6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Answered several times. My understanding of how science research works in the 21st century is that it is corrupt to the core, with ample evidence to support it.

 

Your attempts to move the debate on a technical ground – with the obvious intent to gain the upper hand rhetorically whilst ignoring the substance of the issue – are not going to work.

Not all funding of science is motivated by the profit motive produced by capitalism.  You seem stuck on that issue.

 

For many decades (centuries?) science was not funded by hopes of profit and during that time the scientific method developed.  And, wether or not you believe, it is still working today.  I asked what is your understanding of that methodology specifically when combined with the ethical constraints when human health is involved.

 

You're just a parrot with one phrase dominating your mind.  Your internet 'research' is constrained by the questions you ask of the search engines.  Search engines will strive to produce web sites that contain your search terms.  If you ask a loaded question you get biased answers.

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

By all means persist in your belief if that is what you so choose.

 

It does not alter reality as it exists in any way.

 

 

First of all I appreciate you bringing to my attention the influence buying of big pharma in the NHS. I wasn't aware it was quite so prevalent so I stand corrected on that point.

 

However, the topic of this subject is 'Young adults shocked to find parents left them unvaccinated' with examples of 30 years olds finding out they weren't vaccinated as kids and the rights and wrongs of this. The ensuing debate then invariably veers to the efficacy of vaccines, with the usual suspects jumping in with their 'science' trying to convince us all that vaccines are the devils own work. You then enter the fray with a completely anecdotal 'The few unvaccinated children I have seen over the years were in stellar mental and physical health. No allergies, no ADHD, no autism, no epilepsy, brighter than average', inferring that vaccines cause allergies, ADHD, autism and epilepsy (which they absolutely don't), but we really see how your path to the dark side started with your next statement 'I'll tell you what the number one criterion should be for studies: not being paid for by those who have a financial interest in reaching a specific outcome.'

 

Look, no one is disagreeing that Big Pharma are a bunch of FDA approved pirates with the morals of an alley cat but again correlation does not mean causation - just because Big Pharma is in the business of making money out of suffering DOESN'T mean vaccines are not safe and one of the best inventions known to man. They are two, very distinctive things and therefore should be viewed in isolation (even your Guardian article pointing out the pharma bribes are mostly for 'drugs for obesity, diabetes and heart conditions'). So yes, it's not great that studies are paid for by those with a financial interest but that doesn't mean ALL vaccines should then be questioned. That just simply doesn't make sense.

 

The jury for vaccines announced their verdict decades ago and no they don't cause autism (can't believe this is still being touted), no they don't cause allergies, no they don't cause ADHD nor epilepsy. This is hard, established science fact and until someone else comes along with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, I'm going to go with the VAST majority of virologists who advocate for vaccines.

 

Maybe you should try this too and not let your hatred of big pharma also effect your ability to objectively assess vaccines.    

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Not all funding of science is motivated by the profit motive produced by capitalism.  You seem stuck on that issue.

 

For many decades (centuries?) science was not funded by hopes of profit and during that time the scientific method developed.  And, wether or not you believe, it is still working today.  I asked what is your understanding of that methodology specifically when combined with the ethical constraints when human health is involved.

 

You're just a parrot with one phrase dominating your mind.  Your internet 'research' is constrained by the questions you ask of the search engines.  Search engines will strive to produce web sites that contain your search terms.  If you ask a loaded question you get biased answers.

 

You have a propensity to fill in blanks with whatever suits you to push your rhetoric: I mention an empirical observation and you turn it into "an invalid scientific data point" relating to studies, then shift the debate to study methodology whilst overlooking the glaring truth, which is that studies are captured by pharmaceutical money.

 

Then you make a general statement about 'internet research' and 'search engines' in order to push your desired trope regarding 'conspiracy theorists' and their purported intellectual flaws…

 

I mentioned some facts in this thread, make of them what you will and by all means persist in your belief if you wish to.

Back to the OP,

Who would guess adults were incapable of asking their doctor if there were any vaccines they missed and if he thought they should have them now.

 

Obviously this will all be solved with Starmer/Blairs BritCard which will monitor your entire life and switch off your bank account and ability to work until you've had all your vaccinations.

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

First of all I appreciate you bringing to my attention the influence buying of big pharma in the NHS. I wasn't aware it was quite so prevalent so I stand corrected on that point.

 

However, the topic of this subject is 'Young adults shocked to find parents left them unvaccinated' with examples of 30 years olds finding out they weren't vaccinated as kids and the rights and wrongs of this. The ensuing debate then invariably veers to the efficacy of vaccines, with the usual suspects jumping in with their 'science' trying to convince us all that vaccines are the devils own work. You then enter the fray with a completely anecdotal 'The few unvaccinated children I have seen over the years were in stellar mental and physical health. No allergies, no ADHD, no autism, no epilepsy, brighter than average', inferring that vaccines cause allergies, ADHD, autism and epilepsy (which they absolutely don't), but we really see how your path to the dark side started with your next statement 'I'll tell you what the number one criterion should be for studies: not being paid for by those who have a financial interest in reaching a specific outcome.'

 

Look, no one is disagreeing that Big Pharma are a bunch of FDA approved pirates with the morals of an alley cat but again correlation does not mean causation - just because Big Pharma is in the business of making money out of suffering DOESN'T mean vaccines are not safe and one of the best inventions known to man. They are two, very distinctive things and therefore should be viewed in isolation (even your Guardian article pointing out the pharma bribes are mostly for 'drugs for obesity, diabetes and heart conditions'). So yes, it's not great that studies are paid for by those with a financial interest but that doesn't mean ALL vaccines should then be questioned. That just simply doesn't make sense.

 

The jury for vaccines announced their verdict decades ago and no they don't cause autism (can't believe this is still being touted), no they don't cause allergies, no they don't cause ADHD nor epilepsy. This is hard, established science fact and until someone else comes along with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, I'm going to go with the VAST majority of virologists who advocate for vaccines.

 

Maybe you should try this too and not let your hatred of big pharma also effect your ability to objectively assess vaccines.    

 

I look at reality as it exists, as objectively as possible, without dogma, and encourage you to do the same.

 

For example:

 

“We get paid to vaccinate your children.”

“Pediatricians have more than a basic monetary incentive to vaccinate their patients — they are also motivated by the knowledge that they could lose their job if they don’t. In this special interview with Dr. Paul Thomas (pediatrician), viewers hear important insights on corruption in medicine, pandemic protocols, vaccine science, sudden deaths, natural immunity and more.”

 

https://rumble.com/v4pvs4k-we-get-paid-to-vaccinate-your-children.html

 

 

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I look at reality as it exists, as objectively as possible, without dogma, and encourage you to do the same.

 

For example:

 

“We get paid to vaccinate your children.”

“Pediatricians have more than a basic monetary incentive to vaccinate their patients — they are also motivated by the knowledge that they could lose their job if they don’t. In this special interview with Dr. Paul Thomas (pediatrician), viewers hear important insights on corruption in medicine, pandemic protocols, vaccine science, sudden deaths, natural immunity and more.”

 

https://rumble.com/v4pvs4k-we-get-paid-to-vaccinate-your-children.html

 

 

 

Were doctors getting bonuses to vax people during covid?

 

I know hospitals were given bonuses when people were put on ventilators (that may have been the cause of death) and then even more if they died….of Covid of course.

 

No incentives for corruption there, I’m sure.  Unpossible.

 

Never trust a doctor with too much debt.  Never.

40 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I look at reality as it exists, as objectively as possible, without dogma, and encourage you to do the same.

 

For example:

 

“We get paid to vaccinate your children.”

“Pediatricians have more than a basic monetary incentive to vaccinate their patients — they are also motivated by the knowledge that they could lose their job if they don’t. In this special interview with Dr. Paul Thomas (pediatrician), viewers hear important insights on corruption in medicine, pandemic protocols, vaccine science, sudden deaths, natural immunity and more.”

 

https://rumble.com/v4pvs4k-we-get-paid-to-vaccinate-your-children.html

 

 

 

Well, we've got a double loser here re the above linked video:

 

First, the source:

 

Which equals this:

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/

 

And then we've got the featured doctor, Paul Thomas, who is this:

 

Out of State MD Indefinitely Suspended

"OLYMPIA, WA – In March 2023, Dr. Paul Thomas (License #60353591) entered into an agreed order that indefinitely suspends his Washington State medical license.

 

The WMC suspension was based on the Oregon Medical Board's action on Dr. Thomas license in that jurisdiction. Dr. Thomas surrendered his Oregon medical license due to unprofessional conduct; making false or misleading statements regarding the efficacy of treatments; and repeated gross negligence in the practice of medicine." [emphasis added]

 

https://wmc.wa.gov/news/out-state-md-indefinitely-suspended

 

 

https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/providercredentialsearch/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

And from the Oregon State Medical Board:

 

 

https://omb.oregon.gov/Clients/ORMB/Public/VerificationDetails.aspx?EntityID=1459035

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Well, we've got a double loser here:

 

First, the source:

 

Which equals this:

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/

 

And then we've got the featured doctor, Paul Thomas, who is this:

 

Out of State MD Indefinitely Suspended

"OLYMPIA, WA – In March 2023, Dr. Paul Thomas (License #60353591) entered into an agreed order that indefinitely suspends his Washington State medical license.

 

The WMC suspension was based on the Oregon Medical Board's action on Dr. Thomas license in that jurisdiction. Dr. Thomas surrendered his Oregon medical license due to unprofessional conduct; making false or misleading statements regarding the efficacy of treatments; and repeated gross negligence in the practice of medicine." [emphasis added]

 

https://wmc.wa.gov/news/out-state-md-indefinitely-suspended

 

 

https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/providercredentialsearch/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

 

 

As I said, I look at reality as it exists, as objectively as possible, without dogma, and encourage you to do the same.

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I look at reality as it exists, as objectively as possible, without dogma, and encourage you to do the same.

 

For example:

 

“We get paid to vaccinate your children.”

“Pediatricians have more than a basic monetary incentive to vaccinate their patients — they are also motivated by the knowledge that they could lose their job if they don’t. In this special interview with Dr. Paul Thomas (pediatrician), viewers hear important insights on corruption in medicine, pandemic protocols, vaccine science, sudden deaths, natural immunity and more.”

 

https://rumble.com/v4pvs4k-we-get-paid-to-vaccinate-your-children.html

 

 

There you go again, conflating two separate issues - monetary incentives for pediatricians with efficacy of vaccines.

Do you or do you not agree that vaccines for children to cover measles, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B, mumps and rubella (note I have purposely left out Covid and other controversial vaccines) have been proven safe and should definitely be recommended for children? 

 

And more re the Dr. Paul Thomas depicted in the above linked video from the disreputable Children's Health Defense anti-vaccine misinformation peddling group:

 

Per the Oregon State Medical Board:

 

 

 

https://omb.oregon.gov/Clients/ORMB/OrderDocuments/3f4010d3-92d5-43bb-bd1b-2c16b24260f0.pdf

 

 

For me at least, I'm not gonna be taking medical advice from this guy, nor consider him to be even a remotely credible source on these kinds of topics.

 

If he was, he'd still have his medical license, instead of losing it.

 

8 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

There you go again, conflating two separate issues - monetary incentives for pediatricians with efficacy of vaccines.

 

The issue, which a rational and objective mind will immediately understand, is that a monetary incentive de facto entails a conflict of interest issue, which is very problematic from an ethical standpoint.

 

12 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Do you or do you not agree that vaccines for children to cover measles, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B, mumps and rubella (note I have purposely left out Covid and other controversial vaccines) have been proven safe and should definitely be recommended for children? 

 

Lots of studies, which were suppressed by corporate lobbyists, show that there are definitely problems. You can see an overview below of these studies, which were buried or omitted because of their inconvenient findings.

 

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Vaxxed-Unvaxxed-Parts-I-XII.pdf

On 10/7/2025 at 12:40 PM, Harrisfan said:

Don't you have anything better to do? 

I pretty sure he loves to post something, then adds multiple more post just so he can win "most post for the week".  Or maybe his pharmaceutical stocks is taking a hit and he's promoting vaccines 🙃 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

then shift the debate to study methodology whilst overlooking the glaring truth

I never mentioned the funding issue.  You did.  I never disputed it and it was not included in the first post of yours that I responded to.  You shouldn't assume I overlooked it... I just ignored your assumption that it ruins everything.

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The issue, which a rational and objective mind will immediately understand, is that a monetary incentive de facto entails a conflict of interest issue, which is very problematic from an ethical standpoint.

 

 

Lots of studies, which were suppressed by corporate lobbyists, show that there are definitely problems. You can see an overview below of these studies, which were buried or omitted because of their inconvenient findings.

 

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Vaxxed-Unvaxxed-Parts-I-XII.pdf

Ok, that tells me everything I need to know. No point in debating you any more if all you're going to do is quote already debunked websites with a VERY obvious agenda. You keep professing 'objectively as possible, without dogma' with 'a rational and objective mind' whilst doing exactly the opposite. 

 

Thanks for playing.

On 10/7/2025 at 12:30 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Because the measles outbreaks in the U.S. predominantly originate with  unvaccinated U.S. residents who travel abroad, catch measles there, and then bring it back to spread in the U.S.

 

Of course the multiple shelters housing illegal aliens have nothing to do with the spread huh?

2 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

Of course the multiple shelters housing illegal aliens have nothing to do with the spread huh?

Correct.

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ok, that tells me everything I need to know. No point in debating you any more if all you're going to do is quote already debunked websites with a VERY obvious agenda. You keep professing 'objectively as possible, without dogma' with 'a rational and objective mind' whilst doing exactly the opposite. 

 

Thanks for playing.

 

The difference between you and I is that if you send me something, I will look at it. No dogma, and certainly no refusal to go somewhere out of principle.

9 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

Of course the multiple shelters housing illegal aliens have nothing to do with the spread huh?

 

I never said "nothing" to do with... But overall, broadly, they're not the main source... unvaccinated Americans who travel abroad and bring measles back home are:

 

Where is measles coming from?

Data shows that it’s not illegal immigration

 

APR 11, 2024

...

Most cases are U.S. residents traveling abroad

"Health departments investigate every measles outbreak to prevent it from spreading. They ask people all sorts of questions to understand where the virus has spread and who needs to quarantine. This is called contact tracing.

 

If we aggregate contact tracing data, as scientific teams have done in previous years, this is what the data tells us:

• In 2019, our last bad measles year, 77%* of index cases (i.e., patient zero for an outbreak) were U.S. residents who had recently traveled and returned home infected. The top source countries were the Philippines, Ukraine, Israel, Thailand, and Vietnam."

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20250405074154/https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/where-is-measles-coming-from

 

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I never said "nothing" to do with... But overall, broadly, they're not the main source... unvaccinated Americans who travel abroad and bring measles back home are:

 

Where is measles coming from?

Data shows that it’s not illegal immigration

 

APR 11, 2024

...

Most cases are U.S. residents traveling abroad

"Health departments investigate every measles outbreak to prevent it from spreading. They ask people all sorts of questions to understand where the virus has spread and who needs to quarantine. This is called contact tracing.

 

If we aggregate contact tracing data, as scientific teams have done in previous years, this is what the data tells us:

• In 2019, our last bad measles year, 77%* of index cases (i.e., patient zero for an outbreak) were U.S. residents who had recently traveled and returned home infected. The top source countries were the Philippines, Ukraine, Israel, Thailand, and Vietnam."

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20250405074154/https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/where-is-measles-coming-from

 

ah ok, selective use of the data available....got it

35 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

ah ok, selective use of the data available....got it

 

Not selective at all... Just accurate and factual information:

 

Per a September 2025 update from the U.S. CDC:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW__IShdZws&t=471s

 

Read the headline:

 

"Measles cases are imported primarily by unvaccinated U.S. residents who traveled abroad"

 

And if you watch the linked CDC video, you'll find the presenter further breaking out the imported cases detail just for thus far in 2025 -- with 89% of of the 142 imported cases thus far for the year being among U.S. residents. [emphasis added]

 

And among that imported cases group for 2025, 65% have been unvaccinated, 25% had unknown vaccination status and 10% had been previously vaccinated.

 

And more broadly, as the posted chart above notes, during the entire period from 2021 to 2025 cumulatively, 68% of the total measles importations occurred from U.S. residents, and only 32% from international sources.

 

The CDC presenter also noted that ALL of the 22 reported measles deaths thus far in 2025 in the Americas region, including Canada and Mexico, have been among the UNVACCINATED.

 

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

There was a time when anyone with a brain believed in the science....

But then the governments started mixing propaganda with science, and only the faithfull kept believing.

 

There was, and still is, a degree of blind faith among some, but my point was simple: if scientists tell you the sun comes up in the east, you’ll no longer believe it - not because the claim is false, but because it comes from scientists, mainstream media, or official sources.

 

That’s the absurdity of the mindset we’re now seeing: a blanket rejection of anything deemed “establishment”, regardless of fact.

 

A healthy scepticism of government, public health bodies, or fiscal authorities is entirely reasonable. Blind trust is naïve - but blind distrust is equally foolish. When that scepticism mutates into a reflexive disbelief of everything, even the plainly verifiable, it ceases to be critical thinking and becomes intellectual self-harm.

 

Anti-vaxxers have built their worldview on the premise that “mistakes were made”, and from that, they’ve extrapolated an “everyone is lying” philosophy. It’s a brittle, self-reinforcing illusion that confuses cynicism with wisdom - and collapses under the weight of evidence the moment reason is allowed back into the room.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The difference between you and I is that if you send me something, I will look at it. No dogma, and certainly no refusal to go somewhere out of principle.

Not sure what you mean. I read your Guardian piece and also glanced through the $hitty PowerPoint from your obviously biased Children's Health Defense but at 71 slides long are you really expecting someone to read it all? 

 

You have already made up your mind through pseudo-science, obviously biased organisations and half baked anecdotes whereas I've got 100 years of peer reviewed scientific evidence to support my position so again, there really is no point in debating you.  

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Not sure what you mean. I read your Guardian piece and also glanced through the $hitty PowerPoint from your obviously biased Children's Health Defense but at 71 slides long are you really expecting someone to read it all? 

 

Why not? It's very interesting and a science-minded person will read it with great interest.

 

Children's Health Defense was founded by the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Your opinion of him is irrelevant.

 

2 hours ago, Airalee said:

I know hospitals were given bonuses when people were put on ventilators (that may have been the cause of death) and then even more if they died….of Covid of course.

 

I read that you 'know' this.  Was your source for that topic the same network that had to pay almost $800M for false stories about the election?  The same one that described themselves as NOT a news network?

 

AI says:

 

That claim has circulated widely online, but it’s not accurate. Here’s what actually happened:

• Hospitals did receive higher reimbursements for COVID-19 patients under U.S. federal relief measures—primarily through Medicare’s CARES Act provisions. This was meant to cover the extra costs of treating infectious patients, PPE, isolation procedures, and the strain on hospital resources.

• The payment adjustments were roughly a 20% add-on for COVID-19 cases under Medicare.

• There were no “bonuses” for deaths, and no direct incentive to put patients on ventilators.

• Early in the pandemic, ventilators were commonly used because COVID-19 was initially treated like other forms of severe respiratory failure. Later, doctors realized that other methods (like high-flow oxygen) could sometimes work better. The change in practice reflected evolving medical understanding, not financial incentives.

So while it’s true that hospitals were reimbursed more for COVID-19 patients—because those cases cost more to treat—there is no evidence of a policy or practice rewarding hospitals for deaths or ventilator use.

 

Would you like me to show you the original Medicare documentation that explains the payment adjustments?

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Not selective at all... Just accurate and factual information:

I have heard the liberal MSM repeat those words time and time again.  Accurate and factual, only partially. 

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

AI says:

 

19 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Including Aids, diabetes, lupus, crohn's,  MS all a result of multiple vaccinations at a young age.

 

 

Yes, let's add diabetes to the list of things to blame on vaccines.

So now you don't have to take responsibility for your health.

It's not decades of poor diets and lack of exercise that lead to diabetes, it's the vaccines. 

 

49 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

Go ahead and argue with AI that has 'read' a million more books and articles than you could if you devoted your life to the pursuit.  Alas... your protestations will fall on deaf ears.

59 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

I have heard the liberal MSM repeat those words time and time again.  Accurate and factual, only partially. 

How many liberal MSM had to bend over and take it to the tune of $787M?  They even HAD to publicly admit they were lying.

 

Lest we forget.

 

They wisely decided to abandon their "Fair and Balanced" slogan in 2017.  Foreshadowing?

34 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Go ahead and argue with AI that has 'read' a million more books and articles than you could if you devoted your life to the pursuit.  Alas... your protestations will fall on deaf ears.

 

I think it is very naive to see Grok or Chat GPT as neutral tools. They only regurgitate what they have been fed.