibrils after the mother received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy is temporally correlation - they happened around the same time, thats it.

 

This does not mean one caused the other. Establishing causation requires much stronger evidence because many factors can occur alongside each other without a direct cause-effect relationship.

 

- The child’s premature birth and later immune issues happened after maternal vaccination, but this alone does not prove the vaccine caused these outcomes.

 

- Without broader, well-designed studies confirming higher rates of such problems linked to vaccination, we cannot infer causation - yet as an anti-vaxxer you present this as a smoking gun.

 

- Many robust epidemiological studies show no increase in adverse fetal or childhood outcomes after maternal mRNA vaccination.

 

- The article’s microscopy findings do not prove these fibrils cause disease or directly result from vaccine exposure.

 

 

[rumak]

I have a cherry orchard in  Bias, Montana ........ where RS would do great using his cherry picking skills.

 

yes.... by all means,  bring your A.I. brain along.  

[rumak]

Ban all the covid "vaxxes"  .  Period. 

https://solarireport.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-hhs-secretary-kennedy

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, rumak said:

I have a cherry orchard in  Bias, Montana ........ where RS would do great using his cherry picking skills.

 

yes.... by all means,  bring your A.I. brain along.  

 

You’ve already proven you’re incapable of holding intelligent debate - so you resort to feeling butt hurt and start whining and insults whenever your pathetic drivel is demolished.... Seems you’re still licking your wounds from the last time...  and yet here you are again, desperately clawing for relevance with a feeble jab, while I engage properly with those actually capable of it.

 

Don’t feel badly or blame yourself - its either your teachers’ failure or just bad genetics....

 

 

Quote

Ban all the covid "vaxxes"  .  Period. 

 

Thank you for making my point !!!!

[MarkT63]

Arguing with an anti-vaxer is about as pointless as trying to convince a trans that there are only two genders 🍻

[Red Phoenix]

32 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The mere fact that the term "Bombshell report" was used - is surely sufficient to highlight sensationalism and lack of scientific integrity in the reporting here... 

 

We have a one off tragic event - but, correlation of a one off event does not imply causation:

 

When two events or phenomena appear together or show some kind of association, it’s called a correlation. For example,  that a child was born prematurely and later developed certain blood fibrils after the mother received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy is temporally correlation - they happened around the same time, thats it.

 

This does not mean one caused the other. Establishing causation requires much stronger evidence because many factors can occur alongside each other without a direct cause-effect relationship.

 

- The child’s premature birth and later immune issues happened after maternal vaccination, but this alone does not prove the vaccine caused these outcomes.

 

- Without broader, well-designed studies confirming higher rates of such problems linked to vaccination, we cannot infer causation - yet as an anti-vaxxer you present this as a smoking gun.

 

- Many robust epidemiological studies show no increase in adverse fetal or childhood outcomes after maternal mRNA vaccination.

 

- The article’s microscopy findings do not prove these fibrils cause disease or directly result from vaccine exposure.

 

Kevin Mccairn's article that reports this case, is cautious - as every scientific publication should - in how it formulates its findings and conclusions. 

> https://kevinwmccairnphd282302.substack.com/p/amyloidogenic-fibrils-in-a-post-gestational

 

7. Conclusion

This case represents a sentinel event that underscores the need for systematic, high-resolution evaluation of post-vaccine biology—especially in pediatric and developmental contexts that have the shadow of events being precipitated by biowarfare research. The persistence of amyloidogenic fibrils years after gestational exposure cannot be dismissed by outdated pharmacokinetic assumptions. Only rigorous post-market surveillance, independent replication, and transparent access to proprietary vaccine data can resolve these urgent questions, especially and until the threat from synthetic, biowarfare spawned amyloids/PRIONS has been contained.

 

> Imo the conclusion can rightfully be described as a 'smoking gun'. 

[richard_smith237]

51 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Kevin Mccairn's article that reports this case, is cautious - as every scientific publication should - in how it formulates its findings and conclusions. 

> https://kevinwmccairnphd282302.substack.com/p/amyloidogenic-fibrils-in-a-post-gestational

 

7. Conclusion

This case represents a sentinel event that underscores the need for systematic, high-resolution evaluation of post-vaccine biology—especially in pediatric and developmental contexts that have the shadow of events being precipitated by biowarfare research. The persistence of amyloidogenic fibrils years after gestational exposure cannot be dismissed by outdated pharmacokinetic assumptions. Only rigorous post-market surveillance, independent replication, and transparent access to proprietary vaccine data can resolve these urgent questions, especially and until the threat from synthetic, biowarfare spawned amyloids/PRIONS has been contained.

 

> Imo the conclusion can rightfully be described as a 'smoking gun'. 

 

But its not a sentinel event...   The use of the term 'sentinel event' indicates proven cause and thus a 'sensationalisation' t

 

Even IF assuming the article’s findings are accurately reported (which is itself questionable), this single, anecdotal, lacks confirmed causation between vaccination and the fibril structures.

It is not independently replicated or corroborated by broader epidemiological surveillance. The event has not has not triggered systemic consequences or wider patterns of harm in the millions of other vaccinated pregnancies. And, the account is presented through a non-peer-reviewed platform (Substack) rather than standard scientific channels with rigorous quality control.

 

This is not a smoking gun.

Nevertheless, any event requires high level evaluation as noted.

 

[rumak]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You’ve already proven you’re incapable of holding intelligent debate - so you resort to feeling butt hurt and start whining and insults whenever your pathetic drivel is demolished.... Seems you’re still licking your wounds from the last time...  and yet here you are again, desperately clawing for relevance with a feeble jab, while I engage properly with those actually capable of it.

 

Don’t feel badly or blame yourself - its either your teachers’ failure or just bad genetics....

 

 

 

Thank you for making my point !!!!

oh richard...... calm down

 

your remarks are just stupid

[madone]

On 6/7/2025 at 8:51 AM, Red Phoenix said:

There are +100 threads in this very sub-forum addressing the harms of the Covid-jabs.

more than that, and you seem to have made it your sole occupation to have posted them all.

[rattlesnake]

5 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

This is the bloody exact reason I don't interact on AN forums.

You say you are not bothering me, I said you were.

How the bloody hell can you say this, these are signs of narcissism. 

 

I will make comment to the OP or article but that's it, I very, very seldom get into conversation, most here are just looking for an argument 

 

Now leave me alone 

 

It's harmless joshing, which you would easily recognise if you took yourself a little less seriously.

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, MarkT63 said:

Arguing with an anti-vaxer is about as pointless as trying to convince a trans that there are only two genders 🍻

 

False equivalence, genders are natural, vaccines are man-made.

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

I will make comment to the OP or article but that's it, I very, very seldom get into conversation, most here are just looking for an argument 

 

With respect, SF - when you choose to post on a forum specifically intended for discussion, especially when your comments are, at best, controversial and fundamentally flawed, it seems rather immature to take offence when others respond critically.

 

If you’re not open to dialogue, then perhaps it’s wiser not to post at all. But you cannot reasonably expect to share views as questionable as those in this thread and face no challenge or contradiction.

 

 

You’ve asserted that individual choices directly affect health outcomes, and even cited your own genetics and lifestyle as shields against illness. However, your argument collapses under the weight of your own example regarding childhood cancer. How can a child be held accountable for congenital illness? Or parents, for that matter? And how would you be at fault should your own genetics predispose you to certain conditions - something beyond your control?

 

In short, your views invite scrutiny and discussion. That’s not a personal attack - it’s the natural consequence of engaging in a forum built for debate. If your opinions provoke reactions, perhaps they warrant more careful thought, not fragility in the face of dissent.

 

 

[SAFETY FIRST]

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

With respect, SF - when you choose to post on a forum specifically intended for discussion, especially when your comments are, at best, controversial and fundamentally flawed

Flawed, hmm 🤔

 

I'm not forced to get into a discussion, it's not compulsory. It's my opinion, take or leave it. 

 

From my experience here, I get into a discussion, it goes off topic, turns into an argument, goes on and on only to have the mods, tear it to pieces, removing all the comments. It becomes all just a waste of time. 

I just haven't got the time. 

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Just to put that particular discussion to bed: he not only supports vaccination but has administered vaccines himself. So, citing him as a credible source, but using authority selectively while ignoring his broader, pro-vaccine stance is somewhat questionable from perspective of an anti-vax debate....

 

Look at the thread's title for a friendly reminder of the nature of this particular discussion: "Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial", i.e. the notion that the Covid-19 mRNA shots cause harm and that said harm is not recognised for a variety of reasons.

 

Dr. Redfield's testimony is particularly relevant, because he ticks all the boxes with regards to qualifications, credibility and relevance which are so cherished by the proponents of the "safe and effective" side of the debate, and because the non-fulfillment of these criteria is so often used as a basis to preemptively dismiss any challenges to this purported safety and effectiveness. Another reason why his statements are compelling is that he was initially pro-Covid vaccine, as shown in this source from 2021:

 

"What was most important to me was seeing one individual after another embrace the vaccine with confidence," Redfield said. "I want to encourage all Marylanders and all Americans to embrace vaccines with confidence and not leave it on the shelf."

 

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-update-march-2-maryland-governor-larry-hogan/35694418

 

Fast forward to 2024, and this is what Dr. Redfield said on these products which he had initially supported, based on his empirical experience and expert insights:

 

Senator Johnson: "But again, this part of the Pfizer studies, so they knew that the liquid nanoparticle was designed to permeate difficult barriers. Correct?"

Dr. Redfield: "Correct."

 

Senator Johnson: "It crosses the blood-brain barrier. Correct?"

Dr. Redfield: "Correct."

 

Senator Johnson: "What happens when you have a nanoparticle biodistributing – and let's say this mRNA attaches to a heart muscle: it injects itself into the cells, causes that heart muscle cell to produce a Spike protein, correct? Which is toxic to the body, and then what does the body do?"

Dr. Redfield: "It has a very strong pro-inflammatory response, which is problematic. Again, I think, senator, what you're getting at, which I am 100% agreeing with you, is I think there was not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of the vaccines. And I do think there were inappropriate decisions by some to try to underreport any side effects because they argued it would make the public less likely to get vaccinated. I think the biggest mistake was to mandate these vaccines, they should never have been mandated, it should have been open to personal choice. They don't prevent infection, they do have side effects."

 

https://rumble.com/v56ws2r-sen.-ron-johnson-with-cdc-former-cdc-director-dr.-robert-redfield.html

 

In this statement, Dr. Redfield is simply saying what I (and several others here) have been saying from the beginning, particularly during the crisis years of 2021-2022, which triggered a lot of hostility. The prevailing sentiment at the time was that any challenge to the blanket, unilateral "safe and effective" mantra (and everything it entailed) was dangerous antivax, non-scientific quackery and that those saying it were societal enemies.

 

My question to you is are you now able to take a reasonable step back and do what Dr. Redfield has done, which is acknowledge this was a mistake? Below is what you said in 2022 regarding those expressing skepticism towards mRNA. Would you still say this today?
 

 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

What we do know is that COVID-19 poses a far greater neurological threat. The balance of evidence continues to support vaccination as the safer path, mRNA vaccines too, particularly during high transmission periods or in vulnerable populations.

WE don't know that at all Richard. Just cherry-picking from some anti-science garbage as usual. As for the balance of evidence you speak of. That's just utter nonsense.

 

Covid-19 didn't pose a threat to anyone. All a big fraud.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

What we do know is that COVID-19 poses a far greater neurological threat. The balance of evidence continues to support vaccination as the safer path, mRNA vaccines too, particularly during high transmission periods or in vulnerable populations.

WE don't know that at all Richard. Just cherry-picking from some anti-science garbage as usual. As for the balance of evidence you speak of. That's just utter nonsense.

 

Covid-19 didn't pose a threat to anyone. All a big fraud.

 

Please don’t make the mistaken assumption that I would ever include you in any ‘we’ I refer to. When I say ‘we,’ I do not mean those who spout the kind of outlandish and baseless claims you have put forward.

 

Even your fellow anti-vaxxers draw the line at denying the existence of viruses, disputing their isolation, or dismissing pathogenic viruses altogether - and suggesting antibiotics are unnecessary because ‘nature has the answers’ is simply beyond reason.

 

You inhabit a world of your own making. So no, you are emphatically not part of the ‘we’ - quite the opposite, in fact and its the reason I barely give your comments much attention....    just not worthy.

[Stiddle Mump]

""Please don’t make the mistaken assumption that I would ever include you in any ‘we’ I refer to. When I say ‘we,’ I do not mean those who spout the kind of outlandish and baseless claims you have put forward.

 

Even your fellow anti-vaxxers draw the line at denying the existence of viruses, disputing their isolation, or dismissing pathogenic viruses altogether - and suggesting antibiotics are unnecessary because ‘nature has the answers’ is simply beyond reason.

 

You inhabit a world of your own making. So no, you are emphatically not part of the ‘we’ - quite the opposite, in fact and its the reason I barely give your comments much attention....    just not worthy."""

 

========

 

You are tangled up in a make-believe virologist's world Richard. You are easily fooled Sir. But, if it's any consolation; you are not the only one.

 

There is no isolation of ANY virus. Never has been. What the white-coats call a virus is simply fictitious data in a computer.

 

In the real world, as apposed to a virologist's world, there are no such entities as pathogenic anything. And when I say 'pathogenic' I'm talking what is found naturally in nature, not some poison that the white-coats concoct and inject into animal's brains.

 

Have a butchers at Dr Roytas findings. He researched all the pathogenic virus experiments and put them in his book. Is he wrong?

 

[rattlesnake]

 

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Dr Redfield also stressed that more comprehensive information should have been shared with the public from the outset of the vaccine rollout. I agree. Transparency would almost certainly have led some people to hesitate or decline the vaccine, especially early on - but informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle.

 

At the time, however, public health officials were acting under intense pressure amid a global pandemic, with limited data and overwhelming uncertainty - undoubtedly mistakes were made... I don't think anyone is arguing they weren't.

 

It's all very nice to use this reasonable, mitigating language now that the dust has settled, but at the time, if concentration camps had been opened and the unvaxxed deported to them, most people, including here, would have accepted and even encouraged it:

 

 

 

 

 

This isn't only an issue about how authorities should react to health crises, it's about mass psychology and how ordinary people can be led to support and do nefarious things.

 

If anything, those who supported this should reflect on their interpretative framework and beliefs, and analyse the critical failings which allowed them to hold such harmful and shameful positions.

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Public confidence is not built on blanket assurances, but on honesty, data, and the willingness to ask hard questions.

 

Exactly, and preferably before the vast majority of the population is coerced into taking an experimental medical procedure.

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Exactly, and preferably before the vast majority of the population is coerced into taking an experimental medical procedure.

 

Given the speed with which the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, I completely understand the initial scepticism - I felt some of it myself, to be honest. But things quickly veered into the absurd when anti-vaxxers began claiming that DNA was being altered, revealing just how much misinformation and misunderstanding was out there - especially from people who couldn’t even tell you what the acronyms stand for.

 

It’s certainly worth emphasising that mRNA vaccine technology wasn’t cobbled together in a matter of months. 

 

In reality, mRNA vaccine research has been underway for over 30 years. As you point out, though, the first mRNA vaccines to receive widespread approval and public rollout were the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020.

 

For context:

In the 2010s, companies like Moderna and BioNTech began testing mRNA-based vaccines for illnesses such as flu, Zika, and rabies in clinical trials.

By 2020, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic massively accelerated funding and development, resulting in the first-ever mRNA vaccines authorised for human use - rolled out at scale, and with remarkable speed and efficacy. That efficacy was crucial, as it came during a period of global uncertainty, when data on case fatality rates, underlying risk factors, and comorbidities remained limited, and the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 had triggered widespread concern and urgency.

 

So while the technology had been simmering in labs for decades, it wasn’t until the pandemic that it saw full clinical validation and global deployment. That doesn’t mean the vaccines were "experimental" in the sense that they were untested or hastily improvised. On the contrary, mRNA vaccine platforms had undergone years of preclinical development and early-phase human trials for other diseases, such as influenza and Zika (as mentioned earlier).

 

What the pandemic did was compress timelines - not by skipping safety steps, but by overlapping trial phases, pouring in unprecedented funding, and streamlining regulatory processes. In that sense, the speed was extraordinary, but the core science was not improvised. The line between “new” and “experimental” became understandably blurred under the pressures of a global health crisis, but I think it’s misleading to suggest these vaccines were rolled out without a solid scientific and clinical foundation.

 

 

Regarding 'coercion' - thats highly emotive language and requires clafication - this is part of the issue when debating such topics - emotive language is chosen over factually based prose.

 

The question of whether society was "coerced" into taking mRNA vaccines depends on how one defines coercion, and perspectives vary widely based on cultural, political, and personal viewpoints.

 

Most people were not forcibly vaccinated - no one was physically compelled.

 

In many countries, vaccination remained a choice, and informed consent was required before administration.

 

mRNA vaccines underwent regulatory review and were recommended, not universally mandated.

 

But, there were coercive pressures (in a broader, social or institutional sense):

- Employment mandates: Many workers, especially in healthcare, education, and public services, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs 

- Access restrictions: Some countries implemented vaccine passports, restricting entry to venues, travel, or public spaces without proof of vaccination.

- Social pressure and messaging: Government campaigns, media narratives, and peer influence painted vaccination as not just a health choice but a civic duty, which, while well-intentioned, often bordered on moral pressure.

- Limited options: In some places, mRNA vaccines were the only available option during early rollout phases, leaving no choice for those hesitant about the platform - this is the part I can see as being wrong - people lacked a choice between vaccine types.

 

So, was it coercion?

Legally? No, not in most democratic countries.

Practically or socially? For many people, yes - it felt coercive, especially when livelihood, freedom of movement, or social participation were tied to vaccine status (I could not work without proof of vaccination).

 

 

Ultimately, the context matters. During a global emergency, governments weighed public health priorities over individual autonomy. Whether that balance was struck fairly is still being debated - and will likely be studied for decades to come.... ultimately, its the crux of the 'Covid-Vaccine' debates we have on this forum....  (but certainly not part of the larger Anti-Vax debate which simply find ridiculous).

 

 

 

 

[rumak]

55 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

It's all very nice to use this reasonable, mitigating language now that the dust has settled, but at the time, if concentration camps had been opened and the unvaxxed deported to them, most people, including here, would have accepted and even encouraged it:

 

 

 

 

 

This isn't only an issue about how authorities should react to health crises, it's about mass psychology and how ordinary people can be led to support and do nefarious things.

 

If anything, those who supported this should reflect on their interpretative framework and beliefs, and analyse the critical failings which allowed them to hold such harmful and shameful positions.

 

THOSE  are the intelligent and righteous people that richard likes to include himself in...... the WE  he so proudly claims to represent.   Pathetic,  and no apologies will ever come from that type.     

He still posts venom filled ad hominem attacks .... I can almost visualize his distorted face in the character of Jack Nickolson in A Few Good Men .

The harsh irony is that time has shown that even now many of those who held those

shameful positions will never own up to "the truth".