On 2/23/2026 at 12:18 PM, KhunLA said:

Pretty much a NO for me, as they seem to do more harm than good. Injected anything in an undeveloped immune system really doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since most aren't needed in the 21st century, whether they worked or not in the past.

I've stated it before. I used to get the Flu vaccine religiously every year, usually on my employer's dime. And I got really bad cases of the flu almost every 3 years on average.
I stopped taking them in 2002. I've haven't had the flu since. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences. Given the number of times I've had the flu prior to 2002, I probably have a very robust natural immunity to the virus.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Don't worry.. your reputation is so well established it will exist well into the next generation of AN members. Definitely in the bottom 3 of all time misguided disseminators of nonsense on AN.

Unlike most of the horrendous white-coats who pushed the $$$ jab, whispering 'safe and effective', you will only get the truth for this poster.

The evidence is out there if one has the eyes and ears to do some research.

My aim is not to enlighten the sheep. No! It's primarily to save toddles from the 'safe n effective' poison filth in a syringe. And that's all vaccines. They are all unnecessary, and indeed cannot possibly work; as my previous posts on AN have explained.

21 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Most here will be dead in 15 years. So will Trump. The next gen might be normal.

Wellcome to the sock drawer.... you'll have to share the space with several other sock puppets.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Wellcome to the sock drawer.... you'll have to share the space with several other sock puppets.

I'm at the beach. You are in the sock drawer.

The fact that people are question the safety of vaccines in 2026 is truly mindboggling. The anti science conspiracy theory right wing idiots have a lot to answer for. As has the current us admi. Putting a conspiracy theory promoting idiot like RFK in that position is an absolute disaster.

22 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Unlike most of the horrendous white-coats who pushed the $$$ jab, whispering 'safe and effective', you will only get the truth for this poster.

The evidence is out there if one has the eyes and ears to do some research.

My aim is not to enlighten the sheep. No! It's primarily to save toddles from the 'safe n effective' poison filth in a syringe. And that's all vaccines. They are all unnecessary, and indeed cannot possibly work; as my previous posts on AN have explained.

What is wrong with your brain? Flat earther too no doubt ?

1 hour ago, Usnh said:

Putting a conspiracy theory promoting idiot like RFK in that position is an absolute disaster.

An absolute disaster for the pharmaceutical cartel, certainly.

1 hour ago, Usnh said:

What is wrong with your brain? Flat earther too no doubt ?

We should have died during Covid, but as life is unfair, we survived unscathed and are fit as fiddles. We even took over the White House.

On 2/23/2026 at 1:18 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

"My take: There is no excuse for a parent to even be in the undecided column."

You're right . But............. 20, 30, 40 years of pharma and the medical "profession" proclaiming that they are the EXPERTS has certainly worked wonders world wide.

The populace is brainwashed and worse yet mandated into adhering to the Law of The Medical establishment . ( doctors, of course, must follow the rules or be taken out )

Like all obstacles hindering the enlightenment and return to decency in this fkd up planet ......... the bad guys still hold immense power. Squashing any dissidence is foremost in their agenda and goal to control and destroy opposing means of attaining health .

9 hours ago, Usnh said:

The quote below is from Stiddle Mump ......

The evidence is out there if one has the eyes and ears to do some research .

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.--Winston Churchill "

They said her baby should drink more water. She said that she read that those who drank water inevitably died. They threatened her that there was no other way.

She gave her baby water. The baby died withing 6 months PROVING that water kills children.

On 3/14/2026 at 4:37 AM, Purdey said:

They said her baby should drink more water. She said that she read that those who drank water inevitably died. They threatened her that there was no other way.

She gave her baby water. The baby died withing 6 months PROVING that water kills children.

We need more soph(tenon)ists like you to debunk all those loony conspiracy theories featured in this sub-forum.

On 3/14/2026 at 4:37 AM, Purdey said:

They said her baby should drink more water. She said that she read that those who drank water inevitably died. They threatened her that there was no other way.

She gave her baby water. The baby died withing 6 months PROVING that water kills children.

Drawing an analogy between vaccination and water is next-level cultism! Keep it up, I'm sure one of your co-worshippers can push the boundaries even further.

On 3/14/2026 at 10:37 AM, Purdey said:

They said her baby should drink more water. She said that she read that those who drank water inevitably died. They threatened her that there was no other way.

She gave her baby water. The baby died withing 6 months PROVING that water kills children.

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Drawing an analogy between vaccination and water is next-level cultism! Keep it up, I'm sure one of your co-worshippers can push the boundaries even further.

Have you ever heard the phrase: "read between the lines"? LOL

I'm beginning to believe you quit attending school after grade 8,

16 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Have you ever heard the phrase: "read between the lines"? LOL

I'm beginning to believe you quit attending school after grade 8,

Your omniscience strikes again. You, on the other hand, have a higher education and therefore you are familiar with elementary rhetorical fallacies such as false equivalence and straw man arguments.

36 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Your omniscience strikes again. You, on the other hand, have a higher education and therefore you are familiar with elementary rhetorical fallacies such as false equivalence and straw man arguments.

and... you're still clueless that his post was entirely allegorical and has nothing to do with water. It's sad, really

20 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

and... you're still clueless that his post was entirely allegorical and has nothing to do with water. It's sad, really

Let me rephrase it, I am sure it is within your grasp.

An analogy, to be valid, has to abide by elementary rhetorical rules. The introduction of a false equivalence, such as a parallel drawn between a biological element required for survival and a medical intervention, invalidates the intended point. There are limits to reductio ad absurdum: if the logical thought process of the opposing party is purposely warped, that is a straw man fallacy and nothing else.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Let me rephrase it, I am sure it is within your grasp.

An analogy, to be valid, has to abide by elementary rhetorical rules. The introduction of a false equivalence, such as a parallel drawn between a biological element required for survival and a medical intervention, invalidates the intended point. There are limits to reductio ad absurdum: if the logical thought process of the opposing party is purposely warped, that is a straw man fallacy and nothing else.

You're even more clueless than I thought.

Look up the similarities and differences between analogy and allegory. AI can help with that.

You really are quite poor in English. Try your 1st language and then use a good translation app.

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

You're even more clueless than I thought.

Look up the similarities and differences between analogy and allegory. You really are quite poor in English. Try your 1st language and then use a good translation app.

Here is my gift to you today. Please value it for what it truly is:

You Have Won.

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Here is my gift to you today. Please value it for what it truly is:

You Have Won.

I'm sure you're aware of the value I assign to anything you write.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

I'm sure you're aware of the value I assign to anything you write.

I am indeed. It is pretty obvious, given the consistency and dedication you apply in replying and reacting to virtually all my posts.

The bromance is not mutual, please put your money where your mouth is:

On 3/13/2026 at 4:09 PM, gamb00ler said:

The best treatment regimen is a generous application of the IGNORE feature.

56 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I am indeed. It is pretty obvious, given the consistency and dedication you apply in replying and reacting to virtually all my posts.

The bromance is not mutual, please put your money where your mouth is:

If you weren't such a prolific purveyor of mis-information it would be easy to take that route.

I never see you offer any actual simple but accurate help on AN. You seemed to be locked in a battle with the status quo in science despite not having any weapon.

7 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

If you weren't such a prolific purveyor of mis-information

'Misinformation' like this?

More on vaccine-induced chronic encephalitis, a.ka. autism:

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

'Misinformation' like this?

A typical failure in simple logic that is your trademark.

The phrase tweet you quoted does not mean what you seem to claim.   I hope your job in entertainment doesn’t require an excellent understanding of English… because…. that is definitely NOT an ability exhibited in your posts on AN.

The quoted tweet implies some earth shattering admission by the CDC.  Such is definitely NOT the case.

The CDC merely admitted that they cannot prove a negative assertion.  Which is absolutely true.

Read the following:

Proving a negative statement is generally difficult or impossible when it requires an exhaustive search of an unbounded or infinite domain (e.g., "ghosts do not exist"). However, it is quite easy to prove negatives within closed, finite systems (e.g., "there is no orange in this bag"). The difficulty lies in universality, not negativity.

Key Aspects of Proving Negatives:

The Problem of Universality: It is nearly impossible to prove a general negative statement because it requires examining every single possibility in the universe, which is rarely practical.

The change in the CDC’s statement, merely recognizes the above.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

A typical failure in simple logic that is your trademark.

The phrase tweet you quoted does not mean what you seem to claim.   I hope your job in entertainment doesn’t require an excellent understanding of English… because…. that is definitely NOT an ability exhibited in your posts on AN.

The quoted tweet implies some earth shattering admission by the CDC.  Such is definitely NOT the case.

The CDC merely admitted that they cannot prove a negative assertion.  Which is absolutely true.

Read the following:

Proving a negative statement is generally difficult or impossible when it requires an exhaustive search of an unbounded or infinite domain (e.g., "ghosts do not exist"). However, it is quite easy to prove negatives within closed, finite systems (e.g., "there is no orange in this bag"). The difficulty lies in universality, not negativity.

Key Aspects of Proving Negatives:

The Problem of Universality: It is nearly impossible to prove a general negative statement because it requires examining every single possibility in the universe, which is rarely practical.

The change in the CDC’s statement, merely recognizes the above.

What I "seem to claim"? I haven't claimed anything. The CDC's update is clear. Media outlets such as CNN portray it as dangerous antivax language, I would have thought you would choose this avenue too.

Scientific information on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website was replaced Wednesday with anti-vaccine talking points that don’t rule out a link between vaccines and autism, despite an abundance of evidence that there’s no connection.

Bullet points on the top of the page now state that “vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim” because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.

The language is a common tactic used to cast doubt on the safety of vaccines, said Alison Singer, president and co-founder of the Autism Science Foundation.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/20/health/cdc-website-autism-vaccines

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What I "seem to claim"?

You posted a reference to a tweet that made silly claims.

Did you refer to that tweet because you also agree that it contains nothing meaningful? That would go against the grain of every other post you've made on AN.

I explained why the tweet was pure nonsense.

Do you agree the new CDC statement merely states that it is impossible to prove a such a negative assertion? That statement covers material learned in freshmen logic class.

13 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Do you agree the new CDC statement merely states that it is impossible to prove a such a negative assertion?

I do and never implied otherwise.

There are no "silly claims" in this X post by Dr. Hulscher, only an exact quote from the CDC website. You overinterpreted it based on your animosity towards me – this is a pitfall which should ideally be avoided in contentious debates.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I do and never implied otherwise.

There are no "silly claims" in this X post by Dr. Hulscher, only an exact quote from the CDC website. You overinterpreted it based on your animosity towards me – this is a pitfall which should ideally be avoided in contentious debates.

In that case why post the preamble... just post the link to the specific tweet. If you think the preamble is meaningless... why waste the reader's time?

20 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

In that case why post the preamble... just post the link to the specific tweet. If you think the preamble is meaningless... why waste the reader's time?

I don't think anything is meaningless, quite the contrary. Why are you tiptoeing around this instead of addressing the main point, which is the report sent to HHS? Do you think it is flawed? If so, why? Peter McCullough has more peer-reviewed citations than anyone else on this issue, are his insights not relevant?