3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You wouldn’t recognise truth if it stripped you naked, tattooed its name across your forehead, and introduced itself slowly and phonetically.

That describes you perfectly 🤣

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Show me where I actually use false equivalence (there are objective criteria) and I will consider it attentively.

 

You are more cautious - I referred to the frequent false equivalence used by Anti-vaxxers in general throughout these threads... 

 

... You are alert to such flawed statements - must drive you nuts that you side with these fools.

11 minutes ago, johng said:

Of course omnipotent  one   right away I'll get right on that 😋  

(we only want you to be happy Carol) 

 

Don't cry if you lose the debate. 

 

It really is sad and unsettling to see laughing emojis under the videos and testimonies of all these people suffering. To the posters concerned, your laughs are really grim and I don't envy your position – choosing to rejoice at something so dark and tragic only to justify your stance and choices…

 

God knows what is going on in the head of people who choose to do something so radically bleak.

 

A sad, sick laugh indeed.

 

 

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

must drive you nuts that you side with these fools.

 

I respect them and don't consider them to be fools.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Don't cry if you lose the debate. 

 

No I won't cry because this debate is already decided..slowly but surely the truth comes out.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

must drive you nuts that you side with these fools.

 

I respect them and don't consider them to be fools.

 

You respect someone who doesn't believe in viruses exist and that antibiotics are unnecessary ???... 

.. thats quite a worry.

 

In aligning yourself with anti-vaccination 'lobbyists' - you've aligned yourself with delusional fools one who regurgitated and copy & pastes memes and anti-vaxx rhetoric from fringe websites and another who's quite possibly the most delusional fool to ever grace these pages... 

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I guess it's a waste of time sending you a signed copy of my book next year then Sir.

 

That would depend upon how absorbent the pages are.....   

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You respect someone who doesn't believe in viruses exist and that antibiotics are unnecessary ???... 

.. thats quite a worry.

 

Quite a worry to who? The people who claim "the Covid vaccine saved millions of lives"? That makes sense.

 

Stiddle is entitled to his opinions and his takes are often quite interesting. But I appreciate that what he says is tantamount to saying God didn't exist back in the 14th century…

 

Having defected from the Vaccine religion, I don't shriek in horror every time someone blasphemes or contradicts one of its core tenets, I am able to look at things with a modicum of objectivity.

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

In aligning yourself with anti-vaccination 'lobbyists' - you've aligned yourself with delusional fools one who regurgitated and copy & pastes memes and anti-vaxx rhetoric from fringe websites

 

This is objectively false, as this rhetoric is now used at the highest levels of US politics.

29 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Quite a worry to who? The people who claim "the Covid vaccine saved millions of lives"? That makes sense.

 

Stiddle is entitled to his opinions and his takes are often quite interesting. But I appreciate that what he says is tantamount to saying God didn't exist back in the 14th century…

 

Having defected from the Vaccine religion, I don't shriek in horror every time someone blasphemes or contradicts one of its core tenets, I am able to look at things with a modicum of objectivity.

 

Quite a worry for basic intellect itself....

 

Your attempt to frame basic scientific consensus as a “religion” is dumb, in the same way a child calling broccoli “poison” is dumb. It tells me far more about your relationship with evidence than it does about vaccines.

You haven’t “defected” from anything – you’ve simply swapped one set of misunderstandings for another and wrapped it in pseudo-philosophical language to make it sound profound.

 

Claiming “objectivity” while dismissing data as dogma is about as convincing as a flat-earther calling himself a cartographer.... oh no - flat-earthers again !

 

If you genuinely believe that evidence-based medicine is a faith system and your personal suspicions are “blasphemy”, then objectivity isn’t the lens you’re looking through – it’s just the label you’ve slapped on your bias.

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

In aligning yourself with anti-vaccination 'lobbyists' - you've aligned yourself with delusional fools one who regurgitated and copy & pastes memes and anti-vaxx rhetoric from fringe websites

 

This is objectively false, as this rhetoric is now used at the highest levels of US politics.

 

Yes....  the U.S. government continues to monitor vaccine safety, and legitimate oversight is important. But using that fact to claim anti-vax fringe ideas have been validated is nonsense.

Investigations are there to catch real, rare problems - not to confirm sweeping conspiracies about mass harm, cancer, or hidden mortality. The best scientific data still show mRNA vaccines are vastly more beneficial than harmful for nearly everyone.

Trumpeting political interest as proof of fringe science is like saying because politicians sometimes debate climate issues, climate denial deserves equal weight. It doesn’t. Evidence does.

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If you genuinely believe that evidence-based medicine is a faith system and your personal suspicions are “blasphemy”, then objectivity isn’t the lens you’re looking through – it’s just the label you’ve slapped on your bias.

 

 

I know I am dealing with a faith system when I see footage such as the one below: top infectious disease specialist Dr. Zervos acknowledges the validity of a study showing that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones, but is adamant that he can't publish it because it would end his career.

 

How is that different from a medieval priest fearing excommunication should he challenge the existence of God?

 

 

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I know I am dealing with a faith system when I see footage such as the one below: top infectious disease specialist Dr. Zervos acknowledges the validity of a study showing that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones, but is adamant that he can't publish it because it would end his career.

 

How is that different from a medieval priest fearing excommunication should he challenge the existence of God?

 

 

Invoking a YouTube clip of a 'top specialist' whispering about an unpublished study is not evidence – it’s folklore. Every crank movement has its sacred relics: your side has grainy videos of someone claiming they “can’t publish the truth”... Thats just pantomime and theatre, not data...

 

If the study were real, methodologically sound, and reproducible, any reputable journal would publish it – prestige journals especially love overturning established assumptions. That’s how careers are made, not ended. What actually ends careers is promoting junk science, which is why this 'study' only exists in unverifiable anecdotes and conspiracy-adjacent circles.

 

And.... your medieval priest analogy collapses immediately...
... science rewards people who overturn dogma with Nobel prizes, not excommunication.
If someone truly proved vaccinated children were systematically less healthy, they wouldn’t be banished – they’d be world-famous.

 

Comparing rejected low-quality research to suppressed divine revelation is precisely the problem.... you’re treating anecdote as scripture, and treating peer review as heresy. That’s not scepticism – it’s just a different flavour of faith feeding off delusion...  you'll be quoting 'nature has the answers' next !!! 

42 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yes....  the U.S. government continues to monitor vaccine safety, and legitimate oversight is important. But using that fact to claim anti-vax fringe ideas have been validated is nonsense.

Investigations are there to catch real, rare problems - not to confirm sweeping conspiracies about mass harm, cancer, or hidden mortality. The best scientific data still show mRNA vaccines are vastly more beneficial than harmful for nearly everyone.

Trumpeting political interest as proof of fringe science is like saying because politicians sometimes debate climate issues, climate denial deserves equal weight. It doesn’t. Evidence does.

 

 

 

 

Here you are showing your bias as you obviously don't pay any attention to what challenges your belief. Three examples:

 

United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kennedy, August 5, 2025:

 

"After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses."

 

 

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, September 3, 2025:

 

 

CDC Vaccine Committee, December 6, 2025:

 

 

14 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Mark Crispin MILLER

 

Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU.

 

Did he stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

11 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Here you are showing your bias as you obviously don't pay any attention to what challenges your belief. Three examples:

 

United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kennedy, August 5, 2025:

 

"After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses."

 

 

You’re confusing a policy shift with a scientific verdict.

 

Yes... RFK Jr’s HHS decided to wind down mRNA development for future respiratory-virus vaccines. That’s a political decision about funding priorities, not a declaration that “anti-vaxxers were right all along”.

 

If the science had suddenly proven mRNA vaccines were broadly harmful, we’d see something very simple:
withdrawals, recalls, or revised safety warnings.

We have none of those. Just funding redirection.

The move reflects known limitations with mRNA against fast-mutating respiratory viruses, not validation of fringe claims about cancer, infertility, mass deaths, DNA alteration, sterilisation, or whatever the conspiracy flavour of the week is.

 

mRNA COVID vaccines are still documented in thousands of peer-reviewed studies to have prevented millions of hospitalisations and deaths. That body of evidence doesn’t evaporate because an administration changes its research budget.

 

So no.... citing a political announcement doesn’t suddenly make YouTube anecdotes, unverifiable “studies no one can publish”, or fringe talking points scientifically credible.

It just means a new HHS secretary prefers a different R&D strategy.

Evidence is determined by data - not by who holds the microphone in Washington.

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Invoking a YouTube clip of a 'top specialist' whispering about an unpublished study is not evidence – it’s folklore. Every crank movement has its sacred relics: your side has grainy videos of someone claiming they “can’t publish the truth”... Thats just pantomime and theatre, not data...

 

If the study were real, methodologically sound, and reproducible, any reputable journal would publish it – prestige journals especially love overturning established assumptions. That’s how careers are made, not ended. What actually ends careers is promoting junk science, which is why this 'study' only exists in unverifiable anecdotes and conspiracy-adjacent circles.

 

And.... your medieval priest analogy collapses immediately...
... science rewards people who overturn dogma with Nobel prizes, not excommunication.
If someone truly proved vaccinated children were systematically less healthy, they wouldn’t be banished – they’d be world-famous.

 

Comparing rejected low-quality research to suppressed divine revelation is precisely the problem.... you’re treating anecdote as scripture, and treating peer review as heresy. That’s not scepticism – it’s just a different flavour of faith feeding off delusion...  you'll be quoting 'nature has the answers' next !!! 

 

Dr. Zervos is a top specialist, why put his name in quotation marks? The study in question has nothing to do with a YouTube clip, and as you are science-minded, I have no doubt you will get acquainted with it thoroughly:

 

https://x.com/AnInconvntStudy/status/1977558805262094702

and... on the CDC Vaccine Committees decision to end their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies who are no risk of Hepatitis B...

 

The ACIP changed the birth-dose recommendation for hepatitis B vaccine among newborns whose mothers test negative. But that’s a policy update, not a scientific condemnation.

The decades-long universal schedule cut pediatric hepatitis B by ~99%, saving countless lives.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Dr. Zervos is a top specialist, why put his name in quotation marks? The study in question has nothing to do with a YouTube clip, and as you are science-minded, I have no doubt you will get acquainted with it thoroughly:

 

https://x.com/AnInconvntStudy/status/1977558805262094702

 

Because the “smoking‑gun” study he’s associated with remains unpublished, methodologically flawed, and widely rejected by peers.

 

 

I wonder how many X links are going to be posted this evening...   because nothing says clever debate like an endless parade of clickbait and time-sinks....  Are you discussing evidence, or are we just running a social media scavenger hunt ??....       

 

The same with all anti-vaxxers - just posting meme after meme... x clip after x clip - just draining oxygen and time... 

 

 

I'm out - endless X links are apparently the new evidence...  its a wasteful time sink.

 

 

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yes... RFK Jr’s HHS decided to wind down mRNA development for future respiratory-virus vaccines. That’s a political decision about funding priorities, not a declaration that “anti-vaxxers were right all along”.

 

He said "mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses", something I said myself repeatedly in 2021 and 2022, and for which I was suspended from this forum several times (I have all the emails to prove it). You do remember that the mantra was "safe and effective", right?

 

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If the science had suddenly proven mRNA vaccines were broadly harmful, we’d see something very simple:
withdrawals, recalls, or revised safety warnings.

We have none of those. Just funding redirection.

The move reflects known limitations with mRNA against fast-mutating respiratory viruses, not validation of fringe claims about cancer, infertility, mass deaths, DNA alteration, sterilisation, or whatever the conspiracy flavour of the week is.

 

The Overton widow has already shifted considerably and will most likely continue to do so, rest assured this conversation will be continued in due time.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Because the “smoking‑gun” study he’s associated with remains unpublished, methodologically flawed, and widely rejected by peers.

 

 

 

And the reason for that is because it would end the career of anyone daring to publish it, validate its methodology or endorse it.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The Overton widow has already shifted considerably and will most likely continue to do so, rest assured this conversation will be continued in due time.

 

The Overton window hasn’t shifted because ideas have suddenly become more valid - it’s shifted because social media gives every fringe loon a megaphone. Quantity of noise is masquerading as quality of thought, and the more outrageous the claim, the more attention it gets. That’s not progress; it’s amplification of nonsense.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I wonder how many X links are going to be posted this evening...   because nothing says clever debate like an endless parade of clickbait and time-sinks....  Are you discussing evidence, or are we just running a social media scavenger hunt ??....       

 

The same with all anti-vaxxers - just posting meme after meme... x clip after x clip - just draining oxygen and time... 

 

 

 

X is a platform. Think of it like a stage of sorts. You can have either the local teenage cover band playing on it, or the Rolling Stones.

 

You should watch An Inconvenient Study, if you really are interested in all the facts, not just those that confirm your beliefs.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

And the reason for that is because it would end the career of anyone daring to publish it, validate its methodology or endorse it.

 

That’s a convenient story, but it collapses under scrutiny. In science, methodologically sound and reproducible studies get published - especially if they challenge prevailing ideas.

 

Careers aren’t ended for producing solid evidence.... they’re jeopardised when people publish flawed, biased, or cherry‑picked data.

Claiming that anyone would be ruined simply for validating a study is just hand‑waving.

15 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Ever since the roll-out of the mRNA Covid-19 jab roll-out Mark Crispin MILLER and his team have been posting daily overviews of 'sudden unexpected deaths' obituaries from all over the globe (but mostly from US). 

A single anecdote is not evidence as the vax-shills keep reminding us, but the continual stream of hundreds of 'unexpected' deaths or grave illnesses from the jabbed is impossible to ignore.  And the many that were confronted with  the death or decline of a previously healthy loved one in the wake of these being jabbed, and that are looking for answers are fuelling the vax-hesitancy which is at an all-time high. 

 

Below the obituary of Thomas S. Moore, a man that previously was never ill but whose health nose-dived after the jab and led to his death. 

= = = 

What should have been in his obituary

Source: https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/what-should-have-been-in-his-obituary

 

Scroll down for the details of Moore’s story, from a longtime friend of his:

Thomas S. Moore, 65

 

WYNANTSKILL, NY – Thomas S. Moore, age 65, a longtime resident of Wynantskill, died suddenly on Friday morning, November 28, 2025. After his education, Tom pursued a life-long career in real estate, owning apartment buildings around Albany, N.Y. Tom spent the majority of his young life in Albany, making friendships that lasted a lifetime.

No cause of death reported.

Link

Tom and I were friends for over 30 years. He took a Pfizer Covid injection which caused low platelets that almost killed him. I pleaded with him not to take another injection, but other friends prevailed, and he took a second injection. He then developed a baseball-sized cancerous stomach tumor. After surgery and six months of chemotherapy, he was finally feeling healthy. Two months ago, he underwent open heart surgery and was again feeling great. Last Friday, he went into the bathroom, slipped, and hit his head on the sink. He had been taking blood thinners since the heart surgery, and he bled out and died alone.

In all the years I knew him, he never even had a cold.

My grandson’s wife, age 28, has been battling stage 4 colon cancer for 2 ½ years. She took two Pfizer injections, as she was told by authorities that she could not board a plane without them. She needed to fly from NY to Oregon to help her brother through a serious marital situation. When she arrived at the airport, not one person asked about her shot status. Audrey is now at home on hospice care and is gravely ill.’

I have been compiling a list of relatives, friends and neighbors seriously injured or killed by the shots. I now have 45 people listed.

Joan Ross

Are you sure it was not the polio vaccine he took as a kid that caused all this? 

Just now, rattlesnake said:

It has shifted nonetheless and will continue to do so, without a doubt.

 

So has more people refuting gravity...  So has flat earth theory...   more stupid people doesn't mean more credibility...

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

So has more people refuting gravity...  So has flat earth theory...   more stupid people doesn't mean more credibility...

 

The HHS Secretary has officially stated that mRNA vaccines have more risks than benefits. That's the top of the pyramid validating a 'conspiracy theory', and that's what I meant half an hour ago when I stated that you should stop referring to 'fringe websites' pushing this rhetoric, because it objectively is not the case.

40 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The HHS Secretary has officially stated that mRNA vaccines have more risks than benefits. That's the top of the pyramid validating a 'conspiracy theory', and that's what I meant half an hour ago when I stated that you should stop referring to 'fringe websites' pushing this rhetoric, because it objectively is not the case.

 

 

The HHS under Kennedy publicly cut mRNA vaccine development projects, claiming that for respiratory viruses like COVID/or flu the cost/benefit balance no longer justifies continued investment. That’s a policy decision, not a scientific verdict.

 

If mRNA vaccines were truly as dangerous as some claim - cancer, infertility, organ damage - we’d see safety recalls, independent epidemiological studies, clear regulatory action. Instead we see a shift in future vaccine development funding.

 

The decision speaks to effectiveness against evolving viruses and investment priorities, not to proven widespread harm. Using that as a blanket vindication for every fringe anti‑vax claim is like saying “Because we stopped developing sedans, all old sedans must be death traps"...   It doesn’t follow...

 

 

The HHS itself admits the issue is “effectiveness against variants / respiratory viruses”...  not proven safety disaster.

The rationale given by HHS focuses on efficacy limitations - that mRNA vaccines (for flu, COVID, flu‑like viruses) “fail to protect effectively” when viruses mutate. 
That’s about how well the vaccine works against infection, not about new evidence that mRNA vaccines cause widespread harm.

 

And their [HHS] official statement and Kennedy’s comments are not the same as a peer‑reviewed, large‑population, reproducible study showing catastrophic vaccine harms. They carry policy weight - but they do not settle medical‑scientific questions.

Until such evidence is published and replicated, treating a funding decision as scientific proof is intellectually dishonest - no surprise there.