54 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Difficult to know everything Sir. I'll agree with that.

 

Just worked it out; I only know 7.15%. But I'm getting there. Still learning; unlike many on here. In fact unlike most compromised, dumbster white-coats.

You need to be put in a place where the staff wear white coats..........😬

12 minutes ago, transam said:

You need to be put in a place where the staff wear white coats..........😬

My best nightmare Trans Sir.

 

Surrounded by know-nothing white-coats, where I can spend my time trying to educate them on health and nature.

3 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

My best nightmare Trans Sir.

 

Surrounded by know-nothing white-coats, where I can spend my time trying to educate them on health and nature.

Great, at least you will be out of the way, with staff that are well a where of people like you, that's their job...... 🤗

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Yeah, and when I post US Senate hearings, ex-CDC Director testimonies or studies, you just ignore them.

 

Thats easy enough to deal with... While it’s true that US Senate hearings and statements from ex-CDC officials exist, using them as evidence for anti-vax arguments is misleading for several reasons:

 

Selective quoting / cherry-picking

Small fragments of hearings or statements are taken out of context.

For example, a director might discuss uncertainty in early data, limitations in studies, or rare adverse events - but the full context usually shows that vaccines’ benefits far outweigh risks.

Misrepresentation of expert testimony

Senate hearings often feature multiple experts with differing views. Quoting only one dissenting opinion ignores the overwhelming consensus.

Ex-CDC officials may comment on policy or data limitations; this does not mean they oppose vaccination, only that improvements in communication or data collection are needed.

Correlation does not equal causation

Anti-vax arguments often twist statistics from hearings to suggest vaccines “cause” problems. Most of these claims are based on misinterpreted VAERS data or isolated adverse events, which are not proof of widespread harm.

Ignoring large-scale evidence

Even if a single testimony raises concerns, it does not override decades of peer-reviewed studies, population data, and real-world effectiveness. Senate hearings are not clinical trials - they are political forums where uncertainty and anecdotes are amplified.

Logical fallacy

Using a few expert statements to invalidate the entire global vaccination programme is an appeal to authority fallacy, especially when those authorities are misquoted or taken out of context.

 

These hearings were not the mic-drop moment you thought.

 

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

This is interesting, as it might at least partially explain why you keep defaulting back to the same positions, despite my refuting (and your acknowledging said refutations' validity on a given day) a lot of your points. I thought you were simply being dishonest, but perhaps you also have a memory problem? Over the past few  years, I have repeatedly stated where I am from (hint: not the US).

 

I know you are French - but you display overwhelmingly 'American' tendencies - I wonder how much time you spent there to be so influenced.

 

 

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It's simple, really. The CDC is the top of the pyramid regarding health policy guidelines. In your native UK, the NHS will typically follow what the CDC recommends. So citing a US example is far from irrelevant.

77 million people voted for Trump in 2024. That's 77 million people who voted for RFK, as he openly endorsed him and Trump stated unequivocally that he would apply RFK's vision and policies if he was elected. Therefore, according to your interpretative framework, anyone who voted for Trump de facto supported the "worthless and mentally challenged views" of the "conspiracy theorists" of this forum.

That's a lot of people "entrapped in a warped universe of memes and fringe echo-chambers", don't you think? Certainly a far cry from the oft-repeated trope that this position is the exclusive domain of a few insignificant dropouts.

 

Citing the CDC as a “top of the pyramid” authority doesn’t make their guidance universally relevant or automatically validate anti-vax claims. The CDC issues recommendations for the U.S. context, based on U.S. population data, infrastructure, and healthcare systems. Other countries, including the UK, adapt those guidelines to local conditions; the NHS doesn’t blindly follow the CDC. So simply pointing to U.S. hearings or testimony doesn’t make fringe interpretations of that information credible.

 

As for your argument about 77 million Trump voters: voting for a candidate does not mean endorsing every claim or fringe theory associated with them or their supporters. Conflating political choice with scientific validity is a classic false equivalence. Popularity does not determine truth.... evidence, methodology, and consensus do.

Millions agreeing with something doesn’t make it scientifically accurate; it just makes it popular.

 

Additionally, the “warped universe of memes and echo-chambers” isn’t defined by numbers, it’s defined by reliance on misinformation, selective data, and logical fallacies. Even if many people share a belief, that doesn’t validate it, and it certainly doesn’t equate political support with scientific credibility.

 

In short: context matters, numbers aren’t proof, and critical thinking isn’t measured by popularity.

 

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

What is the threshold past which you start wondering whether your view of things might not be as accurate and relevant as you believe it is?

 

The threshold isn’t about how many people make a claim or how loudly it’s repeated. I start questioning anti-vax claims when there is credible, reproducible evidence that challenges them - not just Senate hearings, selective quotes, or anecdotes.

Specifically:

- Peer-reviewed studies showing vaccines are ineffective or harmful in the ways claimed.

- Independent expert consensus contradicting mainstream guidance.

- Reliable data showing actual risk outweighs benefit, not misinterpreted VAERS reports or out-of-context statements.

 

Until anti-vax arguments meet that kind of rigorous evidence standard, I treat them as unsubstantiated. Popularity, politics, or selective “experts” aren’t enough to cross that threshold by a long shot.

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Tell me you are not also a Moon-landing denier rattlesnake ?...

 

Moon-landing denial is entry-level conspiracy theory, Richard.

That said, I absolutely respect people's right to believe a giant barbecue wrapped in tin foil landed on – and departed from – the surface of the Moon. I mean, it's true the below evidence is compelling to say the least…

 

Well done - thats the 'Trifecta'...    The Holy Trinity of conspiracy lunacy... 

 

Its of no surprise that all three conspiracies resonate with you.....

 

I'd add others too (mentioned earlier)... and I bet many of them strike a chord.....  

 

- 911 was orchestrated inside job.

- NASA fakes all space imagery.

- Satellites are fake.

- The International Space Station is a film set.

- Gravity is a hoax or misunderstood.

- COVID-19 was manufactured or exaggerated for control.

- Governments exaggerate pandemics to manipulate populations.

- Big Pharma hides cures for diseases like cancer.

- Microchips or tracking devices in vaccines.

- 5G networks are used for mind control or disease.

- Climate change is a hoax to enforce global control.

- Fluoridation of water is a mass mind-control tool.

- Chemtrails are sprayed for population control.

- The New World Order secretly controls governments.

- Mainstream media lies about major events.

- Scientific consensus is a cover for hidden agendas.

- Whistleblowers and alternative scientists are silenced.

- Artificial disasters (earthquakes, floods) are engineered.

- Lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, or celestial events are faked.

- Moon phases and tides are manipulated or misrepresented.

- Secret elites manipulate elections.

- Historical events are misrepresented or staged.

- Global pandemics are planned or used as control tools.

 

 

@Stiddle Mump

 

@Red Phoenix

 

It would be valuable to understand the criteria by which you assess the competence of doctors and scientists, and how you distinguish those who are genuinely knowledgeable from those who are not.

 

For instance, in the case of a fractured leg treated in A&E, the standard procedure often involves the application of a plate with screws — a practice established as the most effective approach through rigorous experimentation. Similarly, controlled studies are used to determine optimal treatments for patients across various medical contexts. The field of orthopaedics, like other scientific disciplines, relies heavily on empirical research, peer-reviewed publications, and continuous evaluation of outcomes.

 

According to you two though, science publications are worthless & all are firmly in the grip of the "tyrannical" 😅 pharmaceutical companies.

 

Are you asserting that all such evidence-based practices are invalid, or that only specific subsets of medical professionals and researchers are deficient?

 

Please clarify which practitioners and scientists you consider to be - using your words:

'corrupt' 'dumb'or 'know nothing'.

 

Specify which you regard as competent and reliable.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

In short: context matters, numbers aren’t proof, and critical thinking isn’t measured by popularity.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Millions agreeing with something doesn’t make it scientifically accurate; it just makes it popular.

 

No, but when you post three paragraphs describing what you see as psychologically impaired 'conspiracy theorists' and 'misfits' (you agreed the latter term was fitting), it gives an impression of marginality.

 

Here is the definition of a misfit by Cambridge Dictionary:

someone who is not suited to a situation or who is not accepted by other people because their behaviour is strange or unusual

 

The '77 million' example aimed only at highlighting that the above-described disparaging terms are no longer adapted. When a majority of the population espouses, whether directly or indirectly, a set of ideas, then said ideas are de facto demarginalised and in the mainstream.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

These hearings were not the mic-drop moment you thought.

 

They are very compelling and I recommend listening to them, if only to broaden your understanding of the issue.

 

 

48 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Well done - thats the 'Trifecta'...    The Holy Trinity of conspiracy lunacy... 

 

Its of no surprise that all three conspiracies resonate with you.....

 

I'd add others too (mentioned earlier)... and I bet many of them strike a chord.....  

 

- 911 was orchestrated inside job.

- NASA fakes all space imagery.

- Satellites are fake.

- The International Space Station is a film set.

- Gravity is a hoax or misunderstood.

- COVID-19 was manufactured or exaggerated for control.

- Governments exaggerate pandemics to manipulate populations.

- Big Pharma hides cures for diseases like cancer.

- Microchips or tracking devices in vaccines.

- 5G networks are used for mind control or disease.

- Climate change is a hoax to enforce global control.

- Fluoridation of water is a mass mind-control tool.

- Chemtrails are sprayed for population control.

- The New World Order secretly controls governments.

- Mainstream media lies about major events.

- Scientific consensus is a cover for hidden agendas.

- Whistleblowers and alternative scientists are silenced.

- Artificial disasters (earthquakes, floods) are engineered.

- Lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, or celestial events are faked.

- Moon phases and tides are manipulated or misrepresented.

- Secret elites manipulate elections.

- Historical events are misrepresented or staged.

- Global pandemics are planned or used as control tools.

 

 

 

Most of those have an element of truth, but as usual they are mixed with outlandish claims ("microchips or tracking devices in vaccines") which are so obviously ridiculous that they taint the rest of the list – an age-old but still effective technique.

 

Add "Paul McCartney died and was replaced in 1966" to your list. This one is pretty compelling if you actually look at the facts. In fact I might start a topic on it in the near future 

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

In short: context matters, numbers aren’t proof, and critical thinking isn’t measured by popularity.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Millions agreeing with something doesn’t make it scientifically accurate; it just makes it popular.

 

No, but when you post three paragraphs describing what you see as psychologiclly impaired 'conspiracy theorists' and 'misfits' (you agreed the latter term was fitting), it gives an impression of marginality.

 

Here is the definition of a misfit by Cambridge Dictionary:

someone who is not suited to a situation or who is not accepted by other people because their behaviour is strange or unusual

 

The '77 million' example aimed only at highlighting that these terms are no longer adapted. When a majority of the population espouses, whether directly or indirectly, a set of ideas, then said ideas are de facto demarginalised and in the mainstream.

 

Apologies - I'll change my terminology...  Complete 'Fruit Cakes' and 'Conspiracy Nutters'...

 

Think the earth is flat / not an oblate spheroid - Fruit Cake !

Think the moon landings were manufactured  - Conspiracy nutter  !

Think vaccines don't work - Fruit Cake !

 

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

These hearings were not the mic-drop moment you thought.

 

They are very compelling and I recommend listening to them, if only to broaden your understanding of the issue.

 

No they are not compelling in the slightest - they are full of holes can be picked apart so easily.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Most of those have an element of truth, but as usual they are mixed with outlandish claims ("microchips or tracking devices in vaccines") which are so obviously ridiculous that they taint the rest of the list – an age-old but still effective technique.

 

Add "Paul McCartney died and was replaced in 1966" to your list. This one is pretty compelling if you actually look at the facts. In fact I might start a topic on it in the near future 

 

Thats a valid point - not all Conspiracy theories are 'born equal' and it would be binary thinking to discredit everything because it falls just over the line of 'normal'... 

 

But those theories are the popular ones conspiracy nuts like to run with... 

 

Oh.. Elvis is still alive - that one too...

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Oh.. Elvis is still alive - that one too...

 

I checked that one out… he's dead. There's one going around about Jim Morrison which I need to look into.

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No they are not compelling in the slightest - they are full of holes can be picked apart so easily.

 

So next time I post them, pick them apart immediately, in the relevant thread, and be specific, instead of ignoring them and then posting a general statement about them some time later in another thread.

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

So next time I post them, pick them apart immediately, in the relevant thread, and be specific, instead of ignoring them and then posting a general statement about them some time later in another thread.

 

I think I'll do me and you do you - I'll post when I have time.... 

 

But, I’m not going to meticulously debunk or dissect every link, comment, or isolated snippet of propaganda that anti-vaxxers flood forums with - there’s simply too much, and it plays into their tactic of ‘volume = evidence.’

 

Attempting to counter every claim individually would be an exercise in futility, and it ignores the broader pattern of misinformation, logical fallacies, and selective cherry-picking that underpins their / your arguments.

17 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

39 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Oh.. Elvis is still alive - that one too...

 

I checked that one out… he's dead. There's one going around about Jim Morrison which I need to look into.

 

You mean you didn't visit his grave while growing up in France ?

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You mean you didn't visit his grave while growing up in France ?

 

I was a big Doors fan but no, never… not that the existence of a grave proves anything. 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think I'll do me and you do you - I'll post when I have time.... 

 

But, I’m not going to meticulously debunk or dissect every link, comment, or isolated snippet of propaganda that anti-vaxxers flood forums with - there’s simply too much, and it plays into their tactic of ‘volume = evidence.’

 

Attempting to counter every claim individually would be an exercise in futility, and it ignores the broader pattern of misinformation, logical fallacies, and selective cherry-picking that underpins their / your arguments.

 

Senate testimonies posted on official government channels aren't snippets from X posts. The substance is what matters and it is, unfortunately, often distorted by both sides of the debate, when it isn't ignored entirely.

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think I'll do me and you do you - I'll post when I have time.... 

 

But, I’m not going to meticulously debunk or dissect every link, comment, or isolated snippet of propaganda that anti-vaxxers flood forums with - there’s simply too much, and it plays into their tactic of ‘volume = evidence.’

 

Attempting to counter every claim individually would be an exercise in futility, and it ignores the broader pattern of misinformation, logical fallacies, and selective cherry-picking that underpins their / your arguments.

Expand  

 

Senate testimonies posted on official government channels aren't snippets from X posts. The substance is what matters and it is, unfortunately, often distorted by both sides of the debate, when it isn't ignored entirely.

 

Senate testimonies take hours—sometimes an entire day or more—with detailed explanations, questions, and expert discussion. It’s too much to break down in a forum discussion, especially when, as you point out, much of it is distorted.

 

That’s why sound bites and small, cherry-picked snippets are often presented out of context - its common for Some social media posts to highlight isolated statements from CDC or FDA officials, ignoring full testimony on vaccine efficacy, safety data, or context on risk-benefit analysis.

 

There’s also a lot of information that directly contradicts the claims made in these hearings. Figures like JFK Jr. frequently make highly spurious statements; it’s clear he doesn’t fully understand the subject matter. He may be a senior figure with a prominent voice, but his reach is far bigger than his expertise.

14 hours ago, Bacon1 said:

Please clarify which practitioners and scientists you consider to be - using your words:

'corrupt' 'dumb'or 'know nothing'.

 

Specify which you regard as competent and reliable.

 

I know you're not asking me but ...

 

Sweeping generalizations like that are not helpful. We will all at some point need to make use of the medical system and to dismiss the entire medical system is silly. 

 

If you need surgery, some surgeons might be better than others. But how can you know ? Word of mouth?

 

The only thing is the "conspiracy" is they might push unnecessary surgeries sometimes ... either for money or because they are brainwashed that these procedures are actually better than they really are sometimes. 

 

So always best to do a bit of research to see if there are alternatives, if the surgery is really needed, risks vs benefits ... 

 

I had an eye laser procedure prescribed. I did research online and one doctor online (as many doctors have blogs these days) recommended that it's not worth the risk as it could lead to complications, so I didn't follow through with it. 

 

So the thing is there might be a doctor online giving information who is much more knowledgeable and up to date than your local doctor. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Bacon1 said:

@Stiddle Mump

 

@Red Phoenix

 

It would be valuable to understand the criteria by which you assess the competence of doctors and scientists, and how you distinguish those who are genuinely knowledgeable from those who are not.

 

For instance, in the case of a fractured leg treated in A&E, the standard procedure often involves the application of a plate with screws — a practice established as the most effective approach through rigorous experimentation. Similarly, controlled studies are used to determine optimal treatments for patients across various medical contexts. The field of orthopaedics, like other scientific disciplines, relies heavily on empirical research, peer-reviewed publications, and continuous evaluation of outcomes.

 

According to you two though, science publications are worthless & all are firmly in the grip of the "tyrannical" 😅 pharmaceutical companies.

 

Are you asserting that all such evidence-based practices are invalid, or that only specific subsets of medical professionals and researchers are deficient?

 

Please clarify which practitioners and scientists you consider to be - using your words:

'corrupt' 'dumb'or 'know nothing'.

 

Specify which you regard as competent and reliable.

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1377929-show-me-one-real-person-who-regrets-not-taking-the-covid-vaccine/page/11/#comment-20214597

 

I re-post the response from the Covid sub-forum here, as it already gives some background on my response to your question. 

 

> I fully agree with Jay Feldman's view on this, but you summarizing what he said in that 1 minute clip to "Those are the 2 options -- symptom management with medications OR improving health with education" is incorrect.  

He said "that there is 

- a place to treat symptoms with medication, 

- a place for symptom management, 

- a place for acute care, and 

- a place for medications" 

But that all of the above are for 'managing health' rather than 'improving health'.  

So it's not either this or that, but recognizing - as he does - that there is a need for both.

Improving health implies a change of perspective in order to take responsibility for your health and well-being by making life-style choices and avoiding to the degree possible the things and conditions that are detrimental to your health.  

And that improving health is not achieved through symptom treatment,  

 

I would not trust my long-term health to a doctor that solely provides medication and practices 'symptom management'.  

So in my book such doctors are not reliable.  

When in need for acute treatment (happened only three times in the 68 years of my life, with two of these in my youth) I would hope that those helping me would be competent, e.g. re the medications they prescribe or the surgery they perform. 

But such competence in 'repair' or acute symptom treatment does not make them reliable doctors to help ensure my long-term health.   

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1377929-show-me-one-real-person-who-regrets-not-taking-the-covid-vaccine/page/11/#comment-20214597

 

I re-post the response from the Covid sub-forum here, as it already gives some background on my response to your question. 

 

> I fully agree with Jay Feldman's view on this, but you summarizing what he said in that 1 minute clip to "Those are the 2 options -- symptom management with medications OR improving health with education" is incorrect.  

He said "that there is 

- a place to treat symptoms with medication, 

- a place for symptom management, 

- a place for acute care, and 

- a place for medications" 

But that all of the above are for 'managing health' rather than 'improving health'.  

So it's not either this or that, but recognizing - as he does - that there is a need for both.

Improving health implies a change of perspective in order to take responsibility for your health and well-being by making life-style choices and avoiding to the degree possible the things and conditions that are detrimental to your health.  

And that improving health is not achieved through symptom treatment,  

 

I would not trust my long-term health to a doctor that solely provides medication and practices 'symptom management'.  

So in my book such doctors are not reliable.  

When in need for acute treatment (happened only three times in the 68 years of my life, with two of these in my youth) I would hope that those helping me would be competent, e.g. re the medications they prescribe or the surgery they perform. 

But such competence in 'repair' or acute symptom treatment does not make them reliable doctors to help ensure my long-term health.   

 

 

 

 

I agree with all this. A lot of doctors in the "conventional" medical systems are, for all intents and purposes, sales reps for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Osteopaths are often good, I know one in France who has extraordinary knowledge of the human body, he doesn't prescribe meds and is not recognised by the French social security system. A session is 50 euros out of your own pocket, but whatever your problem is, those are 50 euros well spent. He will tell you what to do to improve your mental and physical health. I found out last year that he was not Covid-jabbed, which did not surprise me at all. He did look more preoccupied, though, and I found out why: he said that his patients' bodies are going haywire since they took the jabs and there is nothing he can do about it…

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I agree with all this. A lot of doctors in the "conventional" medical systems are, for all intents and purposes, sales reps for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Osteopaths are often good, I know one in France who has extraordinary knowledge of the human body, he doesn't prescribe meds and is not recognised by the French social security system. A session is 50 euros out of your own pocket, but whatever your problem is, those are 50 euros well spent. He will tell you what to do to improve your mental and physical health. I found out last year that he was not Covid-jabbed, which did not surprise me at all. He did look more preoccupied, though, and I found out why: he said that his patients' bodies are going haywire since they took the jabs and there is nothing he can do about it…

Faith healers are also often vilified, but I have seen videos of cripples standing up from their wheelchairs and walking. Do not underestimate the power of prayer. Your donations will help too. 

3 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Faith healers are also often vilified, but I have seen videos of cripples standing up from their wheelchairs and walking. Do not underestimate the power of prayer. Your donations will help too. 

 

I never mentioned vilification, but your input and razor-sharp wit are appreciated nonetheless.

10 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Just worked it out; I only know 7.15%. But I'm getting there. Still learning; unlike many on here. In fact unlike most compromised, dumbster white-coats.

Have you learned anything about the science and medical advances that have been developed since your favorite buddy, Koch from the 1890's?  That seems unlikely given your history of nonsense posts on AN.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Senate testimonies take hours—sometimes an entire day or more—with detailed explanations, questions, and expert discussion. It’s too much to break down in a forum discussion, especially when, as you point out, much of it is distorted.

 

That’s why sound bites and small, cherry-picked snippets are often presented out of context - its common for Some social media posts to highlight isolated statements from CDC or FDA officials, ignoring full testimony on vaccine efficacy, safety data, or context on risk-benefit analysis.

 

There’s also a lot of information that directly contradicts the claims made in these hearings. Figures like JFK Jr. frequently make highly spurious statements; it’s clear he doesn’t fully understand the subject matter. He may be a senior figure with a prominent voice, but his reach is far bigger than his expertise.

 

There are very good summaries of Senate hearings, 20-30 minute-long videos which give an honest account of topics discussed. They are very easy to find, all one needs to do is type "Senate hearing Covid vaccine" on YouTube. The information given is compelling and comes from people with the required expertise. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

There are very good summaries of Senate hearings, 20-30 minute-long videos which give an honest account of topics discussed. They are very easy to find, all one needs to do is type "Senate hearing Covid vaccine" on YouTube. The information given is compelling and comes from people with the required expertise. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

 

And just as there are summaries of those Senate hearings, there are equally accessible analyses that dismantle the errors, distortions and outright misinformation presented in them. These breakdowns highlight intellectual flaws that veer from naïve misunderstanding to deliberate misrepresentation - and they’re just as easy to find. Simply type “Senate hearing Covid vaccine – false information” into YouTube and you’ll be flooded with detailed, evidence-based commentary.

 

The people producing these fact-checks aren’t random internet personalities - they include medical researchers, epidemiologists, policy analysts and science communicators who actually understand the data being misquoted or misused in those hearings. They go point-by-point through the claims made by Kennedy and others and expose the selective citations, missing context, statistical errors and leaps of logic that somehow get presented as “expert testimony”.

 

So if we’re appealing to expertise, evidence and intellectual honesty, then it cuts both ways. The hearings don’t get a free pass simply because someone with a title speaks into a microphone. Scrutiny matters - and the scrutiny does not favour many of the claims being made in those sessions.

 

 

 

 

56 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

There are very good summaries of Senate hearings, 20-30 minute-long videos which give an honest account of topics discussed. They are very easy to find, all one needs to do is type "Senate hearing Covid vaccine" on YouTube. The information given is compelling and comes from people with the required expertise. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

You seem to be the most gullible when it comes to believing those who share your 'feelings' based evidence rather than 'factual' based information.   Right.... .compelling.... that's how fiction author's make their living.

43 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Simply type “Senate hearing Covid vaccine – false information” into YouTube and you’ll be flooded with detailed, evidence-based commentary.

 

I have just done it, here are the first 12 results in order of appearance:

 

 

The only videos claiming to "debunk misinformation" within the 30 first results are a couple of segments with angry-looking CNN anchors (and one CNBC one).

 

 

4 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You seem to be the most gullible when it comes to believing those who share your 'feelings' based evidence rather than 'factual' based information.   Right.... .compelling.... that's how fiction author's make their living.

 

I've never had a stalking fan before, it's both amusing and a little creepy.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I have just done it, here are the first 12 results by order of appearance:

 

 

The only videos claiming to "debunk misinformation" within the 30 first results are a couple of segments with angry-looking CNN anchors (and one CNBC one).

 

 

 

Oh dear rattle - you're getting desperate if your response is that you couldn't find something...

 

 

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I've never had a stalking fan before, it's both amusing and a little creepy.

If you don't like being fact checked.... stop posting nonsense.