Show me one real person who regretted not taking the rabies vaccine after being bitten by an infected animal.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I had no idea who the guy in the OP video was. My first impression is definitely positive and I will check him out.

 

Just for clarity, I was talking about Dr. Roger Hodkinson (in Red's video) when I said "he has lost everything" because of his stance on the Covid jabs (you know the drill, 'discredited', revoked licence etc.). I believe he's on the right side of history, though.

 

McEntee’s career rise was tied almost entirely to Donald Trump’s inner circle. When Trump lost in 2020, McEntee lost his political protection. But even before that:

 

He was fired in 2018 after a security-clearance issue reportedly linked to gambling and undisclosed finances.

 

He was later re-hired in 2020, given extraordinary power as Director of the Presidential Personnel Office, where he enforced ideological loyalty tests. Many saw him as a “yes-man” obsessed with Trumpist purity over competence.

 

After leaving the White House, he attempted to reinvent himself - launching The Right Stuff dating app and cultivating a TikTok persona, which has kept him visible but not respected. His “edgy common-sense” videos are widely mocked, and some (such as joking about male-only voting or giving fake money to the homeless) have badly damaged his public image.

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

 

No one died of covid. The jab could not have prevented any one, catching anything, passing anything on or getting sick.

 

I ask you Sir; who you gonna believe; me, or that PMC shower of know-nothings?

 

I'll give you my assessment on deaths.

 

An unknown number of people have died, and counting; because they rolled up their sleeve. Probably well into the millions now.

 

Next time you get bit by a rabid dog, pass on the vaccine the "white coats" try to force upon ye, cause viruses ain't real.

 

And as you slowly and excruciatingly die of water phobia, tell yourself how "answers have the nature we seek."

10 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

There in no one in the world that didn't have the vax and wish they did.

 

I don't think there is a person in the world that took the vax and don't regret it.

 

The horse has almost bolted. The penny has almost dropped. The dam is about to give way. Is Kennedy the man to help the world regain its health?

 

The power is with the many. Stop taking the vax and they will disappear. The whole scam is held together by the $$$. Take that away and suddenly the science will change. Truth will come to the fore. White-coats, who were pimping for Big Pharma, would see the benefits of lying and keeping stumm are no longer viable.

"There in no one in the world that didn't have the vax and wish they did."

 

A few in the graveyard though.

 

What was that website named after the Trump booster who died of Covid?

Ok I Googled it, the Herman Cain awards.

If you lived in a place where Covid wasn't prevalent maybe you can believe this stuff.

If you lived in a hot spot where people died not so much.

 

Lot of people died.

Vaccine helped save lots of lives.

Very few had bad side effects. 

Big Pharma got rich. 

Some rules were a bit heavy handed. Some had some very negative effects on their lives. Most came out ok. 

It could be there's nothing more.

It's OK. You can move on with your life knowing that it's normal nothings perfect. 

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

The debating point here seems to be the efficacy of the Covid vaccines :

> Do they prevent deaths?

> Do they prevent people from becoming seriously unwell?

> Do they prevent lasting respiratory health issues ?

The big debating point; do they exist?

25 minutes ago, VBer said:

Show me one real person who regretted not taking the rabies vaccine after being bitten by an infected animal.

 

Instant qualification for False Equivalence of the Year Award.

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

McEntee’s career rise was tied almost entirely to Donald Trump’s inner circle. When Trump lost in 2020, McEntee lost his political protection. But even before that:

 

He was fired in 2018 after a security-clearance issue reportedly linked to gambling and undisclosed finances.

 

He was later re-hired in 2020, given extraordinary power as Director of the Presidential Personnel Office, where he enforced ideological loyalty tests. Many saw him as a “yes-man” obsessed with Trumpist purity over competence.

 

After leaving the White House, he attempted to reinvent himself - launching The Right Stuff dating app and cultivating a TikTok persona, which has kept him visible but not respected. His “edgy common-sense” videos are widely mocked, and some (such as joking about male-only voting or giving fake money to the homeless) have badly damaged his public image.

 

Noted, thanks.

16 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

Lot of people died.

Vaccine helped save lots of lives.

Very few had bad side effects. 

Big Pharma got rich. 

Some rules were a bit heavy handed. Some had some very negative effects on their lives. Most came out ok. 

It could be there's nothing more.

It's OK. You can move on with your life knowing that it's normal nothings perfect. 

 

Lot of people died. None of covid IMO.

Vaccine helped save lots of lives. Impossible; so no.

Very few had bad side effects. Millions have had and are having effects.

Big Pharma got rich. Even richer. Agree.

Some rules were a bit heavy handed. Some had some very negative effects on their lives. Most came out ok.  all the rules were absurd.

It could be there's nothing more. Maybe.

It's OK. You can move on with your life knowing that it's normal nothings perfect. Tell that to the dead or vaxx injured.

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Fair point – lived experience can indeed be illuminating, though it often reveals more about human stubbornness and psychology than it does about science or epidemiology.

 

Now that the dust has settled on the whole COVID-19 episode, I can honestly say I don’t know anyone who regrets not getting vaccinated. Once vaccines became widely available, I don’t personally know anyone who fell ill enough with COVID-19 to wish they had taken the jab – whether that’s because transmission slowed, or because later variants proved less severe, it’s difficult to say.

 

What I also don’t know, however, is anyone who regrets getting vaccinated – not against COVID, and certainly not against polio, measles, or influenza. No one ever laments being protected from a disease they never had to endure. The entire principle of vaccination is prevention, not correction – and it’s been so remarkably successful that many have simply forgotten what life was like before it.

 

 

 

Your situation is just anecdotal though. My brother in law, in great shape and a volunteer firefighter, developed heart complications shortly after getting jabbed. He absolutely regrets it. It has destroyed his life. While everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, the simple fact is:

 

There is not a single example of someone regretting they did not take the jab, and thousands of examples of people who did get jabbed regretting their decision.

 

Whether you personally know them or not doesn't change that fact.

8 hours ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

I had 2 x Pfizer, don’t regret it, not glad i did.

My health hasn’t suffered in any way, have yearly check ups, always have, always will.

Maybe i will drop down dead tomorrow, maybe i won’t, maybe that will be because of the vaccines, maybe not.

 

Maybe i had something that had no effect on my body whatsoever, maybe i had something that i killing me slowly ??

Who knows?, nobody on this forum that is for sure !!

Why did you even have it in the first place Andy?

6 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

The debating point here seems to be the efficacy of the Covid vaccines :

> Do they prevent deaths?

> Do they prevent people from becoming seriously unwell?

> Do they prevent lasting respiratory health issues ?

The big debating point; do they exist?

 

Yes - isn't this the very crux of the anti-vax debate - these questions at the heart of the entire anti-vaccine debate. They are the axis upon which every argument turns.

 

But, these questions inevitably lead to a deeper layer of scepticism: the doubts surrounding the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry itself, and the extent to which its influence seeps into public health policy and communication. It’s a legitimate concern, yet one that too often becomes the convenient refuge of those unwilling to separate commercial interest from scientific evidence.

 

 

29 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

A few in the graveyard though.

 

Invoking the dead to make a point in this context strikes me as weak to say the least, especially given the established fact that Covid death reports were rife with irregularities and any subsequent stats are therefore not trustworthy. Here is one example of many:

 

 

14 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

heart pain they can't find

 

What is heart pain?

 

Is this what you sometimes get in Pattaya?

 

It isn't hard to Google anti vaxxers who died of COVID-19. I guess they regret not taking the vaccine.

 

6 minutes ago, uncletiger said:

 

Your situation is just anecdotal though. My brother in law, in great shape and a volunteer firefighter, developed heart complications shortly after getting jabbed. He absolutely regrets it. It has destroyed his life. While everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, the simple fact is:

 

I'm sorry about your Brother In Law...   and I understand why it would lead to questions. But it’s important to separate coincidence from causation. His heart condition was likely pre-existing, and the timing of the vaccination is far more likely to be coincidental than causal.

 

In the United States alone, around 8,470 people die every day. Statistically, some of those deaths will always occur within days of someone being vaccinated - simply by chance.

 

Unfortunately, human psychology tends to link events that happen close together in time, even when no true connection exists and when people make that connection its more to do with human stubbornness and psychology than science or epidemiology.

 

There’s a kind of false equivalence that creeps in when emotion outweighs evidence. It feels intuitive to assign blame to the most recent event, but science doesn’t work on intuition - it works on data, patterns, and reproducible evidence. And the data are clear: vaccines save lives.

 

 

6 minutes ago, uncletiger said:

There is not a single example of someone regretting they did not take the jab, and thousands of examples of people who did get jabbed regretting their decision.

 

That’s quite a significant claim - and one that collapses under its own weight. It’s impossible for you to know “thousands” of people personally, let alone to speak for the millions across the world who were or weren’t vaccinated and how each of them now feels about it.

 

In making such an absolute statement, you’ve effectively cancelled out your own point. Anecdote isn’t evidence, and sweeping generalisations don’t become true simply because they sound confident.

 

If anything, the only verifiable data we do have point in the opposite direction: vaccination dramatically reduced the risk of serious illness and death. Personal opinions can be debated - the science cannot.

 

6 minutes ago, uncletiger said:

Whether you personally know them or not doesn't change that fact.

 

If you want to deal with facts - don't make up your own: 

16 minutes ago, uncletiger said:

There is not a single example of someone regretting they did not take the jab

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

I am all with dr Roger Hodkinson who answered the question whether we should 'forgive and forget' , with a powerful Absolutely NOT.   Watch this 1 minute clip! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is a "virus" ??

 

Virus can have many meanings.

 

The biggest "virus" I see is the psychological grip on your mind Covid has had and is still having 5 years after the fact. 

 

As you forever chase the Covid bogeyman. 

 

Your mind is infected. 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yes - isn't this the very crux of the anti-vax debate - these questions at the heart of the entire anti-vaccine debate. They are the axis upon which every argument turns.

 

But, these questions inevitably lead to a deeper layer of scepticism: the doubts surrounding the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry itself, and the extent to which its influence seeps into public health policy and communication. It’s a legitimate concern, yet one that too often becomes the convenient refuge of those unwilling to separate commercial interest from scientific evidence.

 

Indeed Richard. 

 

The whole vaccine debate is fundamentally about disease and the immune system. Both, IMO, are made up by white-coats and reinforced by big bucks. The virus gets in the picture as it's a convenient entity to point the finger at. Contagion is another stumbling block for the pro-vax crowd. Basically; that is also a myth.

 

Health is so simple. It's the white-coats that make it complicated. Plenty of $$$ out there for the willing you see.

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Invoking the dead to make a point in this context strikes me as weak to say the least, especially given the established fact that Covid death reports were rife with irregularities and any subsequent stats are therefore not trustworthy. Here is one example of many:

 

 

 

I used to joke that “a man could be eaten by a crocodile and still be recorded as a COVID death.” At the time, that line captured my scepticism toward what felt like over-reporting - every death, it seemed, was being linked to COVID in some way.

 

But that perception doesn’t invalidate the pandemic’s severity or the reality of the deaths it caused. It simply reflects how data collection, political pressure, and public fear often blurred distinctions between “death from COVID” and “death with COVID.” That confusion, however frustrating, doesn’t erase the fact that hundreds of thousands of people died as a direct consequence of the virus, nor does it undermine the value of the vaccines that helped curb it.

 

It’s easy to conflate flawed reporting with falsehood, but the two are not the same. Statistical inconsistencies and bureaucratic overreach don’t prove that the threat itself was exaggerated; they show that public health systems were overwhelmed and, at times, clumsy in their communication.

 

For sure, politics played a role - as it always does in crises of that scale - but political noise doesn’t change biological reality. The virus was real, it was dangerous, and vaccines demonstrably reduced hospitalisations and deaths.

 

Evidence of one thing is not evidence of another. The existence of political mismanagement doesn’t equate to scientific deception - and scepticism, while healthy, should never become a substitute for reason.

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

It’s easy to conflate flawed reporting with falsehood, but the two are not the same. Statistical inconsistencies and bureaucratic overreach don’t prove that the threat itself was exaggerated;

 

It does, however, de facto invalidate any argument made on the basis of those flawed statistics. New statistics based on transparent and ethical processes should be established, and only then can the debate resume… and who knows, some oft-repeated categorical assertions may not be quite as compelling under this new light.

 

20 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Indeed Richard. 

 

The whole vaccine debate is fundamentally about disease and the immune system. Both, IMO, are made up by white-coats and reinforced by big bucks. The virus gets in the picture as it's a convenient entity to point the finger at. Contagion is another stumbling block for the pro-vax crowd. Basically; that is also a myth.

 

Health is so simple. It's the white-coats that make it complicated. Plenty of $$$ out there for the willing you see.

 

Got it - viruses don’t exist. So if we all just eat our greens, sip some clean water, and take a nice deep breath of fresh air, the entire concept of illness will simply evaporate. No need for doctors, no hospitals, no antibiotics, no vaccines....  just the warm glow of “healthy living” protecting us from the imaginary.

 

The roughly 12.7 million doctors worldwide, along with another 50 million nurses, researchers, epidemiologists, and healthcare professionals, are all apparently in on the same elaborate joke - but you, of course, have cracked the code.

 

Forget centuries of microbiology, immunology, virology, and the small matter of having mapped and photographed viruses under electron microscopes - it was all a hoax so that “white coats” could make a few extra bucks and complicate what’s really a very simple system: eat kale, stay calm, and immortality follows.

 

Did you alert the World Health Organisation immediately - I’m sure they’ll dissolve by lunchtime once they hear the news....  or make you head - perhaps they'll put your office under a tree so you can ask nature what the answers are !!... 

 

 

Per the topic heading, take your pick...

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

It’s easy to conflate flawed reporting with falsehood, but the two are not the same. Statistical inconsistencies and bureaucratic overreach don’t prove that the threat itself was exaggerated;

 

It does, however, de facto invalidate any argument made on the basis of those flawed statistics. New statistics based on transparent and ethical processes should be established, and only then can the debate resume… and who knows, some oft-repeated categorical assertions may not be quite as compelling under this new light.

 

That’s quite an assumptive leap - to suggest the data are wholly flawed and must all be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. The idea that every statistic needs to be wiped clean and re-sourced transparently sounds noble, but it also betrays a misunderstanding of how large-scale data integrity actually works.

 

You’re also conflating political interference with scientific corruption. The two are not synonymous. Yes, political overreach can distort messaging or emphasis, but it doesn’t automatically nullify the underlying science or the validity of the data itself.

 

The weight of global evidence remains overwhelming: even allowing for bureaucratic clumsiness, political noise, and human error, the conclusion is unchanged - vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, were far more effective and life-saving than they were harmful. Political bias can twist perception, but it can’t rewrite biology.

I know a guy who had a really fat wife.  She was not vaxed and died from COVID.    Being very fat and getting COVID does not end well. 

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'm sorry about your Brother In Law...   and I understand why it would lead to questions. But it’s important to separate coincidence from causation. His heart condition was likely pre-existing, and the timing of the vaccination is far more likely to be coincidental than causal.

 

Is it really reasonable to persist in claiming this when there have been Senate hearings – hardly 'conspiracy podcasts from dark corners of the internet' – and serious studies about post-inoculation heart damage? Anyone who is able to see past the veil of 'conspiracy', which McCullough was cloaked in by the industry, and actually look at the data at face value can only conclude that there are serious issues here.

 

 

I didn't, nor did me mate Spikey ...

2 hours ago, simon43 said:

(because Covid vaccines don't stop you getting infected with this virus, but minimise the effects of the illness)

I’ll take “something nobody ever said until it was repeated ad nauseum on MSM” for $1000 Alex.

15 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

That’s quite an assumptive leap - to suggest the data are wholly flawed and must all be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. The idea that every statistic needs to be wiped clean and re-sourced transparently sounds noble, but it also betrays a misunderstanding of how large-scale data integrity actually works.

 

You’re also conflating political interference with scientific corruption. The two are not synonymous. Yes, political overreach can distort messaging or emphasis, but it doesn’t automatically nullify the underlying science or the validity of the data itself.

 

The weight of global evidence remains overwhelming: even allowing for bureaucratic clumsiness, political noise, and human error, the conclusion is unchanged - vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, were far more effective and life-saving than they were harmful. Political bias can twist perception, but it can’t rewrite biology.

 

The pharmaceutical cartel is at the top of the pyramid and the politicians are on lower levels. Plus, these politicians are compromised by pharma money and therefore their distortions of truth are dictated by pharma.

 

The system is so corrupt that yes, a complete overhaul is needed, not some patching here and there. It's the tough truth and the sooner the majority gets on board with it, the better the improvement prospects will be.

 

 

Just now, rattlesnake said:

 

The pharmaceutical cartel is at the top of the pyramid and the politicians are on lower levels. Plus, these politicians are compromised by pharma money and therefore their distortions of truth are dictated by pharma.

 

The system is so corrupt that yes, a complete overhaul is needed, not some patching here and there. It's the tough truth and the sooner the majority gets on board with it, the better the improvement prospects will be.

 

I completely agree. I know people who work within the industry — GSK included — and I have no illusions about its integrity. There’s no doubt that profit and corruption exist within the pharmaceutical sector; I don't think anyone would deny that.

 

However, binary thinking simply doesn’t work here. It’s entirely possible for the pharmaceutical industry to be both morally compromised and profoundly effective. In fact, it often outperforms nationalised health systems, which history shows can become bloated and apathetic once detached from competitive incentive - as would does every nationalised body.

 

As I’ve said before, if necessity is the mother of invention, then profit is very much the father. Without it, the pace of medical advancement would slow dramatically. The financial motive, however unsavoury, has been a driving force behind some of the greatest medical breakthroughs in history.

 

That said, this dynamic raises serious ethical questions - and those questions must be asked. Oversight, transparency, and accountability are essential to ensure that progress serves humanity, not just shareholders.

 

Still, none of this means that medicine itself is ineffective or inherently corrupt. The argument isn’t binary. Every treatment, every disease, every outcome is unique. The pharmaceutical world may be far from pure, but it has undeniably generated wonders and saved countless lives. Perhaps, as the saying goes, it’s better the devil we know - provided we keep a close eye on him.

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

I had 2 x Pfizer, don’t regret it, not glad i did.

 

It probably saved your life.

 

I sue as glad I first had an Astra, then a Sino and finally a Pzizer.

Which is why I am still here today.

A lot of people my weight passed away sadly. 
 

And I thank Trump for getting them passed so quickly saving millions of lives. Without Trump we would still all be waiting and millions more dead.