On 7/9/2025 at 10:00 PM, gamb00ler said:

I think Ukraine's relentless attack on the Kremlin's wallet has taken its toll.  Their finances as so bad now that they probably had to fire Red Phoenix.  He's been AWOL for more than 25 hours now.

He has just read your post. He says; ''I'll be back.''

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

He has just read your post. He says; ''I'll be back.''

I guess he must be another owl that sees all, then.   Mr. Red hasn't signed in since Tuesday.

On 6/15/2025 at 12:59 PM, rumak said:

Shout out to Heather B......... for passing these along

 

..

Wow. The term “autism” was first coined by Eugen Bleuler in 1911, but it was Leo Kanner, an American psychiatrist, who brought significant attention to the condition. In 1943, Kanner published a seminal paper describing 11 children who exhibited a unique set of behaviors, including “extreme autistic aloneness” and an “obsessive insistence on the preservation of sameness.”

Natural medicine was the cause of death of Steve Jobs because he avoided chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

On 6/28/2025 at 10:54 PM, cmsally said:

"In response to a Freedom of Information (“FoI”) Act request, Police Scotland has provided a directive that instructed police and staff not to accept complaints or reports regarding covid vaccinations.

Dated January 2022, the directive emphasised that requests from the public related to reporting alleged crimes about the vaccine should be refused."

https://expose-news.com/2025/06/28/foi-confirms-that-police-scotland/

The BBC issued an internal directive in 2020. Regarding covid.

 

''Do not hold debate with any anti-covid people, whether they are right or not.''

3 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The BBC issued an internal directive in 2020. Regarding covid.

 

''Do not hold debate with any anti-covid people, whether they are right or not.''

 

Of which you have verifiable proof of course, right ???

 

Perhaps AN ought to issue a formal internal directive prohibiting the publication of unfounded nonsense by conspiracy cranks and armchair experts. In a way, they already have - by creating the 'Off the Beaten Path' section, they’ve neatly cordoned off a space where people like yourself can air unverifiable, often baseless opinions under the guise of alternative insight. It’s a clever way to spotlight fringe commentary without contaminating the main discourse, fitting in well with conspiracy theories such as the Moonlandings, TwinTowers, FlatEarth, CancerCure Suppression, Aliens-pyramids.... etc etc..   you're in good company !!!!

 

-------

 

Of course: There is no public evidence that the BBC ever issued an internal directive that explicitly said:
“Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not”

 

However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many mainstream media outlets adopted editorial guidelines that prioritised public health messaging and scientific consensus. This often meant limiting airtime for views deemed to be misinformation or outside the scientific mainstream - including certain forms of vaccine scepticism, lockdown opposition, or alternative treatments.

 

Critics saw this as censorship or bias; many media outlets saw this as responsible journalism during a public health crisis.

 

Some relevant facts specifically on the BBC's outlook:

- In 2020, the BBC reaffirmed its commitment to avoid giving “false balance” to fringe views, particularly on climate change, and applied similar logic during the pandemic.

- BBC Editorial Guidelines do allow for excluding certain viewpoints if they’re considered to lack sufficient evidence or credibility.

- Internal guidance likely emphasised reliance on official sources like the NHS, WHO, and UK government briefings.

- BBC Verify (launched later), aimed to fight disinformation, reinforcing that approach.

 

 

Too long for you to read: heres a TLDR Summary: 

There’s no evidence or indication of a documented directive that the BBC and other responsible media outlets actively avoided giving a platform to people challenging the mainstream COVID narrative - regardless of whether some later turned out to have valid concerns. It was more policy by well established editorial culture than a smoking-gun memo-that never existed... 

 

 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Of which you have verifiable proof of course, right ???

 

Perhaps AN ought to issue a formal internal directive prohibiting the publication of unfounded nonsense by conspiracy cranks and armchair experts. In a way, they already have - by creating the 'Off the Beaten Path' section, they’ve neatly cordoned off a space where people like yourself can air unverifiable, often baseless opinions under the guise of alternative insight. It’s a clever way to spotlight fringe commentary without contaminating the main discourse, fitting in well with conspiracy theories such as the Moonlandings, TwinTowers, FlatEarth, CancerCure Suppression, Aliens-pyramids.... etc etc..   you're in good company !!!!

 

-------

 

Of course: There is no public evidence that the BBC ever issued an internal directive that explicitly said:
“Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not”

 

However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many mainstream media outlets adopted editorial guidelines that prioritised public health messaging and scientific consensus. This often meant limiting airtime for views deemed to be misinformation or outside the scientific mainstream - including certain forms of vaccine scepticism, lockdown opposition, or alternative treatments.

 

Critics saw this as censorship or bias; many media outlets saw this as responsible journalism during a public health crisis.

 

Some relevant facts specifically on the BBC's outlook:

- In 2020, the BBC reaffirmed its commitment to avoid giving “false balance” to fringe views, particularly on climate change, and applied similar logic during the pandemic.

- BBC Editorial Guidelines do allow for excluding certain viewpoints if they’re considered to lack sufficient evidence or credibility.

- Internal guidance likely emphasised reliance on official sources like the NHS, WHO, and UK government briefings.

- BBC Verify (launched later), aimed to fight disinformation, reinforcing that approach.

 

 

Too long for you to read: heres a TLDR Summary: 

There’s no evidence or indication of a documented directive that the BBC and other responsible media outlets actively avoided giving a platform to people challenging the mainstream COVID narrative - regardless of whether some later turned out to have valid concerns. It was more policy by well established editorial culture than a smoking-gun memo-that never existed... 

Of course there is proof.

 

It was actually said on BBC TV. You been asleep Richard? I heard it said a few times since.

 

Richie Allen played the clip on his show last month. Go and listen Richard. It's been on a number of shows.

 

And as for that BBC Verify. They only sing one song.

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

Of course there is proof.

 

It was actually said on BBC TV. You been asleep Richard?

 

Link ?  where exactly has the BBC issued an internal directive in 2020 stating: "Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not"?

 

I suspect you're conflating that with their editorial policy to avoid amplifying claims that lack sufficient evidence or credibility.

 

Do you also believe mainstream media should give serious airtime to Flat Earthers, people who deny the existence of pathogenic viruses, or those who claim antibiotics are unnecessary because “nature has the answer”?

 

There's a reason such views aren't given equal platform: they aren't grounded in credible science.

 

Let’s be honest - even most of your fellow anti-vax posters on this forum don’t agree with you that pathogenic viruses don’t exist. There’s a difference between questioning COVID-19 vaccines and rejecting the fundamentals of microbiology and virology.

 

And even within your own circles, you’re often seen as occupying the farthest fringes of anti-scientific thought - so far out, in fact, that you don’t even get support from like-minded sceptics.

 

Meanwhile, there are legitimate grey areas, such as the long-term implications of mRNA vaccines, where serious, independent research is not only warranted but essential. And yes, such studies should be completely free from bias - this is where scientific scrutiny belongs.

 

However, as has already been noted, if these studies ultimately contradict the anti-vaccination narrative, they will simply be dismissed. You won't pause, reflect, or reconsider - you'll pivot to claiming further conspiracy.

 

Or, worse still, if one adverse event in 100,000 doses results in something like VITT, you'll call that a vindication - declaring vaccines dangerous while wilfully ignoring the overwhelmingly positive impact on public health at large.

 

 

And this, yet again, is precisely why I refuse to be drawn into these kinds of debates with you (specifically).

 

Engaging with such a fundamentally flawed outlook is utterly draining. You seize upon a fragment of fact, twist and conflate it to suit your narrative, and in response, one is forced to craft a detailed, evidence-based reply - complete with sources, data, and nuance. And yet, it’s all summarily ignored as you simply pile on with more threads, more misinformation, all designed to drown out the facts within the comfort of your own echo chamber.

 

 

Six different fonts or sizes of font or capitalised and coloured........how does he get away with it?

 

I got banned for posting an 'oversized' emoji.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Link ?  where exactly has the BBC issued an internal directive in 2020 stating: "Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not"?

 

I suspect you're conflating that with their editorial policy to avoid amplifying claims that lack sufficient evidence or credibility.

 

Do you also believe mainstream media should give serious airtime to Flat Earthers, people who deny the existence of pathogenic viruses, or those who claim antibiotics are unnecessary because “nature has the answer”?

 

There's a reason such views aren't given equal platform: they aren't grounded in credible science.

 

Let’s be honest - even most of your fellow anti-vax posters on this forum don’t agree with you that pathogenic viruses don’t exist. There’s a difference between questioning COVID-19 vaccines and rejecting the fundamentals of microbiology and virology.

 

And even within your own circles, you’re often seen as occupying the farthest fringes of anti-scientific thought - so far out, in fact, that you don’t even get support from like-minded sceptics.

 

Meanwhile, there are legitimate grey areas, such as the long-term implications of mRNA vaccines, where serious, independent research is not only warranted but essential. And yes, such studies should be completely free from bias - this is where scientific scrutiny belongs.

 

However, as has already been noted, if these studies ultimately contradict the anti-vaccination narrative, they will simply be dismissed. You won't pause, reflect, or reconsider - you'll pivot to claiming further conspiracy.

 

Or, worse still, if one adverse event in 100,000 doses results in something like VITT, you'll call that a vindication - declaring vaccines dangerous while wilfully ignoring the overwhelmingly positive impact on public health at large.

 

 

And this, yet again, is precisely why I refuse to be drawn into these kinds of debates with you (specifically).

 

Engaging with such a fundamentally flawed outlook is utterly draining. You seize upon a fragment of fact, twist and conflate it to suit your narrative, and in response, one is forced to craft a detailed, evidence-based reply - complete with sources, data, and nuance. And yet, it’s all summarily ignored as you simply pile on with more threads, more misinformation, all designed to drown out the facts within the comfort of your own echo chamber.

 

 

Spot on..........

Will there ever be a safe vaccine.....

 

No!

 

Ever since Jenner the whole of the medical profession has been hell bent on jabbing us with things that kill us or damage us in someway ......bar-stewards.......everyone of them

On 6/15/2025 at 12:41 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

The success rate of all vaccines is ZERO. Any data that suggests otherwise is fraudulent.

 

While I remain a staunch advocate for free speech, your words alone is are a shining example of why some people should never be entrusted with it.

 

The information you've shared is not only wildly misleading but dangerously irresponsible. In the wrong hands - or worse, believed by the uninformed - your word will cost lives.

 

A person bitten by a rabid dog will die unless immediate post-exposure vaccination is given. Rabies has a near-100% fatality rate once symptoms appear.

A simple scratch from a rusty nail leading to tetanus can kill - fatality rates range from 10% to 70%, higher in the elderly or unvaccinated.

Japanese Encephalitis? Up to 30% fatality.

Yellow Fever? As high as 50% in severe cases.

Meningococcal Meningitis? It can kill in under a day, with fatality rates of 10–15% even with treatment.

 

This is not academic pedantry - it is the line between life and death.

 

Your careless presentation of misinformation isn’t just misleading. It’s potentially lethal to anyone foolish enough to take you at your word.

 

Fortunately, its easy to recognise you for what you are - a vocal nuisance, largely harmless. The extremity of your claims makes the sheer absurdity of your misinformation so self-evident, it’s easily dismissed by anyone with the faintest capacity for critical thought.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

While I remain a staunch advocate for free speech, your words alone is are a shining example of why some people should never be entrusted with it.

 

The information you've shared is not only wildly misleading but dangerously irresponsible. In the wrong hands - or worse, believed by the uninformed - your word will cost lives.

 

A person bitten by a rabid dog will die unless immediate post-exposure vaccination is given. Rabies has a near-100% fatality rate once symptoms appear.

A simple scratch from a rusty nail leading to tetanus can kill - fatality rates range from 10% to 70%, higher in the elderly or unvaccinated.

Japanese Encephalitis? Up to 30% fatality.

Yellow Fever? As high as 50% in severe cases.

Meningococcal Meningitis? It can kill in under a day, with fatality rates of 10–15% even with treatment.

 

This is not academic pedantry - it is the line between life and death.

 

Your careless presentation of misinformation isn’t just misleading. It’s potentially lethal to anyone foolish enough to take you at your word.

 

Fortunately, its easy to recognise you for what you are - a vocal nuisance, largely harmless. The extremity of your claims makes the sheer absurdity of your misinformation so self-evident, it’s easily dismissed by anyone with the faintest capacity for critical thought.

 

 

 

Spot on, plus the bloke is dangerous, as well as his mate, R.P..........................🤕

9 minutes ago, transam said:

Spot on, plus the bloke is dangerous, as well as his mate, R.P..........................🤕

 

Both are, and in their own ways, entirely predictable. RP simply regurgitates content from anti-vaccination sites - often without the faintest hint of critical thought - favouring sheer volume over substance in a desperate attempt to overwhelm rather than inform.

 

Rumak, meanwhile, relies on low-effort memes and then takes deep personal offence when challenged, as though being called out for posting nonsense were some form of injustice.

 

To his credit, Stiddle at least doesn’t seem to take criticism personally - though his views are so far out on the fringe, I genuinely struggle to grasp how anyone could engage with him seriously.

 

That said, Rattlesnake stands out. His posts are, at times, genuinely insightful and provide a useful lens through which to understand anti-vaccine perspectives from an intelligent and articulate angle - something those of us who support vaccination can actually learn from.

It’s just unfortunate that his thoughtful contributions are so often drowned in the noise of the fools he seems to have aligned himself with.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Link ?  where exactly has the BBC issued an internal directive in 2020 stating: "Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not"?

 

I suspect you're conflating that with their editorial policy to avoid amplifying claims that lack sufficient evidence or credibility.

 

Do you also believe mainstream media should give serious airtime to Flat Earthers, people who deny the existence of pathogenic viruses, or those who claim antibiotics are unnecessary because “nature has the answer”?

 

There's a reason such views aren't given equal platform: they aren't grounded in credible science.

 

Let’s be honest - even most of your fellow anti-vax posters on this forum don’t agree with you that pathogenic viruses don’t exist. There’s a difference between questioning COVID-19 vaccines and rejecting the fundamentals of microbiology and virology.

 

And even within your own circles, you’re often seen as occupying the farthest fringes of anti-scientific thought - so far out, in fact, that you don’t even get support from like-minded sceptics.

 

Meanwhile, there are legitimate grey areas, such as the long-term implications of mRNA vaccines, where serious, independent research is not only warranted but essential. And yes, such studies should be completely free from bias - this is where scientific scrutiny belongs.

 

However, as has already been noted, if these studies ultimately contradict the anti-vaccination narrative, they will simply be dismissed. You won't pause, reflect, or reconsider - you'll pivot to claiming further conspiracy.

 

Or, worse still, if one adverse event in 100,000 doses results in something like VITT, you'll call that a vindication - declaring vaccines dangerous while wilfully ignoring the overwhelmingly positive impact on public health at large.

 

And this, yet again, is precisely why I refuse to be drawn into these kinds of debates with you (specifically).

 

Engaging with such a fundamentally flawed outlook is utterly draining. You seize upon a fragment of fact, twist and conflate it to suit your narrative, and in response, one is forced to craft a detailed, evidence-based reply - complete with sources, data, and nuance. And yet, it’s all summarily ignored as you simply pile on with more threads, more misinformation, all designed to drown out the facts within the comfort of your own echo chamber.

Tell you what Richard. I'll dig the BBC lady actually saying that and get back. I'll be listening to The Richie Allen Show later. I think he has Dr Vernon Coleman as a guest.

 

You are in a right tiss Richard. Rather than debate you spew a load of words that seek to undermine my position. You will not be the first or last. Which is simple. As follows:

 

The body is nature in action. It can self heal and given the right tools will fight off toxins.

 

Pathogenic viruses do not exist. Certainly germs, bacteria, parasites do. They are there to help us. Not hurt us. They are all over our body; and our gut has billions.

 

Vaccines are not safe, effective or necessary.

 

We do not have an immune system. But we do have a maintenance/protection system; working 24/7/365, to keep the body in balance.

 

Without nature we are gonners. We are nature. Nature is us.

 

Health is far more simple than Big Pharma and their white-coats would have us believe.

 

The white-coats who think they can alter nature, improve it and change it, are as anti-science, anti-humanity as it's possible to get.

 

Nature has all the answers.

1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Tell you what Richard. I'll dig the BBC lady actually saying that and get back. I'll be listening to The Richie Allen Show later. I think he has Dr Vernon Coleman as a guest.

 

You are in a right tiss Richard. Rather than debate you spew a load of words that seek to undermine my position. You will not be the first or last. Which is simple. As follows:

 

The body is nature in action. It can self heal and given the right tools will fight off toxins.

 

Pathogenic viruses do not exist. Certainly germs, bacteria, parasites do. They are there to help us. Not hurt us. They are all over our body; and our gut has billions.

 

Vaccines are not safe, effective or necessary.

 

We do not have an immune system. But we do have a maintenance/protection system; working 24/7/365, to keep the body in balance.

 

Without nature we are gonners. We are nature. Nature is us.

 

Health is far more simple than Big Pharma and their white-coats would have us believe.

 

The white-coats who think they can alter nature, improve it and change it, are as anti-science, anti-humanity as it's possible to get.

 

Nature has all the answers.

More tosh and waffle, you are dangerous................

On 6/20/2025 at 2:32 PM, johng said:

You don't discuss anything full stop.

Just cryptic innuendo and/or insults.

 

Not with fruitcakes.......

6 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The body is nature in action. It can self heal and given the right tools will fight off toxins.

 

Such as Vaccines and Antibiotics.

 

6 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

 

Pathogenic viruses do not exist. Certainly germs, bacteria, parasites do. They are there to help us. Not hurt us. They are all over our body; and our gut has billions.

 

Vaccines are not safe, effective or necessary.

 

We do not have an immune system. But we do have a maintenance/protection system; working 24/7/365, to keep the body in balance.

 

Without nature we are gonners. We are nature. Nature is us.

 

Health is far more simple than Big Pharma and their white-coats would have us believe.

 

The white-coats who think they can alter nature, improve it and change it, are as anti-science, anti-humanity as it's possible to get.

 

Nature has all the answers.

 

7 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Rather than debate you spew a load of words that seek to undermine my position.

 

You manage, quite impressively, to undermine the legitimacy of your own opinions without any external help.

 

As an anti-vaxxer, your arguments are so riddled with absurdity that they do more to strengthen the pro-vaccine position than weaken it.

 

No one with even a passing grasp of science or critical thinking could react to your claims with anything but laughter. You parade flawed science in the threadbare costume of credibility, but the masquerade fools no one beyond the gullible and woefully uneducated.

 

 

 

On 6/15/2025 at 12:25 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

No joking Sir. Just pointing out that most of what the white-coats tell us about disease is completely wrong. My explanations are much closer to the truth

 

Nature has the answers we seek. And the answers are free for all to enjoy good health. Just have to open yer mind.

 

 

 

 

Goodness me, congratulations on your groundbreaking discovery.  It's even more amazing when you consider the sheer number of highly trained scientists, researchers and medical professionals, who over the past several hundred years seemingly missed this simple discovery. 

I presume you'll be getting a call soon informing you that you've won the Nobel prized in Medicine and Time want you on their front cover!!

 

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The BBC issued an internal directive in 2020. Regarding covid.

 

''Do not hold debate with any anti-covid people, whether they are right or not.''

And in Yellowstone National Park they have signs that say.... "Do not approach wildlife."   Seems like BBC knew that anti-covid people are angry and dangerous.  I know, I know... that should be common sense but it doesn't do any harm to post a warning.

38 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The white-coats who think they can alter nature, improve it and change it, are as anti-science, anti-humanity as it's possible to get.

Mankind has been bending your goddess nature to fit our needs and desires since we adopted any form of language.  Face it... you're all mixed up about science and nature.  Try to keep your train of thought on the rails.

24 minutes ago, Freddy42OZ said:

 

 

Goodness me, congratulations on your groundbreaking discovery.  It's even more amazing when you consider the sheer number of highly trained scientists, researchers and medical professionals, who over the past several hundred years seemingly missed this simple discovery. 

I presume you'll be getting a call soon informing you that you've won the Nobel prized in Medicine and Time want you on their front cover!!

 

Thanks Freddy.

 

You can join our world-wide group if you think it would help improve the heath of our children. The group is limited to 1 million. So hurry if you are interested.

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

Thanks Freddy.

 

You can join our world-wide group if you think it would help improve the heath of our children. The group is limited to 1 million. So hurry if you are interested.

I just knew you were part of an ant-vax/pharma club, I recall TT got rid of you lot as..........

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

And in Yellowstone National Park they have signs that say.... "Do not approach wildlife."   Seems like BBC knew that anti-covid people are angry and dangerous.  I know, I know... that should be common sense but it doesn't do any harm to post a warning.

You are missing the point Sir. '',,,,,,,, whether they are right or not.''

 

Simply not giving any voice to whoever didn't agree with the Government policy. If you don't let them speak; you don't have to shut them down. Easy peasy. 

 

The road to tyranny?!

On 6/15/2025 at 2:36 PM, gamb00ler said:

Proteins from deactivated virus particles are the actual component of most vaccines that prompts the human immune system to produce antibodies.  They often use those viral remains because they contain the exact proteins needed to 'educate' the immune system to recognize when the live virus enters the body.

Vaccines are made up with all sorts of stuff. Some might call them toxic filth.

 

However; I've researched them, and not once have I come across one that has actually worked. Not that I would believe they could anyway. Most of the better known ones, were brought onto the market, as the symptoms of that illness were on the decline. In some cases not even significant before the jab was introduced.

 

Dr Suzanne Humphies has research also. Read what she has to say;

 

Dr Humphries makes the very strong claims that infectious diseases were conquered by improved sanitation, and better nutrition. Not, as is widely claimed, by vaccination programmes.

 

www.CanYouCatchaCold.com

 

1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Vaccines are made up with all sorts of stuff. Some might call them toxic filth.

 

However; I've researched them, and not once have I come across one that has actually worked. Not that I would believe they could anyway. Most of the better known ones, were brought onto the market, as the symptoms of that illness were on the decline. In some cases not even significant before the jab was introduced.

 

Dr Suzanne Humphies has research also. Read what she has to say;

 

Dr Humphries makes the very strong claims that infectious diseases were conquered by improved sanitation, and better nutrition. Not, as is widely claimed, by vaccination programmes.

 

www.CanYouCatchaCold.com

 

More complete tosh, I am beginning to think you are just a baiting wind up merchant..

Which, if I am right, is very sad indeed.........🤕

7 minutes ago, transam said:

More complete tosh, I am beginning to think you are just a baiting wind up merchant..

Which, if I am right, is very sad indeed.........🤕

I take it that you believe Dr Suzanne Humphries is wrong then Trans bud.

 

But even if you don't agree with her; why what she says is 'complete tosh'?

1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I take it that you believe Dr Suzanne Humphries is wrong then Trans bud.

 

But even if you don't agree with her; why is it 'complete tosh'?

What you write is complete tosh, I think a nutter, but you already know that, but it is your hobby, eh......😉

1 minute ago, transam said:

What you write is complete tosh, I think a nutter, but you already know that, but it is your hobby, eh......😉

My post illustrated a white-coat's work;  Dr Suzanne Humphries.

 

Dr Humphries challenges the belief that medical interventions alone eradicated infectious diseases. Drawing from historical records and data, she highlights how improved living conditions played the primary role in reducing mortality.

 

Are you saying that she is wrong, and should not share her research. 

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

My post illustrated a white-coat's work;  Dr Suzanne Humphries.

 

Dr Humphries challenges the belief that medical interventions alone eradicated infectious diseases. Drawing from historical records and data, she highlights how improved living conditions played the primary role in reducing mortality.

 

Are you saying that she is wrong, and should not share her research. 

Read what you just posted............🤣

5 minutes ago, transam said:

Read what you just posted............🤣

Did you have a butchers at her research Trans?