13 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I will quote Upton Sinclair on that one: 

> 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

 

13 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Which of course FALSELY presumes that all research on public health matters is done by people being paid by outside interests, which simply isn't true.

...

 

I do not presume anything.  The whole 'science' of vaccinology/virology is a scam.  But those that did choose that discipline and build their career on it, will vehemently defend the lies/inconsistencies as 'their salary depends on it'.  Those that had an inkling of critical thinking and grew increasingly doubtful of the quackery 'science' with which they make their money, must be in a dreadful situation realizing what quagmire they are in.  And few have the courage to do the right thing and expose the scam, which would destroy their career and social standing.   

12 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

People with "critical thinking skills" who follow this lot below??  Here's who you should NOT believe, some of the favorite post sources for anti-vaxers here:

 

The science (and business) behind COVID-19 disinformation. And what to do about it.

...

Why spread rumors?

"Why would people intentionally push a rumor? It’s simple: To turn a profit. Disinformation campaigns, like COVID-19 vaccines, turns out to be incredibly lucrative business model. The Center for Countering Digital Hate outlined this clearly. Some examples include:

 

--Joseph Mercola uses health disinformation to promote the sale of supplements, books and food. During the height of the pandemic, he promoted a new website designed to prevent or treat COVID-19 with alternative remedies. His business has a net worth of $100 million.

 

--Robert F. Kennedy Jr is the leading anti-vaxxer of the pandemic, as he owns the Children’s Health Defense. He gained more than 1 million followers in 2020 and traffic to his website rose sharply in March 2021 with 2.35 million visits."

 

Your Local Epidemiologist

https://archive.ph/wV4LB

 

Along with this motley group -- the infamous COVID disinformation dozen:

 

 

https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/210324-The-Disinformation-Dozen.pdf

 

Thanks for the list, a couple of names on it which I didn't check out yet.  

Nomen est omen > the website 'counterhate' is truly a counter for spreading hate... 

52 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The above statement is a lie. An intentionally false statement that goes against multiple medical examiner findings, coroner reports and conclusions of public health agencies.

 

I don't know if you are intentionally doing this for personal jollies or if you are mentally ill. What I do know is that  Asean Now is providing a platform for you to present lies and to cause harm to others.

 

Thanks for that reply Sir.

 

I'm not suggesting these people didn't die. I'm not saying the authorities have fudged the data. But attributing the deaths to covid? 

 

What I'm saying; it was not some made up disease called covid-19 that killed them. A covid virus has never been shown to exist outside of a petri dish. And those experiments are totally fraudulent IMO. Simply copying Dr Enders' experiments of 1954.

 

Of course people do pass away. But they didn't/don't die from some disease caused by a non-existent and mythical virus.

 

It is worth examining the role of the PCR test in it all. After all the 'pandemic' was PCR driven. With, IMO, close to 80% false results. The only time it was right was when it said 'could not find'.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

 

16 hours ago, Bacon1 said:

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

 

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States

 

Cytopathic effect caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patient with coronavirus disease, United States, 2020. A–C) Phase-contrast microscopy of Vero cell monolayers at 3 days postinoculation: A) Mock, B) nasopharyngeal specimen, C) oropharyngeal specimen. Original magnifications ×10). D) Electron microscopy of virus isolate showing extracellular spherical particles with cross-sections through the nucleocapsids (black dots). Arrow indicates a coronavirus virion budding from a cell. Scale bar indicates 200 nm.

 

 

 

I've circled it in red, in image D

 

 

Explained Simply

 

 

Scientists took samples from a COVID-19 patient and added them to healthy cells in a lab dish.

 

The healthy cells (the control) looked normal.

 

The cells with the patient samples started to break apart and die — meaning the virus was attacking them.

 

 

 

Image D

 

When the scientists looked with a super-powerful microscope, they could see tiny round virus particles coming out of the infected cells.

 

Excellent explanation......👍......But will have no effect on those here with an agenda.....🤕

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Thanks for that reply Sir.

 

I'm not suggesting these people didn't die. I'm not saying the authorities have fudged the data. But attributing the deaths to covid? 

 

What I'm saying; it was not some made up disease called covid-19 that killed them. A covid virus has never been shown to exist outside of a petri dish. And those experiments are totally fraudulent IMO. Simply copying Dr Enders' experiments of 1954.

 

Of course people do pass away. But they didn't/don't die from some disease caused by a non-existent and mythical virus.

 

It is worth examining the role of the PCR test in it all. After all the 'pandemic' was PCR driven. With, IMO, close to 80% false results. The only time it was right was when it said 'could not find'.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.

 

Good morning Dr.Stiddle-Mump, does Nature give you the answers whilst you're sitting in the middle of a field, or does it tell you in your sleep............. ?  🤔

23 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Alas this wasn't the case during the pandemic and the emergency roll out of an experimental mRNA 'vaccine'. Anyone who chose to think for themselves and make their own choice by way of rejecting the experimental 'vaccine' was demonized. Of course there were others who were forced by threat of losing their careers to take it.

 

And of course "experimental" has a negative connotation, correct?

 

How do you think any advances in engineering, medicine, science can be made if not for experimentation?

 

Yes, I believe it was experimental. However, there is data that suggests that it was decades in the making. mRNA has been developed for decades.

 

So they rolled it out on humans as a trial run.

But that's only a bad thing if you think human beings need to hide under their bed to be safe.

 

Or in the case of Mr. Mump, "Nature and God will save you" and we never need any medical intervention. 

 

Experimental technologies do need to be tested on humans at some point.

 

There's no way around it for scientific progress.

 

You're still alive, so what are you complaining about? 

 

Self-driving cars is a similar analogy. It won't be a perfect technology as soon as it's rolled out. There may be some accidents and deaths. And people will complain that it's a bad technology. But eventually, they will refine it and it should get safer and safer. And eventually be much much safer and fewer accidents than human drivers on the roads. But technologies do need to be tested and it's "experimental" at first. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Yes, I believe it was experimental. However, there is data that suggests that it was decades in the making. mRNA has been developed for decades.

Yes mRNA technology has been around since the 70's but the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines were definitely not decades in the making. They were fast tracked through under an emergency decree. 

10 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Yes mRNA technology has been around since the 70's but the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines were definitely not decades in the making. They were fast tracked through under an emergency decree. 

 

Most people are not connecting the dots. The anti-vax guys are concluding that they are "trying to kill us all" and that "the medical establishment can never be trusted". 

 

But mRNA does appear to be a positive technology, so the conclusions drawn from anti-vaxxers are not consistent with that.

 

How about this? Covid-19 could have been an "excuse" to roll out mRNA. 

 

And so what? Unless you are convinced that mRNA is a bad technology or "God and nature will save you from all illnesses". 

 

Otherwise, no time is better than right now to roll out a promising new innovative and possibly ground-breaking medical technology.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

But mRNA does appear to be a positive technology

Not for those who have suffered injuries.

11 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Not for those who have suffered injuries.

 

Well, people are dying in car accidents all the time.

Does it mean we should take all cars off the roads?

 

How many people died of chronic illnesses compared to vaccine injuries? 

 

It's an unfortunate reality of technological advances. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

...

Unless you are convinced that mRNA is a bad technology or "God and nature will save you from all illnesses". 

Otherwise, no time is better than right now to roll out a promising new innovative and possibly ground-breaking medical technology.

 

I have no problem nor objection when you and people of similar conviction that 'mRNA is Good for You', willingly take the role of human Guinea Pig in experiments with that novel technology.  

What I do most vehemently object against is that myself and my loved ones are coerced or mandated into doing same.  

12 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Everyone has opinions. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily informed opinions or opinions based on actual facts and scientific evidence. Some people's opinions are readily proven as nonsense.

 

Opinions are like XXXXX. Everyone has one. That doesn't mean they're all created equal, especially when it comes to scientific / medical topics where some degree of specialized knowledge and understanding is likely to increase their likelihood of being accurate and fact-based.
 

If I want an opinion about why I'm suffering migraine headaches, just as a hypothetical example, I don't go looking for a gynecologist!  If I'm in search of credible information, I don't go relying on sources that have long and documented histories of being misinformers.

 

 

 

True but all opinions you don't share you dedicate yourself to ridiculing them.  That is not what a critical thinker does and you struggle with others opinions that don't perfectly align with yours.

 

I provided a article from a Stanford professor back in 2005 regarding the challenges the medical research has with accuracy.  I assume you are also aware of this and understand how difficult reaching an accurate consensus is in medical research.  By no means do I feel medical research is worthless.  

 

In stead of actually reading the article and responding to the content, you brought up his opinion about the Covid deaths and called him  quack.  Because he had a wrong opinion about Covid death predictions  as many did, including myself, all his previous opinions are meaningless?  I seriously don't get your type.  You are dedicated to offending all those that don't agree with you. To what end?  

 

BTW, I think vaccines for the most part save many life's each year.  I just think they should be questioned and not followed just because an authority demands it.  

39 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

 

 

Otherwise, no time is better than right now to roll out a promising new innovative and possibly ground-breaking medical technology.

 

 

 

TRUE!

 

TallGuy and many others with counter opinions to his are only concerned with offending the other side.  I'm usually on the side of new medical breakthroughs and support further research and progress.  Only issue I have are individuals that lack any perspective and just want to beat down all that disagree with them.  TallGuy creates vaccine threads daily just so he can tell everyone what the truth is and no other truths are relevant.  It is nauseating.

My personal opinion of Ioannidis and his 2005 article are irrelevant and in fact I have no personal opinion about the guy. . What is relevant for this forum's purpose is how this critical thinker  finds and sees clear facts and evidence showing  how vastly wrong Ioannidis repeatedly has been on matters relating to COVID, including authoring shoddy research.

 

On that basis, I questioned the validity of Ioannidis on anything related to COVID, not just because of his vastly undercounted COVID deaths estimate, but in other claims as well and accusations that he's produced shoddy research relating to COVID. So in his case, his past claim about research being wrong certainly applies to HIM!

 

The reported facts:

 

--'Ioannidis expressed doubt that vaccines or treatments would be developed and tested in time to affect how the pandemic would unfold.^"

 

Which also proved to be spectacularly wrong, as COVID vaccines were developed with the aid of the U.S. government and rolled out in about a year after the start of the pandemic, saving an estimated several million lives in the U.S.

 

AND

 

"Ioannidis widely promoted a study of which he had been co-author, "COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California", released as a preprint on April 17, 2020. It asserted that Santa Clara County's number of infections was between 50 and 85 times higher than the official count, putting the virus's fatality rate as low as 0.1% to 0.2%. Ioannidis concluded from the study that the coronavirus is "not the apocalyptic problem we thought."

...

The message found favor with right-wing media outlets, but the paper drew criticism from a number of epidemiologists who said its testing was inaccurate and its methods were sloppy.^{[135][136][137]} Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as "the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis". [emphasis added]

 

AND

 

"Ioannidis has also promoted the idea that there were financial incentives to put COVID-19 on death certificates and as such, they were unreliable during the pandemic, as well as the idea that doctors killed COVID-19 patients through premature intubations. Both of these beliefs contradict the available evidence."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

 

As a blog on Science Based Medicine said of Ioannidis and COVID:

 

Dr. John Ioannidis: “The Biggest Mistakes I am Sure Are Mine.”

...

"While there’s a lot of competition, it’s hard to think of another scientist who was so wrong, early, so consistently, and so publicly.

...

Indeed, an article about Dr. Ioannidis from December 2020 said:

He had appeared at least 18 times on major [mostly right-wing] cable news networks, repeatedly questioning the severity of the pandemic."

...

He said predictions of mass death were “completely off, it is just an astronomical error.”

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/mistakes/

 

In short, with COVID, he let his personal right-wing politics get in the way of actually producing accurate and credible scientific search, and became a right-wing COVID minimizing talking head loon divorced from reality.... And he's paid the price for that ever since.

 

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Well, unless they say something you don't like, in which case you refuse to consider it and call them "quack doctors":

 

 

 

I’m sure that if these doctors are supposedly “quacks” then they must have always been quacks, no?

 

I’d like to see some links provided to articles that call these doctors out for their “quackery” prior to 2019.  All we get now are post Covid era fact-check sites and revised Wikipedia entries as “proof” 🙄

 

That being said….It doesn’t really matter to me what the jab fanatics say.  Lie, manipulate, try to coerce me once and I’ll never trust you again.

 

They do however, seem to be getting more angry and desperate in their responses to us these days.  Whatever. 🤷‍♂️ 

4 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I’m sure that if these doctors are supposedly “quacks” then they must have always been quacks, no?

I’d like to see some links provided to articles that call these doctors out for their “quackery” prior to 2019.  All we get now are post Covid era fact-check sites and revised Wikipedia entries as “proof” 🙄

That being said….It doesn’t really matter to me what the jab fanatics say.  Lie, manipulate, try to coerce me once and I’ll never trust you again.

They do however, seem to be getting more angry and desperate in their responses to us these days.  Whatever. 🤷‍♂️ 

 

Fully agree with that well-stated observation.  

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Does it mean we should take all cars off the roads?

 

This is a false equivalence. It's not the technology of vehicles per se that are killing or injuring people in car crashes.

14 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I have no problem nor objection when you and people of similar conviction that 'mRNA is Good for You', willingly take the role of human Guinea Pig in experiments with that novel technology.  

What I do most vehemently object against is that myself and my loved ones are coerced or mandated into doing same.  

 

Well, mRNA is predicted to help treat cancer by 2030.

 

And if it happens, you can come back on the forum then and thank all the guinea pigs for doing you a favor. 

 

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Well, people are dying in car accidents all the time.

Does it mean we should take all cars off the roads?

 

 

 

False equivalence as nobody was ever discriminated for not using a car, nor coerced into using one.

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

 

Well, mRNA is predicted to help treat cancer by 2030.

 

And if it happens, you can come back on the forum then and thank all the guinea pigs for doing you a favor. 

 

I agree with Red on this; but just to add.

 

I am totally against pumping toxic muck into babes, toddlers and young children, who cannot say 'no'.

 

I firstly hold the 3 letter agencies responsible. For it is their corruption, their lies and putting the precious $$$$$ before the nation's health, that this filth gets into the market place; and into babies.

 

Next is parents. Have they no common sense? There is no excuse for saying; 'I didn't know'. Not now days,

 

White-coats actually pushing in the needle.

 

The drug companies. Without authorities and the regulators covering for them their power would disappear overnight.

 

The MSM. what a shower of rubbish. 'Safe and effective'. 'The science is settled'.

 

Stupid celebrities. Who was it that sang 'Take the new Jab.' to the tune of Halleluiah, in 2021? Or the fool that said only the jabbed were welcome at his concert.

 

The police. The pandemic brought the uniformed thugs to the fore. Oz as bad as anywhere.

 

The rest can do their own research,

4 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Yes mRNA technology has been around since the 70's but the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines were definitely not decades in the making. They were fast tracked through under an emergency decree. 

 

Simply a fact. One even Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla doesn't deny.

 

“mRNA was a technology, but we had less experience, only two years working on this, and actually, mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day, not vaccine, not any other medicine.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2022/03/10/transcript-wp-subscriber-exclusive-albert-bourla-author-moonshot-inside-pfizers-nine-month-race-make-impossible-possible/

29 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Well, mRNA is predicted to help treat cancer by 2030.

 

By 2030 it may be proven that it actually causes cancer.

2 hours ago, Airalee said:

They do however, seem to be getting more angry and desperate in their responses to us these days.

 

Because they know we are right and they hate us for it.

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The pandemic brought the uniformed thugs to the fore.

 

The pandemic is totally unrelated to vaccinations for children.

 

They need to be discussed separately, and as soon as you start mixing everything together, I will bail out of the discussion. 

 

11 hours ago, dinsdale said:

By 2030 it may be proven that it actually causes cancer.

 

Ok, stick around. 

33 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Well, mRNA is predicted to help treat cancer by 2030.

 

And if it happens, you can come back on the forum then and thank all the guinea pigs for doing you a favor. 

 

 

Better still, stay away from Big Food + Big Pharma, live a healthy lifestyle and don't get cancer.

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

The pandemic is totally unrelated to vaccinations for children.

 

They need to be discussed separately, and as soon as you start mixing everything together, I will bail out of the discussion. 

 

You are right Sir. Sorry about that!

10 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

The pandemic is totally unrelated to vaccinations for children.

They need to be discussed separately, and as soon as you start mixing everything together, I will bail out of the discussion. 

 

Unfortunately, the CDC decided otherwise as they added the mRNA Covid-vaccine in February 2023 to its “Child & Adolescent Immunization Schedule”. 

And as of October 2025, the COVID-19 vaccine is still on the child/adolescent immunization schedule.  

The only thing that changed was that in May 2025 the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced that the routine recommendation for healthy children and pregnant women was removed.  So it is no longer universally recommended in all healthy children, and depends on individual discussion.

26 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Simply a fact. One even Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla doesn't deny.

 

“mRNA was a technology, but we had less experience, only two years working on this, and actually, mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day, not vaccine, not any other medicine.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2022/03/10/transcript-wp-subscriber-exclusive-albert-bourla-author-moonshot-inside-pfizers-nine-month-race-make-impossible-possible/

I have read many “comments” that put forth the claim that “all the animals died in every mRNA trial”.

 

How much truth is there in those claims?  It’s one thing if it was just garden variety ineffectiveness….but another if the mice (or whatever the animals were) died, got cancer, had strokes, heart attacks, etc….that’s a completely different issue.

 

Maybe those studies were just overlooked?   Much like the 2005 study on Hydroxychloroquine and it’s effectiveness in combatting SARS Coronavirus?

 

Even when the truth comes out (as in the article you link to)….quite often, it really seems to be a half truth.

12 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I have read many “comments” that put forth the claim that “all the animals died in every mRNA trial”.

 

How much truth is there in those claims?  It’s one thing if it was just garden variety ineffectiveness….but another if the mice (or whatever the animals were) died, got cancer, had strokes, heart attacks, etc….that’s a completely different issue.

 

Maybe those studies were just overlooked?   Much like the 2005 study on Hydroxychloroquine and it’s effectiveness in combatting SARS Coronavirus?

 

Even when the truth comes out (as in the article you link to)….quite often, it really seems to be a half truth.

 

Agree.

 

What I found most interesting in this Bourla interview was his admission of powerlessness. As a CEO, you're supposed to give the general strategic and operational impetus, steer the ship in a given direction based on your experience and a set of objective criteria.

 

Yet in this case, despite his reticence and overall feeling this was not right, he had no choice but to comply and go with it (c.f. his subsequent claims in the media about the purported benefits of this product, which were obviously scripted for him).

 

This operation was going in one direction and one direction only, and nobody, no matter how high in the hierarchy, was going to stop it from happening.