2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

Happily, I don't know a single soul that fits with Chief Nerd's blinkered view of the world.

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Here, he is claiming the "brains of billions of people are not working anymore" due to the vaccines.

Sorry, I'm exhausted from vaccine debates. I will take a break. 

 

 

> Quod Erat Demonstrandum

8 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Happily, I don't know a single soul that fits with Chief Nerd's blinkered view of the world.

"The individuals a person chooses to associate with reflect their own judgment, priorities, and character."  

~adapted from Niccolo Machiavelli's Il Principe

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

> Quod Erat Demonstrandum

 

Sorry, I don't speak Yiddish.

 

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

> Quod Erat Demonstrandum

 

He could be right that "people's brains are not working anymore."

 

Now that I think of it, I did notice a sharp decline in the conversation levels on AN since Covid. 

 

I thought it was the cannabis. 

 

On 11/6/2025 at 2:03 PM, Airalee said:

Lol.

 

There are also loads of “influencers” who pushed the vax.  And they’re dead now.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TXWXirDdLlhN

 

You think we’re not keeping score too?   
 

Now go do something about your weight.

My weight is fine, go build some muscle.

3 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

My weight is fine, go build some muscle.

 

Just helping........

 

 

◦  Radio hosts (e.g. Dick Farrel, Marc Bernier)

  ⁠◦  Social media personalities (e.g. Stephen Harmon, Caleb Wallace)

  ⁠◦  Religious leaders and political activists

•  These individuals often publicly rejected vaccines and later died from COVID complications

 

 

Some vaccinated public figures died during the pandemic, but:

  ⁠◦  Most deaths were unrelated to COVID (e.g. cancer, accidents, heart disease).

  ⁠◦  Claims linking vaccines to sudden deaths have been widely debunked. For example:

      •  A study alleging 74% of autopsied deaths were vaccine-related was rejected by The Lancet and published on a fringe site

15 hours ago, Aforek said:

Still speaking of Covid ? you are 5 years late 

many other subjects to speak about 

Yup!! Vaccines anyone? Cancer?

5 hours ago, Will B Good said:

•  A study alleging 74% of autopsied deaths were vaccine-related was rejected by The Lancet and published on a fringe site

 

Is that the same Lancet which "estimated" in a fake paper that HCQ didn't work in oder to allow the Emergency Use Authorisation of the mRNA shots?

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Is that the same Lancet which "estimated" in a fake paper that HCQ didn't work in oder to allow the Emergency Use Authorisation of the mRNA shots?

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

 

 

A fine example of how real science functions......thank you.

27 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

A fine example of how real science functions......thank you.

 

Science™.

10 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

He could be right that "people's brains are not working anymore."

 

Now that I think of it, I did notice a sharp decline in the conversation levels on AN since Covid. 

 

I thought it was the cannabis. 

 

 

It's the Spike protein, it damages the brain.

 

 

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It's the Spike protein, it damages the brain.

 

Yeah, you guys are connecting the Covid vaccine to every illness in the book.

 

And this video even shows a guy trying to break free from a straightjacket. 

 

Don't we all feel that way? 

 

24 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Yeah, you guys are connecting the Covid vaccine to every illness in the book.

 

And this video even shows a guy trying to break free from a straightjacket. 

 

Don't we all feel that way? 

 

 

The science is there for all to look at. Very different from The Science™.

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The science is there for all to see. Very different from The Science™.

yes.... one who denies gravity (by denying a heliocentric solar system because he doesn't feel like he's moving  LOL) is without a doubt the worst person to give 'scientific' opinions to anyone.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

yes.... one who denies gravity (by denying a heliocentric solar system because he doesn't feel like he's moving  LOL) is without a doubt the worst person to give 'scientific' opinions to anyone.

 

You unfalteringly reply to my posts, which indicates they strike a chord in one way or another. That's the most interesting aspect of this back-and-forth we have (always at your initiative – I have tried to deter you by ignoring you, but to no avail). There is a striking paradox between your claimed contempt for my content and your consistent engagement with it.

20 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The science is there for all to look at. Very different from The Science™.

 

Is it science or fear-mongering?

 

 

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Is it science or fear-mongering?

 

 

 

Are we talking about the Covid narrative followed by most governments? That seemed to be more fear mongering than science.

 

1 minute ago, cmsally said:

Are we talking about the Covid narrative followed by most governments? That seemed to be more fear mongering than science.

 

I don't believe there was any 'science' whatsoever.

 

A big planned event.

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

You unfalteringly reply to my posts, which indicates they strike a chord in one way or another......

 

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

There is a striking paradox between your claimed contempt for my content and your consistent engagement with it.

paradox?  Inigo Montoya says it best: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

 

As for striking a chord.... it would be this one:

 

the "Viennese Trichord," which consists of three notes with a tritone interval: E-F-Bb, notes with a root, a second, and a tritone (flat fifth).

 

I consistently point out incorrect science.  You have continually posted the most scientifically incorrect information.

20 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Is that the same Lancet which "estimated" in a fake paper that HCQ didn't work in oder to allow the Emergency Use Authorisation of the mRNA shots?

That is your feverish interpretation of what happened.  Lancet was only the publisher and made no 'estimate' and makes no medical recommendations to the US government.

 

It's quite amazing how you can contort your interpretation of events to align with your dystopian views.

 

The Lancet's role in retraction of medical studies:

 

The Lancet's role in retracting papers is to uphold its commitment to scientific integrity by issuing retractions when evidence of serious flaws, such as fraud or significant error, is discovered in a published study. This process is initiated by the journal's editors, often after external experts have identified serious issues with the research, and serves to correct the scientific record and protect public trust. 

55 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The Lancet's role in retracting papers is to uphold its commitment to scientific integrity by issuing retractions when evidence of serious flaws, such as fraud or significant error, is discovered in a published study. This process is initiated by the journal's editors, often after external experts have identified serious issues with the research, and serves to correct the scientific record and protect public trust. 

If it goes against the Big Pharma line, it don't get in.

54 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

That is your feverish interpretation of what happened.  Lancet was only the publisher and made no 'estimate' and makes no medical recommendations to the US government.

 

It's quite amazing how you can contort your interpretation of events to align with your dystopian views.

 

The Lancet's role in retraction of medical studies:

 

The Lancet's role in retracting papers is to uphold its commitment to scientific integrity by issuing retractions when evidence of serious flaws, such as fraud or significant error, is discovered in a published study. This process is initiated by the journal's editors, often after external experts have identified serious issues with the research, and serves to correct the scientific record and protect public trust. 

 

The Lancet de facto validates a published article, now just have a look at it and do a Ctrl+F search with the term "estimate":

 

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

 

Don't hesitate to also address the substance, which is that this timely publication allowed for EUA granting of the Covid jabs.

7 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Is it science or fear-mongering?

 

 

 

 

Just look at the data independently and dispassionately.

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The Lancet de facto validates a published article, now just have a look at it and do a Ctrl+F search with the term "estimate":

 

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

 

Don't hesitate to also address the substance, which is that this timely publication allowed for EUA granting of the Covid jabs.

you don't seem to comprehend the role of publisher..... have you ever corrected even just one of your previous misconceptions ?

 

21 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Just look at the data independently and dispassionately.

Looking.... does not mean understanding.... therein lies your problem.

 

Sometimes a race horse looks good.... but you really need to check the pedigree of the horse AND you need to check the pedigree of the data before drawing any conclusions.

9 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

you don't seem to comprehend the role of publisher..... have you ever corrected even just one of your previous misconceptions ?

 

 

I understand it well and am even willing to concede you are technically correct… I misspoke when I claimed "The Lancet estimated" and should have said "The Lancet published a study that estimated…"

 

I'm all for accuracy, as long as excessive pedantry isn't used to obfuscate a bigger issue. The substance of what I said remains, i.e. The Lancet was instrumental in facilitating the fraudulent disqualification of HCQ in favour of the mRNA EUA.

7 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Looking.... does not mean understanding.... therein lies your problem.

 

Sometimes a race horse looks good.... but you really need to check the pedigree of the horse AND you need to check the pedigree of the data before drawing any conclusions.

Is the horse really a donkey? Are the vaccines really killers in disguise?

 

The cat is now out of the bag. We - the alt heath squad - must get the truth out to as many people of the world as possible. We must endeavor to save humanity from the white-coats.

 

Nature is the ultimate truth boss.

10 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Looking.... does not mean understanding.... therein lies your problem.

 

Sometimes a race horse looks good.... but you really need to check the pedigree of the horse AND you need to check the pedigree of the data before drawing any conclusions.

 

Tell that to the hordes of poor folk who actually believed the BS in the OP video.

36 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I understand it well and am even willing to concede you are technically correct… I misspoke when I claimed "The Lancet estimated" and should have said "The Lancet published a study that estimated…"

 

I'm all for accuracy, as long as excessive pedantry isn't used to obfuscate a bigger issue. The substance of what I said remains, i.e. The Lancet was instrumental in facilitating the fraudulent disqualification of HCQ in favour of the mRNA EUA.

LOL.... only slightly less insane than your original claim.

 

In your purview, then all the media companies are complicit in lies told by politicians that they broadcast to the public through TV, radio, YouTube, internet.....    ONE OF YOUR SILLIEST POSTS.... and that is really an accomplishment.