12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Sorry - no more debating with complete fools and getting dragged down to your level... 

You are so pompous and superior.

 

Because you lost the debate; you are calling foul. Shame to see you go Buddy.

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

As I've only had 3 or 4 vaccines in my life and appear to be reasonably healthy age 70, I can only assume either vaccines are unnecessary, or I'm the luckiest person in the world.

 

To those that say, other people being vaccinated saved me, I can only think I've spent a lot of my life wandering 3rd world countries full of unvaccinated locals and having intimate contact with them while remaining mainly disease free.

 

Tetanus x2 when I was a kid, no boosters for 50 years, no tetanus, so lucky lucky lucky.

 

Do virus exist?

Does god exist?

Irrelevant to my life!

 

But I do sometimes wonder at all those people with allergies, food intolerances, asthma, diabetes none of which I have while stuffing my face with chocolate and sugar every day and breathing the Chiang Mai air. More luck I guess!

 

Your story is fortunate, but anecdote isn’t evidence. For every person who gets by with few vaccines, countless others weren’t so lucky – that’s why smallpox, polio and measles devastated populations until vaccines curbed them.

 

Travelling in “third world countries” without serious illness doesn’t prove immunity – it shows that exposure isn’t guaranteed, and yes, sometimes luck plays the biggest role. The tetanus example proves the same: you simply weren’t exposed to a dangerous wound, not that boosters are unnecessary.

 

As for allergies, asthma and diabetes – those conditions are linked to genetics, environment and lifestyle, not vaccines. Your good fortune doesn’t disprove their value; it just shows health is complex. 

 

As you wrote - more luck than anything else.

 

 

I’m also sorry to touch on something personal, but in other threads you’ve mentioned only having a couple more years remaining and struggling with health difficulties – I truly am sorry to hear that. My own father is in his late 80s and enjoying life, see's his grandchildren etc...  and while some might argue that such an age brings limitations – less mobility, a reduced quality of life – it would be a poor argument to suggest that therefore longevity isn’t worth striving for.

By the same logic (of myself created argument which is to pre-empt the inevitable response) , I could dismiss my own years now as “less great” simply because I can no longer play football after countless injuries. I sometimes think about stem-cell injections for my knees, but ultimately my joint issues are a direct result of my 'terrain' – broken bones, sprains, tears – the inevitable price of impact sports (Rugby, Football, Skiing, Wakeboard - all of which I've suffered fairly serious injuries).

Had I spent my life swimming, my body might be in better shape today… but what a dull life that would have been.

 

This is really the essence of the point: terrain shapes outcome. Medicine complements terrain, it doesn’t replace it, and it doesn’t render one void while elevating the other. The interplay is what matters. To pretend otherwise is to miss the nuance – and, ultimately, the truth.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Yep,

Nobody ever had polio where I lived in the UK

Tetanus I've not caught despite 40 plus years of no boosters

Typhoid refused, and I didn't catch it in Asia, Africa or the Middle East

Measles not available, and I had it age 9, no big deal

Hepatitis refused, and I've not caught it despite 16 years of bareback with hookers

 

TB, refused that too, no scar on my arm, didn't catch it in Asia, Africa or the Middle East either.

 

This argument relies entirely on anecdote one person’s luck isn’t evidence that vaccines aren’t necessary.

 

Take polio, for example. In the 1950s, before mass vaccination, polio was a serious and widespread disease in the UK. Thousands of children were paralysed or died each year. Outbreaks were unpredictable, and families in seemingly “safe” areas could still be struck.

 

The fact that someone didn’t personally encounter polio doesn’t mean it wasn’t a major public health threat - mass vaccination campaigns are what drove it nearly to extinction.

 

Tetanus, typhoid, TB, hepatitis, and measles follow the same logic. Avoiding them by chance, whether through travel or risky behaviour, is luck, not proof that vaccination is unnecessary. Millions of people still get seriously ill from these preventable diseases; vaccines shift the odds from dangerous to safe.

 

Vaccines protect both the individual and the community. Herd immunity prevents outbreaks that could affect the vulnerable. Relying on personal streaks of good fortune isn’t a strategy - it’s gambling.

 

Science relies on population-level evidence, not one person’s anecdote.

 

This is the same logic as the 'seatbelt argument'.... “I’ve never crashed a car, so I don’t need a seatbelt.”

Just because one person avoids harm by chance doesn’t mean the risk isn’t real.

Polio in the 1950s, before mass vaccination, paralysed thousands - some people got lucky, most did not. Vaccines, like seatbelts, shift the odds in your favour and protect not just you, but others around you.

 

Those who didn’t survive or were severely harmed can’t tell their story, so using personal luck as evidence completely ignores the people who paid the price.

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

A multi-billion profit-driven industry needs to protect its raison d'etre at all cost and with all possible means.  Luckily they have over decades brainwashed the populace with their 'safe and effective' mantra.  And then there are of course the useful 'so called science believers' as well as many profiteers that are in the know have been bought and will stop at nothing to defend that perfidious industry.

 

 

This argument assumes a sweeping conspiracy where an entire global industry, every regulator, countless independent scientists, and diverse governments are all not only complicit but perfectly coordinated in deceiving billions of people for decades.

 

That level of secrecy and control is implausible – leaks, whistle-blowers, and internal conflicts would have exposed it long ago.

 

The “brainwashing” claim also undercuts itself: if the only explanation for people trusting the evidence is that they’re brainwashed, then any contrary evidence is dismissed automatically. That’s not a testable claim, it’s an unfalsifiable belief.

 

Meanwhile, the reality is more nuanced: pharmaceutical companies do seek profit, sometimes unethically, which is why robust independent testing, peer review, regulatory oversight, and open scientific debate exist.

 

If safety and efficacy were entirely fabricated, independent research by universities, international agencies, and even rival companies would have torn it apart.

 

Profit, far from being inherently malevolent, fuels research and development. It acts as a driving force for intellectual evolution, providing the resources and incentives necessary for innovation - just as necessity has long been the father of adaptive design. Without the motivation and investment that profit enables, many vaccines, medicines, and life-saving technologies might never have been developed.

 

Profit can be a double-edged sword when it intersects with public health. Nevertheless, much like democracy, it could be argued that profit-driven pharmaceuticals are the worst form of industry - except for all the other alternatives. Better oversight is absolutely essential, but it must not come at the cost of stifling development and innovation.

 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Take polio, for example. In the 1950s, before mass vaccination, polio was a serious and widespread disease in the UK. Thousands of children were paralysed or died each year. Outbreaks were unpredictable, and families in seemingly “safe” areas could still be struck.

This is simply not true.

 

As was shown in Red's recent topic, and in various other studies.

 

Dr Suzy Humphies'book; 'dissolving illusions.' tells a similar story.

 

 https://dissolvingillusions.com/

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

This argument assumes a sweeping conspiracy where an entire global industry, every regulator, countless independent scientists, and diverse governments are all not only complicit but perfectly coordinated in deceiving billions of people for decades.

As Dr Tenpenny eloquently explains;

 

"Zero Accountability in a failed System. For decades, powerful forces in government, Big Pharma, and Public Health Agencies have crafted a master plan - designed to control, deceive, and profit, from a trusting population."

 

https://drtenpenny.com/

42 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

56 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Sorry - no more debating with complete fools and getting dragged down to your level... 

You are so pompous and superior.

 

Because you lost the debate; you are calling foul. Shame to see you go Buddy.

 

No loss, no foul - there is no intelligent debate with you. I won’t debate someone who calls black “blue” and repeats misinformation as if volume alone strengthens the argument. Most people feel the same way, so why bother? Ignoring fools is usually my approach, until I have time to entertain the silliness.

 

When you post such sweeping claims, it becomes impossible to have a meaningful dialogue. Even if one tries to engage, the level of misinformation and repetition—such as “viruses don’t exist” or “nature has all the answers” - makes rational discussion pointless...

 

Others may offer comments worthy of response, but your posts consistently close off any intellectual exchange. This isn’t about perceived superiority; reasoned debate relies on engaging with evidence, not endlessly repeating demonstrably false or absurd assertions...

 

This is why I’ve consistently avoided engaging with your comments. My attitude mirrors Mark Twain’s warning: “Never argue with a fool; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience” ... In your case, that experience seems to manifest as the unabated repetition of utter <deleted>!

 

11 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

35 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Take polio, for example. In the 1950s, before mass vaccination, polio was a serious and widespread disease in the UK. Thousands of children were paralysed or died each year. Outbreaks were unpredictable, and families in seemingly “safe” areas could still be struck.

This is simply not true.

 

As was shown in Red's recent topic, and in various other studies.

 

Dr Suzy Humphies'book; 'dissolving illusions.' tells a similar story.

 

 https://dissolvingillusions.com/

 

… and this is precisely why I refuse to debate with you. You argue against facts that have been established by the medical and virological communities, as well as by public health leaders and authorities across the globe, and counter them with opinions that have been widely criticized by the medical community. Experts have debunked Dr. Humphries’ claims, stating that vaccines are safe and effective in preventing serious diseases. For example, research shows that the polio vaccine was instrumental in eliminating wild poliovirus in the United States and Canada (CEDMO).

 

While Dr. Humphries’ medical background lends her some credibility, her current stance on vaccines and viruses is considered controversial and is not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

 

I’m sure I could find a “safety expert” who’s published articles suggesting that seatbelts are dangerous—but quoting such a source as evidence would be foolish. Likewise, selectively citing controversial opinions against vaccines while ignoring the overwhelming consensus of experts and decades of data is misleading. Evidence must be weighed in the context of established science, not cherry-picked to suit a narrative.

 

Now, you've dragged me in far enough - I've given such idiocy way too much oxygen already.

 

 

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

While Dr. Humphries’ medical background lends her some credibility, her current stance on vaccines and viruses is considered controversial and is not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

She wrote a book spelling it all out. Graphs. Data. Facts. Truth.

 

All you seem to do is shoot the messenger.

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Experts have debunked Dr. Humphries’ claims, stating that vaccines are safe and effective in preventing serious diseases.

This is simply not true. Back to 'safe' & 'effective' are we. Dear me.

 

I'd like to debate 'disease' with you Richard Buddy. I don't think there are diseases. What say you Sir?

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

57 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Experts have debunked Dr. Humphries’ claims, stating that vaccines are safe and effective in preventing serious diseases.

This is simply not true. Back to 'safe' & 'effective' are we. Dear me.

 

I'd like to debate 'disease' with you Richard Buddy. I don't think there are diseases. What say you Sir?

 

Nothing other than this - I will not more effort than this debating with someone who makes claims so fundamentally absurd - denying the existence of diseases and viruses, rejecting antibiotics, and spreading misinformation as if repetition makes it true.

 

Giving such nonsense any oxygen is not just pointless - it’s utterly idiotic and I've stepped far enough down that trail with you already.

Engaging with such silliness drags one down to a level of absurdity I refuse to visit any further than I have.

 

While on a personal level you may be worth the time, some arguments simply aren’t worth answering or the time.

11 hours ago, impulse said:

I'd give just about anything to go back in time and undo my 2nd Pfizer.  My quality of life took a nosedive the next day and over 4 years later, it still hasn't improved much. 

 

And it was 2 years later, on yet another trip to the ER, before my doctors finally conceded that my symptoms were commonly reported side effects.  Until then, they didn't know what caused my symptoms.  They just "knew" it wasn't the Pfizer.

 

I can excuse the side effects since that's a risk with any new treatment, especially under an EUA.  What pisses me off more is the gaslighting and the cover up.

 

I think rattlesnake got it right.  Even normally reasonable people are horrified to think they may have injured their loved ones by demanding we all roll up our sleeves.  Even as study after study reveals the truth.

 

 

Perhaps you heard what you wanted to hear. And sometimes, physicians who do not know speculate or offer a  generic response to  deal with a patient's demands.  Have you ever considered that Covid itself unleasehed terrible and long lasting physical damage to people? Even when not showing sysmptoms or when recovered, the Covid 19 virus leaves a tragic inflammatory footprint.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

That’s an interesting response – though unsurprising, given your broader stance that vaccines are ineffective.

 

I too see merit in the terrain theory: the idea that maintaining a strong internal environment through nutrition, lifestyle, and overall health provides resilience against disease. It certainly plays a crucial role in determining how our bodies respond to infections, and no reasonable person would deny the importance of strengthening our immune system through healthy living.

 

However, terrain theory cannot stand alone. History has shown us time and again that even the healthiest populations are not immune to the devastating effects of certain pathogens. Smallpox, for instance, killed millions regardless of diet or lifestyle, until its eradication through vaccination.

 

Similarly, polio paralysed otherwise healthy children until widespread immunisation brought cases down by over 99%. Vaccines do not negate the value of a robust “terrain” – rather, they complement it, offering targeted protection against specific threats that the immune system, unaided, may not be able to fend off effectively.

 

In short, while the terrain provides the foundation for health, vaccines act as essential reinforcements – shielding us against particular dangers that could overwhelm even the strongest constitution.

 

 

(not that you made it, but others seem to be) An argument that pits terrain against vaccines as an “either-or” option is fundamentally flawed – and, to be blunt, rather stupid in my opinion. It’s like saying that because eating well keeps you healthy, there’s no need for antibiotics if you get a serious bacterial infection, or that because your car has good tyres, you don’t need brakes. One supports overall strength and resilience, the other addresses immediate and specific dangers – both are indispensable.

 

Regarding the polio narrative, here is a text which isn't by me, I copied it from someone else's summary of Suzanne Humphries' take on polio. I encourage you to temporarily take a step back from your existing opinion of her, as well as from your belief on the vaccine's purported effect on this ailment.

 

I certainly don't expect you to reply "Wow, rattlesnake, you've convinced me", but I do think that one of the preliminary processes leading to a shift in belief (and I have been through this slow process several times, regarding vaccines, the heliocentric model and other things) is to sow seeds. The effect is seemingly nonexistent at first, but those seeds will occasionally grow a little at the back of one's mind and contribute to expand one's window of acceptability, i.e. you can gradually accompany your mind towards a place where you might consider something you would not have considered initially.

 

Humphries' book is sourced, fact-based and has not been formally refuted to this day. Also bear in mind my previous comment on the fact that this paradigm led to the advent of a billion-dollar industry – is it that unreasonable to posit that the stakeholders of said industry might be tempted to present things in a way favourable to them?

 

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

 

Ask anyone why we no longer see “crippled kids” from polio, and they’ll likely give you one answer: vaccines.

 

But Dr. Suzanne Humphries says that’s not what the facts show—and when you dig into the history, the real story is jaw-dropping.

 

First off, polio never actually disappeared. According to Humphries, “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well.”

 

What changed? The definition. Once the vaccine was introduced, the medical establishment redefined what counted as “polio.”

 

Humphries explains: “Polio is called different things today. Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts—everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.”

 

Suddenly, cases that would’ve been labeled polio were now called Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus—or simply chalked up to heavy metal poisoning. “They didn’t have virus, or they had coxsackievirus or echovirus, or they were lead poisoned or mercury poisoned, which was—the mercury and lead were the leading treatments of the day,” she said.

 

But it gets worse.

 

The rise of polio, she says, directly mirrored the use of toxic pesticides like DDT. “The tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio.” And even today, “the countries that still make DDT today is where we’re still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.”

 

So what about the virus?

 

Polio virus, according to Humphries, is what’s known as a commensal—a normal virus that lives in most people without causing problems. In fact, “95 to 99% of all polio is asymptomatic.” She described a study of the Javante Indians where “98 to 99% of every person they tested… had evidence of immunity to all three strains of polio.”

 

When asked where all the paralyzed children were, she recalled: “They were like, ‘We don’t have any of that problem.’”

 

Humphries also points to a 1916 Rockefeller lab in Manhattan that, in her words, had “the specific stated goal… to try to create the most pathological, neuropathological strain of polio possible.” By injecting monkey brains and human spinal serum into monkeys, “there was a big problem with that, which was released into the public by accident. And the world experienced the worst polio epidemic on record. 25% mortality.”

 

Bottom line? According to Dr. Humphries, polio didn’t disappear because of vaccines. It disappeared behind a curtain of redefinitions, misdiagnoses, manmade disasters—and a whole lot of propaganda.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Perhaps you heard what you wanted to hear. And sometimes, physicians who do not know speculate or offer a  generic response to  deal with a patient's demands.  Have you ever considered that Covid itself unleasehed terrible and long lasting physical damage to people? Even when not showing sysmptoms or when recovered, the Covid 19 virus leaves a tragic inflammatory footprint.

 

Perhaps that's what he meant when he said "What pisses me off more is the gaslighting"?

 

I think he knows better than you what's going on with his own body.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

On the contrary, I remain just as intolerant of ill-informed fools who peddle misinformation and paranoia.

 

My remark was not a softening of that stance, but rather an acknowledgment that I can understand why some people, specifically regarding mRNA vaccines, might harbour doubts. Their scepticism often stems less from science itself and more from a deep mistrust of authorities who, under the extraordinary pressures of the pandemic, made the difficult decision to fast-track vaccine approval.

 

Recognising the roots of that mistrust, however, does not mean excusing the spread of baseless fear and misnformation regarding vaccines in general....

 

 

 

 

 

I don't recall you expressing an understanding of why some people harboured doubts on the mRNA jab back in 2022, and that is the point I am making. It was a period of extreme pressure and discrimination against the unvaccinated, who were designated as enemies of society, with hardly veiled implications of what potential 'measures' could be taken against them against their will. I was on the receiving end of this political and societal pressure and discrimination, and I can assure you it was stressful (and I am not easily stressed).

 

I took a lot of screenshots of what people were saying against the unjabbed at the time, because I was sure the tide would eventually turn and that those who had condoned what happened would be quick to pretend they hadn't. What you said was far from being the worst stuff I saw, but you did use derogatory language against people who were merely stating they didn't want to take it based on their understanding of things (I was one of them). So whether you like it or not, you objectively condoned what happened.

 

I guess my question now (and I should stress that the intent is not to be confrontational or vindictive, but I am merely interested in your take on things) is whether you agree that the response to vaccine sceptics was excessive, and if so, whether you consider you had a minor degree of personal involvement, and I do mean personal, not collective, as expressing things under a general "we" tends to dilute responsibility.

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is really the essence of the point: terrain shapes outcome. Medicine complements terrain, it doesn’t replace it, and it doesn’t render one void while elevating the other. The interplay is what matters. To pretend otherwise is to miss the nuance – and, ultimately, the truth.

 

The logical conclusion to this rationale is that one should be free to cultivate one's health as one sees fit. Just as I am free to eat junk food and lead a sedentary lifestyle, or conversely eat healthy food and lead an active lifestyle, shouldn't I be free to choose to complement my terrain with medicine or not?

 

Compulsory vaccination is often seen as being morally dubious.

 

Out of curiosity, what is your take on Florida's decision to remove all vaccine mandates?

On 9/12/2025 at 8:47 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

Go Kennedy go!

 

Kens is a deep faker on the people, an actor, like these 2 sodomites in this video here.

On 9/12/2025 at 9:47 AM, rattlesnake said:

Newton, Darwin and Copernicus doubted their own theories, what does that tell you?

 

Tells me they were all Freemasons who knew exactly what they were doing: Running psyops like the spinning ball one, on the dumb people brains.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The logical conclusion to this rationale is that one should be free to cultivate one's health as one sees fit. Just as I am free to eat junk food and lead a sedentary lifestyle, or conversely eat healthy food and lead an active lifestyle, shouldn't I be free to choose to complement my terrain with medicine or not?

Socialists/Nazis always want to enforce their will and lifestyles on others ........ or else.

19 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Both are symptoms of toxicity.

 

They are the body ridding itself of undesirables, that have been deliberately taken in or unwittingly.

Good attempt at deflection, but wrong.

One is a result of a normally curable infection, the other an incurable and debilitating auto immune disease.

3 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Good attempt at deflection, but wrong.

One is a result of a normally curable infection, the other an incurable and debilitating auto immune disease.

Both are the result of toxicity.

 

The body will self-heal is given the tools.

11 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Have you ever considered that Covid itself unleasehed terrible and long lasting physical damage to people? Even when not showing sysmptoms or when recovered, the Covid 19 virus leaves a tragic inflammatory footprint.

Dr Vernon Coleman says 'Covid is the rebranded flu.'

 

And what is 'The Flu'? A seasonal detoxification.

 

The tragic ',,inflammatory footprint.' is probably vax injury.

20 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I have had scientific training

It’s hilarious how all the mudbloods like to claim things such as “I worked in healthcare” (no details of course) and now….”I have had scientific training”

 

derp

 

 

27 minutes ago, Airalee said:

It’s hilarious how all the mudbloods like to claim things such as “I worked in healthcare” (no details of course) and now….”I have had scientific training”

 

derp

 

 

Having over 55 years in the drug industry, I consider myself an experienced expert in the field.  Especially non clinical trials 🙄

 

I remember my first arrest like it was yesterday ... 

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I took a lot of screenshots of what people were saying against the unjabbed at the time, because I was sure the tide would eventually turn and that those who had condoned what happened would be quick to pretend they hadn't.

And they hate you for that.…at least the ones who are still alive.

On 9/12/2025 at 9:16 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

Thanks for your Reply Richard Buddy.

 

I've put plenty of research info out there. However! It's a like having a conversation with a religious person who is trying to convince you that god exists. You say that you are not a believer. And then you are asked prove there is no god.

 

Surely, those that say vaccines are good for you, should be able to say what they are for. And if the answer is to 'counteract' a virus; then the next question from me is; show me a virus.

 

My research shows me a couple of 'truths'. The first is that I've not seen evidence that a pathogenic virus has been found; that is in isolation and purification. Secondly; that infection between people is possible (as in the virus world).

 

There is plenty of evidence out there Sir. Much of it posted by me. Open you mind and stop watching MSM.

 

https://odysee.com/@Stichting_Vaccinvrij:e/dr-susanne-humphries-over-mazelen-het:d

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

Susan Humphries, nephrologist turned homeopath who has never published any peer reviewed research. She believes polio was caused by DDT and the decline in polio by a change in diagnostic criteria, that the smallpox vaccine was ineffective and smallpox eradicated through better sanitation, and vaccines in general cause only injuries, no benefits. The level of willful ignorance and duplicity here is breathtaking. Humphries deliberately distorted the data on infectious diseases and vaccines in order to sell her book, promote her homeopathic business, and earn money on the anti-vax lecture circuit. Reportedly, she's done quite well for herself, just like RFK Jr. (although both decry the big bad Pharma industry for its conflict of interests).

 

But you're in good company in your admiration for her. Joe Rogan is also a big supporter

10 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

Susan Humphries, nephrologist turned homeopath who has never published any peer reviewed research. She believes polio was caused by DDT and the decline in polio by a change in diagnostic criteria, that the smallpox vaccine was ineffective and smallpox eradicated through better sanitation, and vaccines in general cause only injuries, no benefits. The level of willful ignorance and duplicity here is breathtaking. Humphries deliberately distorted the data on infectious diseases and vaccines in order to sell her book, promote her homeopathic business, and earn money on the anti-vax lecture circuit. Reportedly, she's done quite well for herself, just like RFK Jr. (although both decry the big bad Pharma industry for its conflict of interests).

 

But you're in good company in your admiration for her. Joe Rogan is also a big supporter

Indeed!

 

Here is a link.

 

https://odysee.com/@Qwinten:b/Dr.-Suzanne-Humphries---Joe-Rogan-Experience:e

 

And specific to polio.

 

https://odysee.com/@BeAwareChannel:3/what-happens-to-Polio:7

 

Her message is undeniable. Don't get the idea that I agree with her on everything. Cause I don't.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Indeed!

 

Here is a link.

 

https://odysee.com/@Qwinten:b/Dr.-Suzanne-Humphries---Joe-Rogan-Experience:e

 

And specific to polio.

 

https://odysee.com/@BeAwareChannel:3/what-happens-to-Polio:7

 

Her message is undeniable. Don't get the idea that I agree with her on everything. Cause I don't.

 

 

Yeah, undeniably wrong. The transmission of polio via a virus has been demonstrated in laboratory tests with monkeys. The virus (or the different strains of the virus actually) has been isolated and sequenced. The prevalance of polio decreased 95 percent in US after introduction of the Salk vaccine and was eradicated in nearly all countries in the world after the WHO launched its polio eradication campaign using the vaccine. 

 

Personally, I saw the effects of the polio virus, as one of my classmates was partially paralyzed by it. I also had a girlfriend who caught it as a child but was fortunate that her parents recognized the symptoms right away and rushed her to the emergency room for treatment. She wasn't paralyzed but did have a long recovery period (and long-term aftereffects). DDT indeed.

On 9/12/2025 at 9:47 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

The 'Germ Theory' is just that; a theory.

Just calling something a theory does not in any way, shape or form transform it into a falsehood.

 

Perhaps you'll volunteer to test the theory?  After all that is the only way to disprove the theory and strengthen your case.

 

Don't be shy now!.... It IS only a theory.  What could go wrong?

 

Are you afraid that after the test starts you'll suddenly have a reaction to some toxin and have to terminate the test before proving your case?

6 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

Yeah, undeniably wrong. The transmission of polio via a virus has been demonstrated in laboratory tests with monkeys. The virus (or the different strains of the virus actually) has been isolated and sequenced.

Oh no it hasn't. That is monumental humbug.

 

Injecting muck into monkey's brains proved nothing except that the poor monkeys didn't like it.

 

I actually got polio when I was young. Couldn't walk for a couple of months. Long time in hospital. Spent the summer recovering at Heathercombe Break School in Devon. A school for poor London kids who had suffered bad illnesses and needed to recuperate.

 

Big emphasis on nature and - dare I say it - religion. That would be 1957.

 

 

The famous 'Jay's Grave' was with walking distance. Went there many times to place flowers.