1 minute ago, Des1 said:

1 minute ago, Des1 said:

 

Aliens

 

Jeez Louise.  Now you're quoting yourself with nonsense.  Step away from the bong.

 

I believe this falls under the category of "What a load."

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

 

 

Just now, impulse said:

 

Jeez Louise.  Now you're quoting yourself with nonsense.  Step away from the bong.

offering nonsense to match yours, but of course you are too high to notice.

12 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I do not agree with this one little bit.

 

I have written extensively on 'cancer' and I contend that it is the body that creates 'cancer' to self-protect.

 

The future to stopping all illness and sicknesses is open health dialog, and an appreciation of nature. For it is nature where we all started. It has all the answers and is our destiny.

 

Sorry, I think this is nonsense.

Cancer appears to be caused by years of oxidative stress on the body. 

"Nature" is a practically meaningless term. 

 

And the fact that they are using mRNA to try to cure cancer is intriguing to me. 

And I am looking forward to see if they make progress with this research.

 

 

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Modern Medicine (Big Pharma) does not address those. Why should it. a healthy customer is no good for business.

 

Because it's your job to try to avoid illness through diet and exercise.

 

Once you need Big Pharma, it's because you haven't done a good enough job OR .... the body just breaks down through old age. 

 

2 hours ago, BillStrangeOgre said:

Yup, that's the quality of argumee not as informed as you.nt I'm talking about 😂

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise biochemists were not as informed as you. I will listen to your verbal diarrhoea, your pathetic extpertise, from now on NOT. Idiot.

13 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Sorry, I think this is nonsense.

Cancer appears to be caused by years of oxidative stress on the body. 

"Nature" is a practically meaningless term. 

 

And the fact that they are using mRNA to try to cure cancer is intriguing to me. 

And I am looking forward to see if they make progress with this research.

 

 

I have written extensively on "bird droppings"

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Jeez Louise.  Now you're quoting yourself with nonsense.  Step away from the bong.

 

The bong is the only way I can listen to your drivel.

On 9/13/2025 at 10:37 AM, connda said:

Color me surprised:  Researchers Found Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated

Now, had the researcher found that Vaccinated Children Healthier Than Unvaccinated, the paper would fit the "commonly accepted narrative" and would have been published.
But?
The researchers found that Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated - so they didn’t publish findings.

Post "pandemic" this is called, "Trusting The Science."  

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/researchers-found-unvaccinated-children-healthier-than-vaccinated-didnt-publish-findings-5912680

The group  that produced that report retracted it because the data and methodology were flawed

18 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

The group  that produced that report retracted it because the data and methodology were flawed

That's not what Aaron Siri testified under oath during the recent congressional hearing. 

He had personal contact with the Head researcher and the Doctor that agreed on doing the study as they were convinced it would prove once and for all that vaccines lead to better health outcomes.  But the actual data proved just the opposite and it was career and job suicide to publish the study, of which they admitted that it was valid and correctly done.   

Summon them to testify under oath together with Aaron Siri, or replicate the study at another large hospital institution. 

24 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Because it's your job to try to avoid illness through diet and exercise.

 

Once you need Big Pharma, it's because you haven't done a good enough job OR .... the body just breaks down through old age. 

 

And avoiding clot-shots also.

 

Your take on cancer is very conventional IMO. To say what I would like to, would need a book. But in a nut-shell, cancer is the body packaging up toxicity, that it cannot get rid of; as in the normal day to day running of the body. I am pro-nature. And it is fundamental to realise that nature does not do stuff that will harm itself. The body will self-heal if it can. It is doing that constantly 24/7/365. It has to be given the tools of course. But sometimes that is difficult. Especially when it comes to nutrients.

 

Then there is the defence and maintenance system. As we take in toxins - some of which are day to day entities - the body deals with them as they come in. But!!! If the body is compromised, or is lacking in basic micro-organisms, enzymes, proteins and minerals within, it may not be able to, and resorts to packaging. 

 

Packaging, is the body coating the toxic elements and tucking them away. If the said  toxicity stops arriving, the body will break down the 'tumor' and eliminate it. If, on the other hand, the toxicity keeps coming, the tumor grows, and could even get its own blood supply. Unfortunately tumors are often found when serious damage has been already been done to the functioning of organs and the body itself.

 

We must also consider the mind in all this. Too big a topic for this thread, but suffice to say; 'The way to the body is through the mind.'

 

There is more, much more. The vibrations within. The route of electricity flows. The effect of oxygen on the tumor.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Big Pharma is an umbrella term for the Modern Medicine Establishment. It is controlled by big money. And has precious little to do with public health. Just a huge money making business.

 

Of course there are some white-coats who do good. I've met some. But on the flip-side, I've also met plenty who check their bank balances every day.

 

Hard to convince a white-coat that he is wrong when his pay check depends on him staying dumb.

 

 

Big Pharma is a lazy term to lump together a whole medical industry, because it's easier than trying to justify their position against the vast majority of honest hard working people who really care about their patients. That does not sit well with the "Big Pharma" ranters

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

That's not what Aaron Siri testified under oath during the recent congressional hearing. 

He had personal contact with the Head researcher and the Doctor that agreed on doing the study as they were convinced it would prove once and for all that vaccines lead to better health outcomes.  But the actual data proved just the opposite and it was career and job suicide to publish the study, of which they admitted that it was valid and correctly done.   

Summon them to testify under oath together with Aaron Siri, or replicate the study at another large hospital institution. 

They explained in detail why they retracted it and also stated that they were never asked to testify. Aaron Siri lies as much as RFK Jr does. He also wanted to have the polio vaccine taken off the market, which shocked even Mitch McConnell.

 

You're not looking at the larger picture here. RFK Jr's ultimate objective is to take total control  of the HHS, staffing it with yes-man loyalists (a la Trump), remove the limited liability exemption for pharmaceutical companies in order to launch class action suits that will enrich himself and Aaron Siri. At the same time, he'll push supplements and technology (such as wearables and glucose monitoring machines that are unregulated) sold by his cronies (e.g. Casey and Calley Means). It's all a con from a huckster ex heroin addict, sex addict, brain addled, testosterone and steroid fueled, chronic liar who drove his first wife to suicide, supplied the drugs that killed his cousin, wrote a book in defense of another relative who was convicted of beating the girl next door to death with a bat. There is nothing, absolutely nothing to admire about this man.

15 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

remove the limited liability exemption for pharmaceutical companies

But the products are "safe and effective"  why do they need exemption from liability ?????

38 minutes ago, johng said:

But the products are "safe and effective"  why do they need exemption from liability ?????

 

38 minutes ago, johng said:

But the products are "safe and effective"  why do they need exemption from liability ?????

It's limited liability. Compensation for vaccine injuries can be applied for through a vaccine injury compensation program that does not required demonstrating negligence on the part of vaccine makers. However, vaccine makers aren't exempt from lawsuits based on willful misconduct (for example, malfeasence, negligence). So if Pfizer deliberately misrepresented the results of its clinical trials, it can be sued. In fact, RFK Jr. has been involved in multiple lawsuits related to vaccines and earned reportedly more than a million dollars for his work on a lawsuit related to Merck's HPV vaccine.

 

The reason the the limited liability law was passed (during the Reagan administration) is that there was controversy over the DTP (Diptherea, Tetanus, Pertussis) vaccine in the early 1980's, particularly the pertussis (whooping cough) component. Multiple lawsuits were filed against vaccine makers and although most of them were unsuccessful, the litigation neverthless consumed so much time and money that the number of vaccine makers fell from 17 to 3. (Studies later showed that in fact the pertussis vaccine wasn't causing the alleged side effects). It was feared that vaccines would disappear entirely and to prevent this, the legislation was passed.

 

 

19 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

The group  that produced that report retracted it because the data and methodology were flawed

This is what a spokesman for Henry Ford Health said about the report:

 

- Henry Ford spokesperson: "Did not meet rigorous scientific standards" due to biases like detection bias (vaccinated kids had 2x more doctor visits, inflating diagnoses) and short follow-up for unvaccinated kids (75% tracked only to age 3, missing later chronic diagnoses). - Low unvaccinated sample (1,957 vs. 16,511 vaccinated) was demographically skewed (more white males, less prematurity). - Internal peer review revealed "immediate and significant concerns"; institution unaware draft was shared publicly.

 

Notice it says that the "institution (was) unaware draft was shared publically." In other words, Siri introduced without receiving permission and without calling the authors to testify.

1 hour ago, johng said:

But the products are "safe and effective"  why do they need exemption from liability ?????

For anyone thinking of having a jab - although after the revelations here on AN, I doubt that anyone would be that foolish - they might do well to know that what was in that petri dish, and then transferred to a computer, and approved by the FDA, is not what you are getting in yer arm.

 

What you are getting is the result of a manufacturing process. And it's not as perfect as one might think. 'Oh! Dear me. Forgot to add the calf serum.' 'Never mind, no one will know; the courier has arrived with the glass holding drums. He is cleaning them now, so get a move on.' Then there is transport; sometimes half way round the world. Then there is storage at precise temperatures and conditions; leccy cuts and all. Then; into yer arm. 'This vial looks like its fermented doctor!' 'Shhush! Want yer bonus don't yer.' 

 

Don't it just fill yer with enthusiasm and confidence; once yer know of course. 'Next please.'

 

2 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

This is what a spokesman for Henry Ford Health said about the report:

 

- Henry Ford spokesperson: "Did not meet rigorous scientific standards" due to biases like detection bias (vaccinated kids had 2x more doctor visits, inflating diagnoses) and short follow-up for unvaccinated kids (75% tracked only to age 3, missing later chronic diagnoses). - Low unvaccinated sample (1,957 vs. 16,511 vaccinated) was demographically skewed (more white males, less prematurity). - Internal peer review revealed "immediate and significant concerns"; institution unaware draft was shared publicly.

 

Notice it says that the "institution (was) unaware draft was shared publically." In other words, Siri introduced without receiving permission and without calling the authors to testify.

 

So a Henry Ford spokesperson (NOT the authors/sponsor of the study) is now saying that the study does not meet scientific standards.  Normally the Institute would back its staff as the study was conducted by the Head Researcher of the Institute and overseen by the Doctor leading the department.  So the authors were correct in not wanting to publish the study as it would lead to ending their jobs/career, although they admitted that the study methodology and the results achieved were fact-based and valid. 

 

If Siri released the study - which by the way was sent to him by the researchers as that was the agreement made - without permission, Henry Ford Institute should sue him.  Of course they will not do so, as that would be Headline news and the study would gain enormous traction. 

But let's wait till October 3, when the movie based on this study, aptly named 'An Inconvenient Study' will be released.  

18 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

So a Henry Ford spokesperson (NOT the authors/sponsor of the study) is now saying that the study does not meet scientific standards.  Normally the Institute would back its staff as the study was conducted by the Head Researcher of the Institute and overseen by the Doctor leading the department.  So the authors were correct in not wanting to publish the study as it would lead to ending their jobs/career, although they admitted that the study methodology and the results achieved were fact-based and valid. 

 

If Siri released the study - which by the way was sent to him by the researchers as that was the agreement made - without permission, Henry Ford Institute should sue him.  Of course they will not do so, as that would be Headline news and the study would gain enormous traction. 

But let's wait till October 3, when the movie based on this study, aptly named 'An Inconvenient Study' will be released.  

Just have to laugh. ',,,does not meet scientific standards.'

 

Koch will be having fits in his grave. Since when does the Medical Industrial Complex meet scientific standards? All sorts of nonsense, masquerading as science, going on in labs around the world. 

 

Back to Thalidomide for a sec' (for example). Why didn't the FDA white-coats see the same problems with the drug that Dr Kelsey did? Well! It is obvious, and Kennedy Jr knows why. It 'was' still the same in 2025. Get stuck in there Sir. Expose the compromised rabble.

36 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

So if Pfizer deliberately misrepresented the results of its clinical trials, it can be sued

I believe they eventually will be..

to reiterate  if your product  is "safe and effective"   there is no need for

protection from lawsuits  as you would have   overwhelming transparent data long term safety studies ( not redacted for 70 years)

and most importantly  there would be no injuries from your product in the first place..because it is "safe" !!!

56 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

So if Pfizer deliberately misrepresented the results of its clinical trials, it can be sued.

This was the whole point of keeping the Pfizer Papers hidden for 70 years.

 

If it can be shown that there was fudging of data, and fraudulent results, their glass shield can be shattered.

On 9/15/2025 at 8:31 AM, newbee2022 said:

VERY trustworthy reliable source 😂😂😂😂

Henry Ford Medical Institute  conducted the study thinking it would prove    those nasty "antivaxers" wrong  when it proved the opposite they refused to publish the results.

51 minutes ago, johng said:

Henry Ford Medical Institute  conducted the study thinking it would prove    those nasty "antivaxers" wrong  when it proved the opposite they refused to publish the results.

Where you read that?

Troll post removed, discuss the topic, not other posters @johng

16 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Where you read that?

Where did you read different...?

 

Is it possible that lifestyle is more of a factor than vaccines.

A fat kid was a rarity when I was growing up. Look at videos of the Woodstock concert, not too many fatties there.

Now it has become normal to the extent we now have the term fat shaming. Plus size models....ha ha.

MacDonald's and KFC have a lot to answer for.

My mum actually used to cook. Not heat up pre prepared food in a microwave.

Add in the various herbicides and insecticides that are now being used that weren't around in the 50's and 60's and it could be quite a cocktail of factors that is affecting the population.

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

Add in the various herbicides and insecticides that are now being used that weren't around in the 50's and 60's and it could be quite a cocktail of factors that is affecting the population.

Well at least DDT and a few others are less popular now  but perhaps

genetically modified crops  and livestock  is just as bad if not worse ??

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

Is it possible that lifestyle is more of a factor than vaccines.

A fat kid was a rarity when I was growing up. Look at videos of the Woodstock concert, not too many fatties there.

Now it has become normal to the extent we now have the term fat shaming. Plus size models....ha ha.

MacDonald's and KFC have a lot to answer for.

My mum actually used to cook. Not heat up pre prepared food in a microwave.

Add in the various herbicides and insecticides that are now being used that weren't around in the 50's and 60's and it could be quite a cocktail of factors that is affecting the population.

MacDonald's and KFC have a lot to answer for.

used that weren't around in the 50's and 60's and it could be

 

both is wrong!

There are studies about MCD food as not being unhealthy.(researchgate.net)

DDT is used since 1939 and definitely not healthy.

 

30 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Where you read that?

> https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Siri-Testimony-1.pdf

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

MacDonald's and KFC have a lot to answer for.

used that weren't around in the 50's and 60's and it could be

 

both is wrong!

There are studies about MCD food as not being unhealthy.(researchgate.net)

DDT is used since 1939 and definitely not healthy.

 

Perhaps it is the quantity of the fast food being consumed and not the quality, along with high sugar content drinks.

Add in lack of exercise for the lard arses.

 

Banning DDT was a crime against humanity. Millions have died from malaria when the mosquitoes could have been controlled or eradicated.

Seem to remember that a study showed it may have caused a soft shell in an eagles egg and subsequently banned.

 

My mum use to put liquid DDT on insect bites in the 60's.