12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

ChatGPT, Grok and Gemini are advanced search engines and nothing else. They operate on a database. A staggering number of people here use them as if they were a vector of Incontrovertible Truth.

No, your opinion is wrong.  There is a huge difference between internet search function and AI.  It's obvious that a detailed explanation will be way, way over your ability to understand.  An LLM 'understands' the context where the search terms are found.  Search engines just find articles with multiple search terms in proximity.

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

57 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

16 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I recall a time, just a few years ago, when my GP, not an antivaxxer by any stretch of the imagination, recommended not vaccinating my then two year-old son because, according to him, it was best to let kids' immune systems do the job naturally. None of his own kids had ever taken it, he added.

 

If my GP suggested not to take the MMR or Polio vaccines - I'd question both his education and qualifications. 

 

I should have been clearer, 'not vaccinating my then two year-old against the flu' is what I meant.

 

A number of years ago, I wish I’d known better. When my son was about a year old, he caught the flu on a flight - and it was awful. I spent nights sitting up with him, listening to him struggle to breathe through the phlegm, helpless as he coughed and whimpered. He was ill for days, and we came close to hospitalising him.

 

If I’d had the option of preventing that with a flu vaccine, I would have taken it in an instant. But at the time, it simply wasn’t something we had thought about in advance.

 

Now, they even have nasal influenza vaccines - quick, painless, and offered to children in schools (my son’s just had his - optional, of course).

 

So here’s a question for the anti-vaxxers:
If an effective vaccine is given as a nasal spray - no needles, no trauma, minimal fuss - does that suddenly make it acceptable? Or will you still reject it, not because of what it is, but because of what you believe it represents ? (i.e. profit to 'big pharma')...   

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

57 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Allow a kid up build up their own immunity great - thats exactly what vaccines do !!

 

'Naturally' being the keyword. Vaccines are not natural.

 

There’s no argument there - cars aren’t “natural”, nor are buildings, air-conditioning, or the food we eat. In fact, nearly everything we consume today has been improved through deliberate human interference. Almost every crop on our plates - from wheat and tomatoes to bananas - is the result of centuries of selective breeding and human-driven evolution.

 

You speak of things being “unnatural” as though that’s a bad thing. It isn’t. It’s progress. Unless, of course, you fancy going back a few thousand years to gnaw on wild bananas full of seeds, unrecognisable tomatoes, and then sleep in a cave after sundown.

 

Human intervention is not the problem - it’s the reason we’re not still dying of infected cuts or famine. The idea that “natural” automatically means “better” is a deeply flawed argument. Vaccines aren’t natural - so what? Neither are bananas as they exist today.

 

“Natural” gave us smallpox. Human ingenuity gave us the cure.

 

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

57 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I agree this is a concerning issue - but its not a smoking gun that renders vaccines harmful or dangerous - it simply show that the industry requires closer oversight as does any industry that impacts the general public.

 

It shows that the industry is guided by profit and therefore subject to the basic law of demand creation to generate product consumption, which makes the mandating of said products to the general public a serious ethical issue.

 

If necessity is the mother of invention, then profit is surely the father.

And like any parent, its influence is complex - not always noble, but undeniably vital.

 

This isn’t a binary issue. Profit-driven development and genuine public health advancement are not opposites; they often coexist and even depend on each other. The flaw in much anti-vaccine thinking lies precisely in the failure to recognise this nuance.

 

We lament inefficiency in government systems, complain about bureaucratic apathy, and demand progress - yet progress requires incentive. Profit may be an imperfect motivator, but it remains the least flawed of all available options. It fuels innovation, competition, and improvement where stagnation might otherwise reign.

 

Yes, the system needs oversight. Yes, profit can corrupt if left unchecked. But none of that diminishes the effectiveness or necessity of vaccines. To reject them because companies earn from them is to mistake motive for outcome. Vaccines work - regardless of who profits.

 

What anti-vaxxers often fail to see is that profit doesn’t invalidate science; it simply accelerates its pursuit.

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

No, your opinion is wrong.  There is a huge difference between internet search function and AI.  It's obvious that a detailed explanation will be way, way over your ability to understand.  An LLM 'understands' the context where the search terms are found.  Search engines just find articles with multiple search terms in proximity.

But if it is programmed to prefer certain sources and ignore others, then its context is limited to those 'friendly sources' which will result in one-sided responses.  There is an AI program that takes all sources into consideration, and its responses when enquiring about controversial subjects (like vaccines) are clearly different than the responses from the mainstream AIs. 

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

My son also caught the flu when he was very little — we did take him to hospital, where he stayed for one night under close surveillance and treatment, and we went back home the next evening. Since then, he has never caught the flu again, most definitely because his innate immune system was primed the one and only time he caught it.

Interestingly, during that night of hospitalisation, I also developed symptoms and was tested for the flu. The doctor told me I did not have the flu. "So what do I have, then?" I asked, as I felt terrible.

"Your son has transmitted the flu to you, but your immune system is fighting it off. You will have symptoms for the rest of the day, and then you will be fine."

And indeed, this is what happened. Neither I nor my son have ever received a flu vaccine.

 

Your 'theory' fails to account for the antigenic drift of influenza...      had your son been vaccinated with 'that seasons' flu vaccine, he may have avoided a hospital stay - thats the point.

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The inoculation mechanism is totally irrelevant. This strikes me as a rather weak attempt to infantilise the antivaxxer stance, i.e. "scared of needles".

 

Not at all – it’s nothing to do with some childish “scared of needles” take.... I wasn’t talking about the vaccine itself so much as the delivery system, because some anti-vaxxers in earlier threads have claimed it’s the direct injection into the bloodstream that causes issues like VITT.

 

The nasal flu vaccine works quite differently – it targets the mucosal immune system, the same pathway the virus uses when you catch it naturally. That’s why comparing it to your son (and my son) catching the flu makes sense – both expose the immune system through the nasal passages, effectively “training” it to recognise and fight the virus later. It’s not an injection into a vein, so the mechanisms and potential risks (like VITT) are completely different - thus I wonder why there may be objection to a nasal vaccine unless the anti-vax reaction is simply stubbornness. 

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The issue isn't that the pharmaceutical industry makes profits, the issue is that profit maximisation is the primary metric and that the system is corrupt to the core.

I will consider any product under a system where physicians are not financially incentivised to inoculate me or my children, and studies challenging the efficacy and innocuity of the products involved are not suppressed.

 

That makes sense to a certain degree, but you’ve somewhat dichotomised the issue into a “causation equals result” fallacy. The integrity of the system and the profit motive are legitimate topics to question, but neither automatically invalidates the science or the effectiveness of the products themselves.

 

None of the above matters if the vaccines are effective and work as demonstrated through independent data and reproducible results. The underlying biology doesn’t change depending on who funds the study. mRNA expression, antibody titres, and T-cell responses can all be measured objectively – and they have been, by numerous research groups across the world.

 

Profit incentives exist in every branch of medicine, from antibiotics to insulin, yet we don’t dismiss penicillin or statins as fraudulent because companies made money from them. The key is transparency, regulatory oversight, and peer review – not assuming corruption automatically nullifies efficacy.

 

If anything, suppressing legitimate safety or efficacy data is precisely why independent replication and open-access publication are crucial – and that’s what actually gives us confidence that vaccines do work.

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I wasn't making the case that unnatural things are bad, just reiterating what my GP said, i.e. that he "recommended not vaccinating my then two-year-old son because, according to him, it was best to let kids' immune systems do the job naturally."

You retorted "Allow a kid up build up their own immunity great - thats exactly what vaccines do !!" [sic], omitting the word "naturally" which is the essential part of my GP's statement, who meant that a vaccine was not necessary in this instance. I wasn't expressing my opinion, but my GP's in 2015, bearing in mind I was not an antivaxxer at the time and it was I who asked him to vaccinate my son against the flu, to which he replied it wasn't necessary.

 

His answer might have been incomplete - For a healthy child, the flu vaccine isn’t “essential” in a life-or-death sense, but authorities recommend it annually because it reduces a child's chance of getting sick and spreading flu....   While the flu vaccine isn’t perfectly effective every year, it still significantly reduces illness, transmission, and hospitalisations - You are already a 'statistic' as you took your son to hospital - The vaccine might well have prevented that.

 

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

This is a statement motivated by ideology and bias. The undeniable corruption of the "health" industry by pharmaceutical lobbyists is not a side issue, it is the core issue.

 

I disagree - its a significant issue, but not one that nullifies the efficacy of vaccines.

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

In 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for marketing several products with the intent to deceive and mislead the public, yet nothing has been done since to address the underlying causes of this serious ethical problem.

 

In 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle criminal and civil charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

The case centred on off-label marketing - promoting drugs for uses not approved by the FDA - specifically Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica.

 

The wrongdoing involved marketing practices, not scientific fraud in clinical data or tampering with regulatory submissions.

 

No one’s disagreeing that the actions and influence of the pharmaceutical industry are deeply problematic and demand far stronger oversight. Profit motives and regulatory capture are real concerns.

 

But none of that automatically means vaccines don’t work or are unnecessary. The science behind immunology and vaccine efficacy stands independently of corporate behaviour. Whether or not a company is corrupt doesn’t change how antibodies form, how immune memory develops, or how population-level immunity reduces severe illness and deaths.

 

You can criticise the system while still acknowledging that vaccines - flu, COVID, measles, take your pick - work.

It’s not an either/or issue; it’s both: hold Big Pharma accountable and trust the proven biology.

 

46 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

If we were having this conversation in the 1950s, you would chastise me for questioning the claims made by "the science", which categorically said at the time that thalidomide was:

 

- "Completely safe" and "harmless even in high doses"

- "Safe for pregnant women" (explicitly advertised as safe during pregnancy)

- "Non-toxic" and "with no known side effects"

 

That’s a fair historical point, but it’s also a false analogy. The thalidomide tragedy happened before modern drug regulation existed - it’s the very reason today’s safety and testing systems were created.

 

Thalidomide was a sedative, not a vaccine. It was pushed by marketing claims, not verified science, and there was no independent regulatory oversight like we have now.

 

Vaccines today are tested and monitored on a completely different scale - with global data tracking, independent replication, and mandatory safety reporting.

 

So yes, question authority - that’s healthy. But using thalidomide to discredit vaccines ignores seventy years of scientific and regulatory progress. The lesson from thalidomide isn’t “don’t trust science” - it’s why we can.

I found a book on Amazon that is critical of vaccines:

 

Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality Hardcover – July 29, 2025

by John Leake (Author), Peter A. McCullough MD MPH (Author)

 

The word “vaccine” derives from the Latin word for cow. The English physician, Edward Jenner, coined it in his 1798 pamphlet An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae. The last two Latin words mean “Smallpox of the Cow,” or cowpox. Jenner postulated that cowpox causes mild disease in humans while protecting them from the more dangerous smallpox. His proposal for inoculation with a weak form of disease-causing matter to prevent serious illness became the central concept of infectious disease medicine and has remained so ever since. The word “vaccine” was subsequently applied to immunizations against all infectious diseases. Its etymology is amazingly apt, because vaccines are the ultimate sacred cow.
 
Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality tells the story of this technology and the celebrated men who developed it with some success, but also with failures that are never mentioned in the celebratory literature on vaccines. Vaccine advocates often proclaim that they “follow the science,” but most vaccine development has been a matter of guesses, gambles, and wild experimentation. Its key figures have been biased by religious faith, wishful thinking, ideology, and a desire for recognition and money.
 
Though credit is due to some vaccines for reducing infectious disease morbidity and mortality, their contribution to public health in developed nations has been grossly exaggerated by propagandists. Dramatic improvements in nutrition and sanitation were the primary drivers of this trend. The authors do not dismiss the concept of vaccination but seek to promote a more informed and less dogmatic discussion about its risks and benefits. Critical evaluation can only make the technology safer and more effective.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So although the authors are critical of vaccines, they do admit vaccines have reduced infectious disease and mortality. The authors are pushing to make vaccines safer, not to get rid of them. 

 

 

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

He may have, yes. And according to some studies, a flu jab may have also weakened his immune system. That's the actual truth that an unbiased mind will take into account.

 

A couple of examples, bearing in mind there are many more:

 

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3404712/

 

Flu shot's impact on pregnant women and their babies

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170801101718.htm

 

The nasal vaccine is a Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) - thats why I mentioned the different delivery system...  

That said, I hold no concern over the Quadrivalent (IIV4) or Trivalent (IIV3) Inactivated Influenza Vaccines (IIV) - which remain recommended for anyone older than 6 months.

 

The sample sizing in was modest - but the results certainly warrant further larger scale studies as the vaccinated group had a higher incidence of non-influenza respiratory virus infections than the placebo group, possibly due to a phenomenon of “virus competition” or “temporary immunity trade-off”: by preventing influenza you may remove that virus’s “slot” and thereby allow other viruses to exploit the niche, or alter immune responses in a way that increases susceptibility - its an interesting finding, not a definitive one.

 

Neither does the finding mean the influenza vaccine is ineffective - quite the contrary, it is effective, but the findings also reminds us that respiratory viruses are a big messy party and the 'loudest most drunk annoying guest' leaving doesn’t mean the rest stop dancing.

 

 

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Not automatically, no, but as things are at the moment, there are legitimate concerns to be had.

 

Agree - everything requires independent oversight.

 

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Thanks for clarifying. It's simple, if I were to read an independent study showing that this novel vaccine is problematic (perhaps issues related to the blood-brain barrier – I'm not saying there are such issues, just giving an example), then I wouldn't take it. Given the track record of the industry, I am not particularly inclined to take the risk (call it healthy justified scepticism), but will read any material on it with interest nonetheless, balancing all sides of the issue.

 

Effectively the LAIV is the same as exposing a person to influenza in exactly the same manner, without the risk of severity as the virus is attenuated / weakened.

 

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

If Big Pharma is found to be fraudulent, how do you trust the biology is actually proven when Big Pharma money is all over the end-to-end process, from research and journal funding to doctor incentives, and of course not forgetting the implied threats to regulatory bodies (also funded by Big Pharma) who will not receive their money if a negative study is taken into account:

 

How do you trust crash-tests, seatbelts, and crumple zones if the car industry is so profitable? You do - because while profit drives the industry, physics still works, and the regulations, testing, and real-world results are transparent enough to expose when something fails.

 

It’s the same with medicine. The biology isn’t flawed, the industry is. Science itself is self-correcting - replication, peer review, open data, and post-market surveillance all act as checks, even if they sometimes operate slowly. Yes, Big Pharma funds much of the research, sponsors journals, and influences regulators, but that doesn’t make the biology “unproven”. It means the system requires constant scrutiny, not wholesale rejection.

 

Without profit-driven development, many life-saving drugs and vaccines simply wouldn’t exist. The private sector takes on massive R&D costs - often billions per drug - with failure rates exceeding 90%. The financial motive accelerates innovation, even if it also breeds occasional abuse.

 

Fraud and manipulation do occur - just as car companies have lied about emissions or safety tests - but those cases are eventually exposed because reality pushes back. If a drug doesn’t work or causes harm, clinical outcomes, real-world data, and independent studies reveal it. Science and evidence don’t bend indefinitely to marketing.

 

In short, profit is not proof of corruption, and corruption is not proof the science is false. The incentives may warp behaviour, but the underlying biology remains grounded in measurable, repeatable reality. This isn’t a perfect world - but it’s a functioning one, and without that messy, profit-fuelled drive, we’d have slower progress, fewer treatments, and a lot more suffering.

 

So yes - Big Pharma is a flawed machine. But the laws of biology don’t care who’s paying the bills, and good science, sooner or later, wins out.

 

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Revelations of CDC’s industry funding raise questions about some of its decisions

Many people in and out of the medical community were shocked to read in an article published earlier this year in the medical journal the BMJ that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) takes funding from industry.

[…]

For example, to help pay for its new “Take 3” flu-prevention campaign, the CDC, via its foundation, accepted a $193,000 donation from Roche, the company that makes the antiviral drug Tamiflu, Lenzer reported last February.

One of the central tenets of the “Take 3” campaign is the recommendation that people take an antiviral drug like Tamiflu if they develop symptoms of the flu.

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2015/05/revelations-cdcs-industry-funding-raise-questions-about-some-its-decisions/

 

 

I've just given you an example from 2009, and I could give you at least five more off the top of my head, from the Vioxx scandal (13,000 lawuits for data withholding and misrepresentation) to France's Médiator scandal (9 million euro fine given in 2023 for an array of fraudulent practices having caused enormous pain and suffering). As I said, these issues have not been addressed and things remain unchanged as we speak. Paying damages is, for all intents and purposes, part of Big Pharma's business model as these fines are but a fraction of their turnover. You may be okay with this state of affairs, I am not and wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

 

(I'm at work - no time to respond further but will look at this when I have time you posted a lot of links to read through).

 

... but my initial response is no, I'm not ok with this state of affairs and always argue that 'effective, independent, and honest' oversight is required - but again, this does not mean the vaccines are ineffective, it simply means the industry itself is flawed - the same can be argued of many 'systems' i.e. global monetary system, even democracy - they're the worst 'systems' except all those other forms that have been tried....

 

I would welcome a cleaning up of the pharmaceutical industry - but not at the cost of development.

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I would welcome a cleaning up of the pharmaceutical industry - but not at the cost of development.

The truth would do me.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I would welcome a cleaning up of the pharmaceutical industry - but not at the cost of development.

The truth would do me.

 

You believe the Earth is flat, viruses are a myth, and antibiotics are some grand conspiracy.

 

This is where I’d quote Col. Jessup to Lt. Kaffee - you should understand it, given your intimate relationship with fiction…  

 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I've given you a thumbs up for that reply. People with radically opposite views can disagree whilst still having a meaningful and respectful conversation, I encourage everyone to follow that example.

 

There are certain “opposing views” that aren’t merely contrary - they’re untethered from reality altogether. Engaging them isn’t debate, it’s descent. Intelligent and respectful argument becomes not just difficult but entirely futile when faced with such delusion....

31 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You believe the Earth is flat, viruses are a myth, and antibiotics are some grand conspiracy.

 

This is where I’d quote Col. Jessup to Lt. Kaffee - you should understand it, given your intimate relationship with fiction…  

 

There are of lot of things I don't reckon are as the 'authorities' tell us. Unanswered questions about flat earth for sure. Rattles would be a better person to debate on that though. He is very knowledgeable on that subject.

 

But viruses!! Now yer talking. i do happen know about them. TBH, I'm not sure that in a living body a virus exists at all. I believe that viruses are the result of cell breakdown. They do not cause it. They are dead and inert. They are there, if at all, to aid cell removal. Do they carry messages to other cells? Do they help remove toxins. There is some doubt on that for me.

 

However, I can say quite categorically; pathogenic viruses that allow contagion and cause infection do not exist. They have never been isolated, and therefore never been shown to cause anything. Yet there is a whole - very lucrative - branch of Big Pharma medicine that relies on their existence for its $$$$s.

 

The whole vaccine system is constructed on a couple of myths. Viruses are one.

 

Nature has the answers.