15 hours ago, johng said:

Can I borrow your time machine  so  I can go back and become rich 

not from Covid jabs but something  ethical ?

 

the tea leaves indeed predict a shaky future  full of authoritarian mandates digital id's and CBDC's  to 'protect the children' 

Stay away from fortune-tellers, you have enough problems already...........😬

23 hours ago, impulse said:

Even if that's the case, it'll be decades before we know if they were a net positive.  That's the nature of genetic experiments. 

Well I'm extremely grateful that I had the polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough vaccinations some 65 years ago or more and rather than it being a "genetic experiment" it was a lifesaver – – and I saw the effects of the polio virus first hand on a few occasions in my younger days and it was not a good look.

 

I've also had about 14 vaccinations in my life and am still ok at the age of 78......

 

The mRNA vaccines and the research going on at the moment with regards to that is extremely promising and could well prove to be the first "anti-cancer vaccine" – – we can only but hope.

On 12/6/2025 at 9:51 AM, 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

Yep, the causal link between the Pfizer vaccine and all the unfortunate medical issues mentioned is blatantly obvious. Much like my friend who died in a car accident driving back home shortly after getting his booster.

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Well I'm extremely grateful that I had the polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough vaccinations some 65 years ago or more and rather than it being a "genetic experiment" it was a lifesaver – – and I saw the effects of the polio virus first hand on a few occasions in my younger days and it was not a good look.

 

I've also had about 14 vaccinations in my life and am still ok at the age of 78......

 

First, the polio vaccine wasn't a genetic experiment.  It was a traditional vaccine.  Unlike the mRNA's where the name is the giveaway.  Ribonucleic Acid.  Look it up, and what it does.

 

2nd.  You've had 14 vaccines at 78 YO.  Today's CDC regimen is around 80 vaccinations by that age (even more if you keep up with annual flu shots and mRNA boosters).  If you were fine with 14 (so was I), why 80 now? 

 

Edit:  Do you really think people are healthier today than we've been?  Because the numbers say they aren't. 

 

I should have made myself a little clearer, inasmuch as although I have had three Covid shots, I really don't believe in having a flu shot or shots for similar viruses/illnesses, otherwise it's quite possible one could amass a fair amount of vaccinations.

I know what ribonucleic acid does and I am all in favour of the mRNA research and vaccinations currently underway using this technology, and as I said earlier it has shown great promise in combating other diseases and long may it continue.

 

For the record, "The statement that the today's CDC regimen is around 80 vaccinations is incorrect. The number of doses recommended varies significantly by age and individual health factors, but the total number of vaccines or doses across a lifetime does not approach 80 as a routine regimen". 

 

And the above is typical of the "anti-vax" misinformation which is bandied around by those who are anti-vax type folk.

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Do you really think people are healthier today than we've been? 

Most definitely.

 

 

On 12/6/2025 at 5:28 AM, Red Phoenix said:

 

Two days ago that bombshell study has been addressed in this thread on the sub-forum 

> worth putting it back in the spot-lights!

 

What's so bombshell about it? 

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

I know what ribonucleic acid does and I am all in favour of the mRNA research and vaccinations currently underway using this technology, and as I said earlier it has shown great promise in combating other diseases and long may it continue.

The mRNA technology hasn't shown any promise what so ever.

 

Just toxic filth that no one needs. Especially babes and toddlers.

 

Anti-nature nonsense.

On 12/6/2025 at 3:28 AM, johng said:

this should really go in another separate thread but i'll 

post here as its kind of related to this poor guys experience.

 

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/breaking-study-pfizer-mrna-found-in-over-88-of-human-placentas-sperm-and-blood-and-in-50-of-unvaccinated-pregnant-women/

BREAKING STUDY: Pfizer mRNA Found in Over 88% of Human Placentas, Sperm, and Blood — and in 50% of Unvaccinated Pregnant Women

I passed the study to Grok.   

 

Overview of the Study

The article you linked discusses a small observational study titled "Detection of Pfizer BioNTech Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Human Blood, Placenta and Semen," published in late November or early December 2025. The authors, including Lital Mordechay, Gideon Baum, Rinat Gabbay-Benziv, Milana Frenkel, Hila Weinberger, and others from Bar-Ilan University and Israeli medical centers, analyzed samples from 34 participants: 22 pregnant women (vaccinated and unvaccinated), 4 male sperm donors (providing 8 samples), and 8 additional adults. They used a highly sensitive nested PCR technique (with Sanger sequencing for confirmation) to detect fragments of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine.Key claims include:

• Pfizer mRNA detected in 88% of blood and placental samples from pregnant women vaccinated within 100 days.
• Detection in 100% of sperm samples from viable sperm in vaccinated men and 50% of seminal fluid samples.
• Persistence in ~50% of samples more than 200 days post-vaccination.
• Detection in 50% (3 out of 6) of unvaccinated pregnant women (2 in placenta and blood, 1 in blood only), interpreted as evidence of "shedding" from vaccinated partners.

The study concludes that mRNA from the vaccine circulates systemically, reaches reproductive tissues, persists long-term, and may transfer via shedding, potentially implying risks like transgenerational harm or excess infant mortality (though no direct data supports these implications).Validity AssessmentThis study's validity is low. While it presents intriguing molecular data, it suffers from significant methodological, publication, and evidential flaws that undermine its reliability. It does not overturn the broad scientific consensus on mRNA vaccine safety in pregnancy. Below, I break this down step by step.1. Publication Venue: Predatory JournalThe paper appeared in Annals of Case Reports, an open-access journal published by Gavin Publishers. This outlet charges authors high article processing fees (e.g., ~$3,800) and has been widely flagged as predatory—a term for journals that prioritize profit over scientific rigor. Predatory journals often feature:

• Lax or nonexistent peer review.
• Misleading claims of prestige (e.g., fake affiliations with reputable databases like PubMed).
• Acceptance of low-quality or satirical submissions without scrutiny.

Gavin Publishers and Annals of Case Reports appear on Beall's List of potential predatory publishers and in community watchlists of exploitative outlets. Researchers have documented cases where the journal accepted nonsensical papers and demanded hidden fees post-acceptance, indicating "failed or non-existent peer review." Case reports journals like this are meant for rare clinical anecdotes, not broad claims about vaccine biodistribution, which require larger, controlled studies in high-impact venues.No DOI or full metadata (e.g., exact publication date) was provided in the article you linked, and the story first circulated via anti-vaccine newsletters like "Courageous Discourse" before journal "publication." This pattern is common for unvetted claims amplified on fringe sites.2. Methodological Limitations

• Tiny Sample Size: With only 34 participants (and just 6 unvaccinated pregnant women for the "shedding" claim), the study lacks statistical power. Results could easily stem from chance, selection bias, or outliers. For context, robust vaccine safety studies analyze thousands of pregnancies.
• Overly Sensitive Detection: Nested PCR amplifies trace genetic material, increasing risks of false positives from lab contamination (e.g., aerosolized mRNA from handling vaccinated samples). The authors required "three of four independent repeats" for positivity, but without blinded controls or environmental contamination checks, this doesn't rule out artifacts. Sequencing confirmed sequences, but tiny fragments (<200 base pairs) could be non-functional remnants, not intact mRNA.
• No Causality or Controls: The study doesn't prove vaccine-related harm—e.g., no comparison to infection-induced mRNA, no functional assays (e.g., does detected mRNA produce spike protein?), and no data on clinical outcomes like fertility or fetal health. The "shedding" interpretation ignores that mRNA degrades rapidly and isn't known to transmit intact.
• Potential Bias: Authors' affiliations include Israeli institutions, but no funding or conflicts are disclosed. The promoting site (publichealthpolicyjournal.com) is tied to Peter McCullough, a known vaccine skeptic, which may amplify sensationalism.

These issues make the findings preliminary at best, unsuitable for policy or alarmist conclusions like "market withdrawal."3. Contradiction with Established EvidenceLarger, peer-reviewed studies in reputable journals (e.g., Nature Communications, Obstetrics & Gynecology) consistently show mRNA vaccines are safe during pregnancy:

• No increased risk of placental injury, miscarriage, or congenital anomalies compared to unvaccinated women.
• Vaccination protects against severe COVID-19 in mothers and reduces neonatal risks, with similar efficacy to non-pregnant adults.
• No evidence of mRNA persistence beyond days/weeks or transmission via shedding—mRNA doesn't replicate or integrate into DNA.
• Placental health is unaffected, with no differences in birth weights, Apgar scores, or anomalies.

Pfizer's own analyses and meta-reviews confirm these, with congenital anomalies in vaccinated pregnancies matching general population rates (not vaccine-related). Claims of DNA alteration or cancer risk from mRNA are debunked as misinterpretations of production processes.This new study hasn't been cited or critiqued in mainstream sources yet (it's only ~3 days old), but its claims echo debunked misinformation patterns, like flawed miscarriage calculations from Pfizer trials.

Aspect	This Study	Established Evidence
Sample Size	34 (small, observational)	Thousands (e.g., 343,000+ infants in meta-analyses)
Detection Method	Nested PCR (ultra-sensitive, contamination-prone)	qPCR/blood assays in controlled trials
Key Finding	mRNA in 50% unvaccinated (shedding?)	No shedding; mRNA clears quickly, vaccines safe
Journal Impact	Predatory (no real review)	High-impact (e.g., NEJM, BMJ; rigorous peer review)
Implications	Alarmist (e.g., "grave harm")	Reassuring (benefits outweigh risks)

ConclusionThis study is not a credible basis for concern about Pfizer mRNA vaccines. Its publication in a predatory journal, minuscule sample, contamination risks, and conflict with robust data render it scientifically invalid for drawing broad conclusions. It appears designed more for headlines than evidence, fitting a pattern of amplified misinformation. For pregnancy vaccine safety, rely on sources like the CDC, WHO, or systematic reviews—mRNA vaccines remain recommended and protective. If you're pregnant or planning, consult a healthcare provider for personalized advice.

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

For the record, "The statement that the today's CDC regimen is around 80 vaccinations is incorrect. The number of doses recommended varies significantly by age and individual health factors, but the total number of vaccines or doses across a lifetime does not approach 80 as a routine regimen". 

 

And the above is typical of the "anti-vax" misinformation which is bandied around by those who are anti-vax type folk.

 

According to the CDC schedule, children are expected to receive multiple doses of each of these vaccines, totaling up to over 70 doses by age 18. In 1983, prior to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 which removed liability from vaccine manufacturers, children received a total of 24 doses of vaccines. That means the number of vaccines has since tripled, if you include COVID vaccines. Removing liability opened the floodgates for drug companies to create new vaccines without risk of being sued for damages, and without long-term placebo-controlled studies being required for approval, the schedule grew dramatically.

 

 

https://vaccine.guide/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/07-schedule.pdf

 

07-schedule.pdf

 

And that's just up to age 18.  By the time a kid born today gets to be 78, that's another 60 annual flu shots on top of those 70 childhood doses, plus the rest of the adult vaccinations, and you're well over 80 doses.

 

Here's the titles to the CDC websites: (Sorry the link function doesn't work)

 

Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule by Age (Addendum updated August 7, 2025) | Vaccines & Immunizations | CDC

 

Adult Immunization Schedule by Age (Addendum updated August 7, 2025) | Vaccines & Immunizations | CDC

 

32 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

According to the CDC schedule, children are expected to receive multiple doses of each of these vaccines, totaling up to over 70 doses by age 18. In 1983, prior to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 which removed liability from vaccine manufacturers, children received a total of 24 doses of vaccines. That means the number of vaccines has since tripled, if you include COVID vaccines. Removing liability opened the floodgates for drug companies to create new vaccines without risk of being sued for damages, and without long-term placebo-controlled studies being required for approval, the schedule grew dramatically.

 

 

https://vaccine.guide/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/07-schedule.pdf

 

07-schedule.pdf

 

And that's just up to age 18.  By the time a kid born today gets to be 78, that's another 60 annual flu shots on top of those 70 childhood doses, plus the rest of the adult vaccinations, and you're well over 80 doses.

 

Here's the titles to the CDC websites: (Sorry the link function doesn't work)

 

Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule by Age (Addendum updated August 7, 2025) | Vaccines & Immunizations | CDC

 

Adult Immunization Schedule by Age (Addendum updated August 7, 2025) | Vaccines & Immunizations | CDC

 

I really don't have time to argue with you, especially as your initial post was disinformation, which meant that you were "massaging" information to suit your own agenda.

 

Furthermore, "To be clear, this is not 70 injections (or shots), because many of these vaccines are grouped together as a "combination" shot. For example, DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), and MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) are combination shots. Sometimes there are five or even six vaccines combined into one, for example, DTaP, Hepatitis B, Hib, and Polio (named by the manufacturer as "Vaxelis"). Parents are often unaware of how many vaccines their children are receiving when they take their children to well-visits because they are receiving multiple vaccines per injection".

 

And you were focusing on the mRNA aspect of some vaccines, which many of the vaccines quoted above do not employ as a feature of their functionality.

 

So given the fact that you were quite ready to post disinformation to suit your case, I suggest you go and join the other wackos on this forum who believe that there is no such thing as a virus, or a bacteria and that God has a cure for everything, because that's where you belong.

 

And for the record, thinking back I probably have had scores of vaccinations and injections, given that I worked overseas in various "high risk" countries and I'm still okay, so I will put you on ignore so I won't have to put up with your nonsense

All kinds of jabs are free in Canada  

 

I'm gonna be a superhuman 

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Picture of your anti-vaxxer friends?

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Did you notice the “I had 3 Covid shots comment”?    Didn’t “the science”recommend more than that?

 

Funny how all the mudbloods seem to be able to decide for themselves when “the science” no longer applies to them.

 

I wonder….Where’s the vax pushing resident nurse these days?

4 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Picture of your anti-vaxxer friends?

Don’t you have some lottery winnings to go spend?

I wonder if "Impulse" knows that the vaccines are NOT MANDATORY!! LOL

On 12/5/2025 at 8:57 PM, cjinchiangrai said:

The vaccines saved many millions of lives. You story does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was responsible for this guys death.

 

Are you serious? I will let you have my five Pfizer shots. What an amazing "scientific publication" would publish such study of vaccines saving lives? Did they get some donations from Gates and Jeff Epstein?

7 hours ago, xylophone said:

Well I'm extremely grateful that I had the polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough vaccinations some 65 years ago or more and rather than it being a "genetic experiment" it was a lifesaver – – and I saw the effects of the polio virus first hand on a few occasions in my younger days and it was not a good look.

 

I've also had about 14 vaccinations in my life and am still ok at the age of 78......

 

The mRNA vaccines and the research going on at the moment with regards to that is extremely promising and could well prove to be the first "anti-cancer vaccine" – – we can only but hope.

 

Yes, it is very promising if we have anyone left from the experiments in a few years. 

1 minute ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

 

Are you serious? I will let you have my five Pfizer shots. What an amazing "scientific publication" would publish such study of vaccines saving lives? Did they get some donations from Gates and Jeff Epstein?

Better than Stiddles fake studies showing millions dying from the vaccination.

33 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Picture of your anti-vaxxer friends?

 

You never got back to me about that windfall you were bragging about?

 

 

 

3 hours ago, TedG said:

I passed the study to Grok.   

 

 

Overview of the Study

The article you linked discusses a small observational study titled "Detection of Pfizer BioNTech Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Human Blood, Placenta and Semen," published in late November or early December 2025. The authors, including Lital Mordechay, Gideon Baum, Rinat Gabbay-Benziv, Milana Frenkel, Hila Weinberger, and others from Bar-Ilan University and Israeli medical centers, analyzed samples from 34 participants: 22 pregnant women (vaccinated and unvaccinated), 4 male sperm donors (providing 8 samples), and 8 additional adults. They used a highly sensitive nested PCR technique (with Sanger sequencing for confirmation) to detect fragments of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine.Key claims include:

• Pfizer mRNA detected in 88% of blood and placental samples from pregnant women vaccinated within 100 days.
• Detection in 100% of sperm samples from viable sperm in vaccinated men and 50% of seminal fluid samples.
• Persistence in ~50% of samples more than 200 days post-vaccination.
• Detection in 50% (3 out of 6) of unvaccinated pregnant women (2 in placenta and blood, 1 in blood only), interpreted as evidence of "shedding" from vaccinated partners.

The study concludes that mRNA from the vaccine circulates systemically, reaches reproductive tissues, persists long-term, and may transfer via shedding, potentially implying risks like transgenerational harm or excess infant mortality (though no direct data supports these implications).Validity AssessmentThis study's validity is low. While it presents intriguing molecular data, it suffers from significant methodological, publication, and evidential flaws that undermine its reliability. It does not overturn the broad scientific consensus on mRNA vaccine safety in pregnancy. Below, I break this down step by step.1. Publication Venue: Predatory JournalThe paper appeared in Annals of Case Reports, an open-access journal published by Gavin Publishers. This outlet charges authors high article processing fees (e.g., ~$3,800) and has been widely flagged as predatory—a term for journals that prioritize profit over scientific rigor. Predatory journals often feature:

• Lax or nonexistent peer review.
• Misleading claims of prestige (e.g., fake affiliations with reputable databases like PubMed).
• Acceptance of low-quality or satirical submissions without scrutiny.

Gavin Publishers and Annals of Case Reports appear on Beall's List of potential predatory publishers and in community watchlists of exploitative outlets. Researchers have documented cases where the journal accepted nonsensical papers and demanded hidden fees post-acceptance, indicating "failed or non-existent peer review." Case reports journals like this are meant for rare clinical anecdotes, not broad claims about vaccine biodistribution, which require larger, controlled studies in high-impact venues.No DOI or full metadata (e.g., exact publication date) was provided in the article you linked, and the story first circulated via anti-vaccine newsletters like "Courageous Discourse" before journal "publication." This pattern is common for unvetted claims amplified on fringe sites.2. Methodological Limitations

• Tiny Sample Size: With only 34 participants (and just 6 unvaccinated pregnant women for the "shedding" claim), the study lacks statistical power. Results could easily stem from chance, selection bias, or outliers. For context, robust vaccine safety studies analyze thousands of pregnancies.
• Overly Sensitive Detection: Nested PCR amplifies trace genetic material, increasing risks of false positives from lab contamination (e.g., aerosolized mRNA from handling vaccinated samples). The authors required "three of four independent repeats" for positivity, but without blinded controls or environmental contamination checks, this doesn't rule out artifacts. Sequencing confirmed sequences, but tiny fragments (<200 base pairs) could be non-functional remnants, not intact mRNA.
• No Causality or Controls: The study doesn't prove vaccine-related harm—e.g., no comparison to infection-induced mRNA, no functional assays (e.g., does detected mRNA produce spike protein?), and no data on clinical outcomes like fertility or fetal health. The "shedding" interpretation ignores that mRNA degrades rapidly and isn't known to transmit intact.
• Potential Bias: Authors' affiliations include Israeli institutions, but no funding or conflicts are disclosed. The promoting site (publichealthpolicyjournal.com) is tied to Peter McCullough, a known vaccine skeptic, which may amplify sensationalism.

These issues make the findings preliminary at best, unsuitable for policy or alarmist conclusions like "market withdrawal."3. Contradiction with Established EvidenceLarger, peer-reviewed studies in reputable journals (e.g., Nature Communications, Obstetrics & Gynecology) consistently show mRNA vaccines are safe during pregnancy:

• No increased risk of placental injury, miscarriage, or congenital anomalies compared to unvaccinated women.
• Vaccination protects against severe COVID-19 in mothers and reduces neonatal risks, with similar efficacy to non-pregnant adults.
• No evidence of mRNA persistence beyond days/weeks or transmission via shedding—mRNA doesn't replicate or integrate into DNA.
• Placental health is unaffected, with no differences in birth weights, Apgar scores, or anomalies.

Pfizer's own analyses and meta-reviews confirm these, with congenital anomalies in vaccinated pregnancies matching general population rates (not vaccine-related). Claims of DNA alteration or cancer risk from mRNA are debunked as misinterpretations of production processes.This new study hasn't been cited or critiqued in mainstream sources yet (it's only ~3 days old), but its claims echo debunked misinformation patterns, like flawed miscarriage calculations from Pfizer trials.

Aspect	This Study	Established Evidence
Sample Size	34 (small, observational)	Thousands (e.g., 343,000+ infants in meta-analyses)
Detection Method	Nested PCR (ultra-sensitive, contamination-prone)	qPCR/blood assays in controlled trials
Key Finding	mRNA in 50% unvaccinated (shedding?)	No shedding; mRNA clears quickly, vaccines safe
Journal Impact	Predatory (no real review)	High-impact (e.g., NEJM, BMJ; rigorous peer review)
Implications	Alarmist (e.g., "grave harm")	Reassuring (benefits outweigh risks)

ConclusionThis study is not a credible basis for concern about Pfizer mRNA vaccines. Its publication in a predatory journal, minuscule sample, contamination risks, and conflict with robust data render it scientifically invalid for drawing broad conclusions. It appears designed more for headlines than evidence, fitting a pattern of amplified misinformation. For pregnancy vaccine safety, rely on sources like the CDC, WHO, or systematic reviews—mRNA vaccines remain recommended and protective. If you're pregnant or planning, consult a healthcare provider for personalized advice.

 

Yesss, we can trust Grok. Oh yessss, I am sure that billionaires are concerned about our health. Maybe you should ask Bill Gates. I am sure all those studies done during this terrific pandemic sponsored by Faucci and Gates, that by pure coincidence had some connections to that Chinese lab where the mysterious deadly virus was first discovered in a cave?, in bats?, scaryyyy...or maybe the alphabetic soup of generic sequence  of this virus was created in a computer lab...Mystery!!!!

35 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Did you notice the “I had 3 Covid shots comment”?    Didn’t “the science”recommend more than that?

 

Funny how all the mudbloods seem to be able to decide for themselves when “the science” no longer applies to them.

 

I wonder….Where’s the vax pushing resident nurse these days?

 

Falling like flies and yes, a lot of them know we were right and are not following the Science™ anymore, though they will never admit it.

4 minutes ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

 

Yesss, we can trust Grok. Oh yessss, I am sure that billionaires are concerned about our health. Maybe you should ask Bill Gates. I am sure all those studies done during this terrific pandemic sponsored by Faucci and Gates, that by pure coincidence had some connections to that Chinese lab where the mysterious deadly virus was first discovered in a cave?, in bats?, scaryyyy...or maybe the alphabetic soup of generic sequence  of this virus was created in a computer lab...Mystery!!!!

Do you have any issues with what you read? 

32 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Better than Stiddles fake studies showing millions dying from the vaccination.

Why are these anti-vaxxers allowed to spread nonsense every day? Never have I seen them posting in another forum day by day, the same nonsense. I bet they can't cook or bake, or wipe their backside without whinging or have a visa question.

25 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You never got back to me about that windfall you were bragging about?

 

 

 

Trump supporter deflection 

On 12/6/2025 at 5:25 PM, rattlesnake said:

 

Doctors who wanted to report injuries were threatened and fired. Let that sink in. Or are you denying this is true?

 

 

 

 

its pointless engaging with folks who can NOT critically think for them selves...

 

best just to send the dunderheads this video...

 

  

14 minutes ago, CaptainPeacock said:

 

its pointless engaging with folks who can NOT critically think for them selves...

 

best just to send the dunderheads this video...

 

  

 

Don't ever forget they are the smart ones and we are dumb.

 

 

5 hours ago, still kicking said:

Why are these anti-vaxxers allowed to spread nonsense every day? Never have I seen them posting in another forum day by day, the same nonsense. I bet they can't cook or bake, or wipe their backside without whinging or have a visa question.

You’re weird.

 

You should get your eyes checked.

What the heck is otherwise healthy people doing shooting that poison into their veins?

 

And some go back for seconds?

 

Insanity.

 

You healthy, you get shot up with that sh!t, you suddenly get sick (or die) and your brain turn to soup in the meanwhile.

 

Sounds like a good idea to me.

8 hours ago, xylophone said:

...so I will put you on ignore so I won't have to put up with your nonsense

 

Thanks for that.  We'll both be happier for it.