3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

That's precisely the point.

 

The OP's assertion is basically that "the vaccine is trying to poison us". 

But most of us would be dead if that were the case.

 

Let's take arsenic as an example. How much arsenic is needed to kill the average human being? 

I suspect it might vary between an 80 lb woman and a 300 lb man, but maybe not by much.

In other words, specific doses within very limited ranges of poisons can kill humans.

 

So extrapolate that to a vaccine. 

Let's say the vaccine was deadly. That means it would need to contain a certain amount of poison. But it would be mathematically impossible for the vaccine to kill only a small percentage of people. Either it killed most of us or it was hardly that toxic. 

 

Since most of us are still alive, the theory is erroneous.

 

And the cancer diagnosis has not gone up exponentially either. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The late Queen Elizabeth II and her mother reportedly took small doses of arsenic regularly. Didn't seem to hurt them, both lived very long lives.

But I agree with your post.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

More flawed logic, broken falasies and intellectual dishonesty from you...   you still have not learned any better... 

 

The argument you present is riddled with fallacies - mainly false equivalence, hasty generalisation, and appeal to emotion.....

 

You argued false equivalence:
You argue that because some licensed doctors and regulators in the past made catastrophic errors (e.g. Thalidomide, Vioxx), that doctors in general cannot be trusted today.
That’s like saying....

“Some pilots have crashed planes, therefore we shouldn’t trust any commercial pilot.”
It’s a fallacy because isolated historical failures do not invalidate an entire profession or its collective expertise. Modern medicine has vastly improved regulatory safeguards, clinical trial standards, and pharmacovigilance systems precisely because of those past mistakes.

 

You have made hasty generalisation:
You use a few examples (Thalidomide, Vioxx, AZT) to make a sweeping claim about all doctors or all pharmaceutical approval processes.
It’s cherry-picking - drawing a universal conclusion from exceptional cases without acknowledging the millions of safe, effective, life-saving drugs that doctors do prescribe daily.

 

You have appeal to emotion:
Your tone is deliberately emotive - “Dear me!!!”, “the white-coats”, “getting a bit of reddies” - to provoke distrust and outrage rather than reasoned evaluation. Emotional language does not strengthen your argument; it merely attempts to manipulates the feelings of anyone emotional and stupid enough to bypass their rational scrutiny.

 

 

Neither is it the first time you have completely ignored causation and correction:
The Thalidomide disaster is often cited in such debates as this because it changed drug regulation worldwide. It led to the modern FDA approval process and the ethical standards for human testing we have today.

 

Using the Thalidomide disaster as proof that doctors can’t be trusted ignores the fact that science self-corrects. The entire point of evidence-based medicine is to detect and prevent precisely those errors.

 

In short:
Your very weak argument confuses human fallibility with institutional corruption, cherry-picks examples, and uses emotional rhetoric to paint a misleading picture. A single regulator (Dr Kelsey) does not prove that everyone else is untrustworthy - it proves that critical thinking within the medical establishment can and does protect the public.

 

Repeatedly, you prove you are not up to the task of representing your claims with intellectual honesty.

I suggest you read the Dr Kelsey episode in full. Especially the correspondence. It was nothing short of disgraceful by her fellow doctors.

 

Trust WHO? No.

Trust the white-coats giving the jabs for money? No.

Trust the MHRA? No way.

Trust the CDC? No way.

Trust the FDA? No way.

Trust Kennedy? 50%

Trust Sir Kier? 0%

Trust The Don? 10%

 

But I'll tell what I do trust; honesty, integrity, solid science, truth and nature.

 

And, TBH, Richard, I don't mind debating anything, if I think the opponent is sincere in his beliefs. It's nut jobs, that believe anything that comes from authority must be true, that I don't have time for.

 

Nature is all around. Without it we wouldn't be here.

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Vioxx!! Have a red up. AZT; again. have a read up.

 

Please stop comparing other pharma drugs to the Covid vaccine.

 

Other drugs are usually taken for long periods of time before they cause harm. 

 

The Covid vaccine is 1 or 2 (or 3) doses for everyone.

 

In order for something to kill you with one or two doses, the toxicity has to be extremely high and would probably kill most people on the spot. 

 

AZT kills almost EVERYONE at the following doses:

 

20 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

To make the claim that vaccines cause cancer because it contains toxins is unscientific bullcrap. 

 

Toxins do cause issues in the body, but we are constantly being exposed to toxins in the air we breathe, the water, food. And people are exposed to toxins for decades and decades before they get cancer, if they ever do get cancer.

 

You're trying to pass yourself off as a scientist here? A kid can pick apart your logic. 

 

Well Sir. You are nearly right.

 

I did say 'can' cause cancers. Go to: www.howbadismybatch.com and you will see that the jabs for all 'diseases' are not the same. Some are almost inert; others are highly toxic. Then there is distribution and storage, to different parts of the world. Do you think all the jabs are in pristine condition at the sharp end? What about the fermenting ones?

 

I've explained to you why and how cancers develop. If you don't agree; lets debate.

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I did say 'can' cause cancers. Go to: www.howbadismybatch.com and you will see that the jabs for all 'diseases' are not the same.

 

So Japan, Sweden, and Belgium got the most lethal batches?

 

Yeah could be, I guess. 

 

Anyone from those countries on AN?

 

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I've explained to you why and how cancers develop. If you don't agree; lets debate.

 

Let's leave that for a rainy day. 

 

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I did say 'can' cause cancers. Go to: www.howbadismybatch.com

 

Upon a cursory glance, this caught my attention and lowers the credibility of this website.

 

Apparently, many people have claimed "lucid dreams" after receiving the jab and he's conducting surveys. 

This is utter nonsense. 

 

6 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Please stop comparing other pharma drugs to the Covid vaccine.

 

Other drugs are usually taken for long periods of time before they cause harm. 

 

The Covid vaccine is 1 or 2 (or 3) doses for everyone.

 

In order for something to kill you with one or two doses, the toxicity has to be extremely high and would probably kill most people on the spot. 

 

AZT kills almost EVERYONE at the following doses:

 

Let's stick to the MRNA vaxxes then Sir. Put aside, for a moment that they are 'said' to cure/prevent/lessen (the effects of) a disease that don't exist, caused by a virus, that has never been found.

 

There are a few things to consider here. One is the past medical/health history of the patient (male). The general state of his health. The toxicity of the jab. The state of his mind.

 

Dr D Cahill reckons that anyone having a proper (hot) jab can expect serious effects within 5 years.

 

Nature has the answers. All of them.

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Dr D Cahill reckons that anyone having a proper (hot) jab can expect serious effects within 5 years.

 

Ahhh ..... so a "delayed" side effect? 

 

Is there even such a thing? Or is it all just fear-mongering?

 

Because now he has trapped everyone in fear for 5 years.

Clever trick. 

 

No such thing as a delayed side effect.

It's hocus pocus.

Sleight of hand. 

 

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

But I'll tell what I do trust; honesty, integrity, solid science, truth and nature.

 

And, TBH, Richard, I don't mind debating anything, if I think the opponent is sincere in his beliefs. It's nut jobs, that believe anything that comes from authority must be true, that I don't have time for.

 

We agree; however, your argument, and your repeated opposition to the 'white coats'... reveals a level of irrationality that undermines your capacity for balanced, unbiased judgment, allowing delusion to take precedence.

 

 

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature is all around. Without it we wouldn't be here.

 

Once again, this is a cherry‑picked sentiment and fundamentally flawed. Without human intervention to complement - and, in many cases, to counter - nature, most of us simply would not exist.

 

Had it not been for such intervention, before your existence your own ancestors might well have perished from smallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus - diseases that have claimed countless lives throughout history - and while you proclaim ‘nature has the answers; we are nature’...  If you’re content with dying at 35, so be it—but there’s a strong probability you wouldn’t even ‘be here’ had you relied solely on nature, ignorant of medical interventions such as vaccines, antibiotics, and advances in germ control"...

... so..while you claim that ‘nature has the answers; we are nature’.....  History and survival says otherwise....

 

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

We agree; however, your argument, and your repeated opposition to the 'white coats'... reveals a level of irrationality that undermines your capacity for balanced, unbiased judgment, allowing delusion to take precedence.

 

 

 

Once again, this is a cherry‑picked sentiment and fundamentally flawed. Without human intervention to complement - and, in many cases, to counter - nature, most of us simply would not exist.

 

Had it not been for such intervention, before your existence your own ancestors might well have perished from smallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus - diseases that have claimed countless lives throughout history - and while you proclaim ‘nature has the answers; we are nature’...  If you’re content with dying at 35, so be it—but there’s a strong probability you wouldn’t even ‘be here’ had you relied solely on nature, ignorant of medical interventions such as vaccines, antibiotics, and advances in germ control"...

... so..while you claim that ‘nature has the answers; we are nature’.....  History and survival says otherwise....

 

You don't get it Richard.

 

Everything we have, the computer, the flower pot, the food, all come from nature.

 

We do not agree on what makes us ill. I say it is just a few things. You say it is a multitude of them.

 

',,,smallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus - diseases that have claimed countless lives throughout history,,,.'

 

The <above> are not as generally they are thought to be. They are not diseases, and they are not infectious. What were/are they caused by? Poor living standards, poor diet, unsanitary living conditions; toxicity, medical interventions, nature itself.

 

We must learn from nature. Not try to better it in a lab

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You don't get it Richard.

 

Everything we have, the computer, the flower pot, the food, all come from nature.

 

Then you don't get it - because by your very own logic 'vaccines' come from nature (just like the computer does)... 

 

 

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

We do not agree on what makes us ill. I say it is just a few things. You say it is a multitude of them.

 

',,,smallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus - diseases that have claimed countless lives throughout history,,,.'

 

The <above> are not as generally they are thought to be. They are not diseases, and they are not infectious. What were/are they caused by? Poor living standards, poor diet, unsanitary living conditions; toxicity, medical interventions, nature itself.

 

Total tosh - terrain is certainly a contributory factor to illness, but not the sole contributor or sole protector.

 

 

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

We must learn from nature. Not try to better it in a lab

 

Isn't a lab nature ? computers are manufactured in lab like conditions - your own words "the computer... all come from nature" ...

 

... You are ill equipped to have this discussion when you contradict yourself so poorly.

4 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature has the answers. All of them.

 

Is AI nature ??? 

 

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Everything we have, the computer, the flower pot, the food, all come from nature.

 

19 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The <above> are not as generally they are thought to be. They are not diseases, and they are not infectious. What were/are they caused by? Poor living standards, poor diet, unsanitary living conditions; toxicity, medical interventions, nature itself.

 

We must learn from nature. Not try to better it in a lab

 

They are not diseases, and you are not a poster on AN.

 

Call it whatever you want ... call it a pig with lipstick.

 

All human beings on the planet are vulnerable to some infection or some part of their body breaking down at some point in their lives. 

 

Good luck going to remote regions of Africa and not getting malaria. 

Good luck not getting cancer after being exposed to toxins in the air and food for decades, which is unavoidable. 

 

Remedies against threats have been around since the beginning of time because human beings succcumbing to illness has been around since the beginning of time.

 

Just chanting "we are nature" is ridiculous nonsense. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

We must learn from nature. Not try to better it in a lab

 

Tribes in Africa survived without Big Pharma. 

 

But they got sick, like everyone else. Getting some illness or virus or other is inevitable for all human beings.

Chanting "we are nature" is meaningless. 

 

But they learned how to make their own medicine from plants instead of relying on pharmaceuticals.

That's the only difference. 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/11/health/vaccinating-the-maasai-in-tanzania#:~:text=Previously measles killed a lot,big difference%2C” explains Dr.

 

When it comes to disease, the Maasai have traditionally resorted to natural remedies from native plants in their surroundings, such as the Sodom apple. Still standing by his village, Mmali eagerly plucks a few samples of the plant to explain its use against malaria among his peers. But he readily acknowledges that western medicine now plays a big part in the community’s health.

 

 

13 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Ya, really good to be quoting and relying on RFK Jr. for vaccine info:

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted vaccine misinformation^[1] and public-health conspiracy theories,^[2] including the chemtrail conspiracy theory,^[3] HIV/AIDS denialism,^[4] and the scientifically disproved claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism.^[5] He has drawn criticism for fueling vaccine hesitancy amid a social climate that gave rise to the deadly measles outbreaks in Samoa and Tonga.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

 

 

Seriously?  wikipedia?  Even Larry Sanger, one of the founders of wikipedia has been warning for years of its bias and the danger of trusting the information coming from wikipedia nowadays. It's been hijacked.

 

Google "Larry Sanger blacklist"

 

Edit:  But don't click on the links, or your brain may be subjected to a Tucker Carlson interview.

 

21 hours ago, Bacon1 said:

 

 

 

This part, you left out, from your above linked study:

 

"In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types, including thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Notably, this COVID-19 vaccination-associated cancer risk was likely more elevated among individuals aged ≤ 65 years except in individuals with prostate cancer. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination."

 

 

He likes to cherry pick sections of studies and reports and beat his drum about vaccines. He most likely doesn't understand how to read medical studies as the terminologies used don't always mean what he thinks they do.  Its getting very old the numbervof his posts like these. I think he may be a relative of Kennedy with his vaccine position

11 hours ago, Dan O said:

He most likely doesn't understand how to read medical studies

 

Most people don't. It probably requires a Phd to learn how to decipher these studies. You need to analyze 1000 studies before you learn how to do it. 

 

So I have used ChatGPT to help me analyze this one. 

 

So I put the study into ChatGPT and here's what I got:

 

What the Study Suggests, and What It Does Not Prove

It is tempting to read “increased hazard ratios” and jump to “the vaccine causes cancer.” But we must be cautious. Here’s what this study shows and what it cannot show (or is weak on showing).

Strengths

1. Large sample size — with millions of participants, the statistical power is substantial.

2. Real‑world data from a national health insurance system: captures many people, not just a selected clinical cohort.

3. Adjustment via multivariable models: they attempt to control for confounders (though we’ll discuss limitations).

4. Stratification by vaccine types and demographic categories: gives more nuanced associations.

Key Limitations & Caveats (why it does not prove causation)

1. Observational, retrospective design

   • The study is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

   • Observational studies can find associations, but they are vulnerable to confounding, bias, and reverse causation.

2. Short follow‑up period (1 year)

   • Many cancers have latency periods much longer than one year. It is generally biologically implausible that vaccination could trigger many solid cancers which manifest within 1 year.

   • The early detection of cancers might relate to increased medical surveillance after vaccination, leading to detection bias.

• Residual confounding

  • Even with multivariable adjustment, there may be unmeasured confounders (lifestyle, environmental exposures, genetics, health care access) that differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

  • For example, people who seek vaccination might also engage more with health care in general, leading to more cancer screening and thus more diagnoses.

• Detection bias / surveillance bias

  • Vaccinated individuals might have more frequent health contacts (doctor visits, tests) soon after vaccination, increasing the likelihood of discovering asymptomatic or early cancers.

  • This can artificially inflate hazard ratios.

• Reverse causation

  • It’s possible that some people already had occult (undetected) cancer at or near the time they got vaccinated; the associations might reflect preexisting conditions rather than new cancers caused by the vaccine.

• Multiple testing / statistical overreach

  • They tested associations across many cancer types. Some associations may appear “significant” purely by chance (type I error) unless corrections for multiple comparisons are strong.

  •  

• Biological plausibility is weak or uncertain

  • To claim causation, one would expect a plausible mechanism by which vaccine mRNA or vector components induce carcinogenesis (e.g. DNA insertion, oncogene activation). Current understanding of vaccine biology does not support that.

  • The vaccine mRNA (or vectors) in current COVID‑19 vaccines are generally considered transient and do not integrate into the human genome under known mechanisms.

 

 

ChatGPT's Verdict:

 

Verdict: Is There a Legitimate Causation?

Based on the study and what is known scientifically:

• The study does not prove causality. It reports associations, which are hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory.

• The observed increases in hazard ratios are concerning signals that would merit further scrutiny — but they are not enough to conclude that COVID‑19 vaccines cause cancer.

• Alternative explanations (bias, confounding, detection) are quite plausible and likely play a substantial role.

• Without experimental evidence, mechanistic proof, or consistent replication in other settings (especially with longer follow-up), one cannot accept a causal relationship on the basis of this paper.

In short: There is not yet credible evidence that COVID‑19 vaccines cause cancer. This study raises questions and suggests more research is needed, but it does not cross the bar into causation.

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Total tosh - terrain is certainly a contributory factor to illness, but not the sole contributor or sole protector.

',,,smallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus - diseases that have claimed countless lives throughout history,,,.'

 

Can't find evidence that shows the above are diseases, or that they are contagious/infectious.

 

Not saying these illnesses don't exist. However; they are the symptoms of a complaint or insult. My stance!! We should be looking at root causes, rather than trying to suppress symptoms.

 

And IMO. the suppression of the symptoms by Big Pharma drugs and medical interventions often cause problems for that particular person in their future. Better to let the body detox to run its course.

 

We must learn to live with, and learn from nature, if we are to realise our true destiny.

 

8 hours ago, save the frogs said:

In short: There is not yet credible evidence that COVID‑19 vaccines cause cancer. This study raises questions and suggests more research is needed, but it does not cross the bar into causation.

I'll tell you what's needed Sir. An immediate halt to mRNA vaxxes. The dismembering of the whole US Health System. Should say anti-health system. That done; other countries will follow suit. Including the awful UK.

 

The "Pill for every ill'' mantra has to go. Sooner, rather than later. Is Kennedy the man? Only gets 50% approval from me. We will see.

 

Can't stay healthy unless one adheres to nature's principles.

10 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I'll tell you what's needed Sir. An immediate halt to mRNA vaxxes.

100 %  agreed with that 👍

13 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

'll tell you what's needed Sir. An immediate halt to mRNA vaxxes. The dismembering of the whole US Health System. Should say anti-health system. That done; other countries will follow suit. Including the awful UK.

 

 

Maybe they should make you Secretary of Human Health and move RFK Jr. out of there. 

 

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

'll tell you what's needed Sir. An immediate halt to mRNA vaxxes. The dismembering of the whole US Health System. Should say anti-health system. That done; other countries will follow suit. Including the awful UK.

 

 

Maybe they should make you Secretary of Human Health and move RFK Jr. out of there. 

 

... nature has the answers, just leave him in a room full of amallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus....   nature will save him...

9 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Maybe they should make you Secretary of Human Health and move RFK Jr. out of there. 

 

I'm here if required. At least I would address the issues, instead of tinkering around the fringes.

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

... nature has the answers, just leave him in a room full of amallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus....   nature will save him...

 

Cage Match -- Stiddle vs Viruses

 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

... nature has the answers, just leave him in a room full of amallpox, the plague, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, whooping cough, diphtheria, or tetanus....   nature will save him...

This is such silly-billy talk Richard.

 

You really don't get it do you. Nature is you. You are nature.

Just now, save the frogs said:

 

Cage Match -- Stiddle vs Viruses

 

You don't get it either Sir. There is no such thing as a virus that can cause illness. And there are no diseases. There are no pathogenic illnesses.

 

It had never been demonstrated that a sick person can infect a healthy person with that illness. If I'm wrong; produce a link to the evidence.

22 hours ago, emptypockets said:

The late Queen Elizabeth II and her mother reportedly took small doses of arsenic regularly. Didn't seem to hurt them, both lived very long lives.

But I agree with your post.

Queen Elisabeth reportedely used a concoction on her body to cover scaring.

 

Don't think Lizzie 11 would have been so stupid.