28 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

And there are as many or more studies and opinions saying they did work. Some want to believe because it suits their thinking, which doesn't make it factual.

Science is highly corrupted by corporate interests.

Or people put out bad studies with the best intentions sometimes.

You can look up virtually any health issue and you will find completely contradictory studies. Then you need to decide which studies are more accurate and which ones to believe, which is not always easy as the science is too complex.

There were studies linking vaccines to autism and cancer. I believe neither study was conclusive and both were flawed, but I could be wrong.

It does appear that vaccines can cause myocardial infraction in some people, but perhaps not to the degree that the conspiracy folks would have us believe. And then there are other factors which may have also contributed to the myocardial infractions, which may not show up in the studies. Maybe some people went for a jog immediately after getting the jab. You are supposed to rest 2 or 3 days.

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Science is highly corrupted by corporate interests.

Or people put out bad studies with the best intentions sometimes.

You can look up virtually any health issue and you will find completely contradictory studies. Then you need to decide which studies are more accurate and which ones to believe, which is not always easy as the science is too complex.

There were studies linking vaccines to autism and cancer. I believe neither study was conclusive and both were flawed, but I could be wrong.

It does appear that vaccines can cause myocardial infraction in some people, but perhaps not to the degree that the conspiracy folks would have us believe. And then there are other factors which may have also contributed to the myocardial infractions, which may not show up in the studies. Maybe some people went for a jog immediately after getting the jab. You are supposed to rest 2 or 3 days.

Exactly, so all you can go on is having a few reputable studies done and make up your own mind, much like anything else you can google or read. Both sides have their own reasons for postings. I've been sticking to the fact that the Blue Zone people live the longest on average, and have for quite some time, and trying to emulate their lifestyle. I did get the mandatory vaccines while young, and only the Covid since, seeing i was a little worried about this new disease, and couldn't travel if I didn't have one.

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Once again > I do NOT tell others what to do, but provide information which explains why I have this so-called radical stance, as I am pretty sure that many readers of the Covid-Vaccine and the Natural Health sections from AN's Off-the-Beaten-Track forum had only access to 'accepted' mainstream sources, resulting in them labeling any vaccine-dissident as a loony, dangerous conspiracy-theorist.

ah , Red....... a few times i have commented on how useless it is to get others to objectively research different positions regarding "controversial subjects" .

I have also commended your determination 😄.

And yet still i observe that the people who choose to comment do so from the usual, or imo ....even more determined position of defending their viewpoint.

Even R. Smith stillllllll can not accept that Might may not be Right ! Might, being..... the power of mainstreet media to control the narratives. Even today he still arrogantly disses "fringe sources" .... where in his arrogance he decides which sources , meaning whose rules, we must play by .

All dressed up , of course, in the usual "any sane person accepts .....bs"

And when the health agencies he has steadfastly quoted and defended for years are shown to have lied and been corrupt.... of course their is some word salad ( haha R Smith's own accusation aimed at others) .... excusing even the horrible covid mandates imposed on the world by those agencies .... and STILL quoting them as reliable sources.

nuff said ........ keep posting. I know i will not change any minds. I am with you on the "radical natural health path" .....

Like any addiction, changing one's mindset and actions will only happen from within the individual.

Fat people remain fat. Allopathic worshipers pray at hospitals. And religious fanatics... well, jeez...

god help em .😍

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

That argument is highly flawed and nonsensical and non-practical and totally and utterly absurd.

Some countries (many) have serious demographic issues ie low child birth.

Killing off massive amounts of people indiscriminately through vaccines would collapse their countries. And the leaders would no longer have a country to rule. The world leaders would essentially make themselves redundant. They need a population to rule over.

You're looking at things through the eyes of a non-psychopath. The plan is for there to be a one-world government, ruled by a small clique of psychopaths - with the help of AI (which is why they're pushing AI so hard). So there won't be any "countries" for "leaders" to rule. And the plan is not to kill ALL people. They want/need to have about 500 million to a billion or two left to be their slaves, living in 15-minute cities and using Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) that can be switched off when a given person complains about their servitude. In any case, we'll know soon enough (within the next five years) whether I am right or not. I of course hope I'm wrong.

17 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

The plan is for there to be a one-world government

One world government = The end of wars

In fact, it might be the ONLY way wars will ever end.

You can put a negative spin on anything, but it doesn't mean it's negative.

18 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

living in 15-minute cities

I already live in a self-imposed 15 minute city.

I try to avoid taking Bolts, owning a car and needing to drive everywhere.

Most of what I need is close by.

I do enjoy the freedom to fly out once in a while, but in the city itself I find it tedious to go long distances and be in traffic unless there is no choice.

Again, you can put a negative spin on everything and overlook the positives.

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Science is highly corrupted by corporate interests.

Or people put out bad studies with the best intentions sometimes.

You can look up virtually any health issue and you will find completely contradictory studies. Then you need to decide which studies are more accurate and which ones to believe, which is not always easy as the science is too complex.

There were studies linking vaccines to autism and cancer. I believe neither study was conclusive and both were flawed, but I could be wrong.

It does appear that vaccines can cause myocardial infraction in some people, but perhaps not to the degree that the conspiracy folks would have us believe. And then there are other factors which may have also contributed to the myocardial infractions, which may not show up in the studies. Maybe some people went for a jog immediately after getting the jab. You are supposed to rest 2 or 3 days.

LOL

Yeah…all those cases of myocarditis is because the useless eater went for a jog.

Don’t forget climate change.

Thankfully, it was a mostly peaceful culling.

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

So was Jimmy Saville...

MI5 agent.

14 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Yeah…all those cases of myocarditis is because the useless eater went for a jog.

And / or because he was obese and pre-diabetic probably.

29 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I already live in a self-imposed 15 minute city.

I try to avoid taking Bolts, owning a car and needing to drive everywhere.

Most of what I need is close by.

I do enjoy the freedom to fly out once in a while, but in the city itself I find it tedious to go long distances and be in traffic unless there is no choice.

Again, you can put a negative spin on everything and overlook the positives.

I also appreciate the convenience of having everything I need on a daily basis within walking distance. But I also appreciate being able to leave my 15-minute zone whenever I want to. That's the whole point: WHO gets to decide where I can go? If it's my decision, I am free, even if I decide to stay at home. If it's somebody else's decision, I'm a slave.

4 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

That's the whole point: WHO gets to decide where I can go? If it's my decision, I am free, even if I decide to stay at home. If it's somebody else's decision, I'm a slave.

It remains to be seen how it will be implemented.

Obviously, too much restriction is bad.

Need to wait and see. Haven't heard anything about it for a long time.

35 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

One world government = The end of wars

In fact, it might be the ONLY way wars will ever end.

You can put a negative spin on anything, but it doesn't mean it's negative.

The end of wars (that THEY start) is exactly the excuse that they use to sell you on the idea of accepting their one-world government. Of course there won't be wars between countries if countries no longer exist. But then it becomes a war between the one-world government and its subjects (us), whom they can kill off at will by switching off our digital currencies for complaining about them. How is that better than wars?

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

In my line of business (I won't give details publicly but generally speaking, the entertainment industry)

OK.... now I understand better why you entertain such silly notions.

53 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

You're looking at things through the eyes of a non-psychopath. The plan is for there to be a one-world government, ruled by a small clique of psychopaths - with the help of AI (which is why they're pushing AI so hard). So there won't be any "countries" for "leaders" to rule. And the plan is not to kill ALL people. They want/need to have about 500 million to a billion or two left to be their slaves, living in 15-minute cities and using Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) that can be switched off when a given person complains about their servitude. In any case, we'll know soon enough (within the next five years) whether I am right or not. I of course hope I'm wrong.

Whatchu talkin crazie chit, man . I got me a damn good penshun from being oil worker . Me brother got 2 condos here . Livin the good life, cheap internet, booze and chicks, man ! Seven eleven 50 meters away . And we'z got enough money to go to Bkk hospital ....... hmmm, though it does seem to be gettin kinda pricey, eh ?

I'm a king in dis turd world country .

Da world is my oyster , and believe me mate... lots of oysters around .

heee heee heeee

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Note that I ALWAYS mention the source when posting an article/essay or when I have used AI in one of my posts.

Obviously, when posting from sources other than my own words, that information is largely aligned with my own stance in those matters. The hidden implication in your post that I am unthinkingly regurgitating from fringe sources, I leave to you.

And for sake of clarity, < No AI was used in the writing of this post >

Which is fair enough.

That said, sometimes the demand for sources drifts into the slightly ridiculous. In a post about the Iran conflict a few days ago I stated that Bahrain was heavily dependent on desalination and as such it was civilian critical infrastructure - a potential civilian target. Someone immediately asked for a source. At some point it gets a bit silly - some things sit squarely in the realm of widely known background knowledge rather than claims that need to be footnoted like an academic paper.

Another facet when producing stats is that I can take numbers from various sites and crunch them through Excel to arrive at a set of data that are mutually comparable. The sources of the root information are therefore wide ranging, and listing all of them would take up most of the thread just to quote the base data.

These are not publications or dissertations. I’ll quote a source when something is directly quoted, but when the numbers are the result of pulling together several datasets and standardising them, the situation is a bit different.

On the fringe sources comment - I get why you draw from them. A lot of what you post is anti-establishment and that sort of information will rarely appear in sources that are more mainstream or widely accepted. Its also why the term “mainstream media” has almost become a slurr in threads like this, as if only information from obscure sites is credible. Which frankly can get just as daft IMO.

For clarity, when I say “fringe site” I simply mean lesser known outlets where the information may not yet be widely accepted, independently verified, or even fully proven to be factual yet. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong - but it does mean it probably deserves a bit more scrutiny before being treated as fact.

People sometimes forget the internet also has a habit of repeating things until they look true, even when the orginal claim was shaky to begin with.

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Which is fair enough.

That said, sometimes the demand for sources drifts into the slightly ridiculous. In a post about the Iran conflict a few days ago I stated that Bahrain was heavily dependent on desalination and as such it was civilian critical infrastructure - a potential civilian target. Someone immediately asked for a source. At some point it gets a bit silly - some things sit squarely in the realm of widely known background knowledge rather than claims that need to be footnoted like an academic paper.

Another facet when producing stats is that I can take numbers from various sites and crunch them through Excel to arrive at a set of data that are mutually comparable. The sources of the root information are therefore wide ranging, and listing all of them would take up most of the thread just to quote the base data.

These are not publications or dissertations. I’ll quote a source when something is directly quoted, but when the numbers are the result of pulling together several datasets and standardising them, the situation is a bit different.

On the fringe sources comment - I get why you draw from them. A lot of what you post is anti-establishment and that sort of information will rarely appear in sources that are more mainstream or widely accepted. Its also why the term “mainstream media” has almost become a slurr in threads like this, as if only information from obscure sites is credible. Which frankly can get just as daft IMO.

For clarity, when I say “fringe site” I simply mean lesser known outlets where the information may not yet be widely accepted, independently verified, or even fully proven to be factual yet. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong - but it does mean it probably deserves a bit more scrutiny before being treated as fact.

People sometimes forget the internet also has a habit of repeating things until they look true, even when the orginal claim was shaky to begin with.

These are fair comments from you. And I agree.

Note that another reason that I quote the source of the articles/essays/studies, is to provide those that are interested to check them out. As I do not take over the full source-material, but only the jist. On top of that, on some topics the comments provided on the original source-material are often as interesting than the article itself, pointing the reader to additional material of relevance.

15 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Come on gambs, "IGNORE" means no sneaking in for a quick read and laugh emoji posting, however tempting. Without willpower, you're not going to get clean.

I do have TWO persistent addictions.... caffeine and facts. I heartily recommend both as research has shown they're both good for you health.

I have yet to see you partake of ANY provable FACTS. Rather than real basic facts you seem to consume a steady diet of highly processed facts and just like in foods the consequences are very apparent. You suffer from severe malnutrition of the brain.

9 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I do have TWO persistent addictions.... caffeine and facts. I heartily recommend both as research has shown they're both good for you health.

I have yet to see you partake of ANY provable FACTS. Rather than real basic facts you seem to consume a steady diet of highly processed facts and just like in foods the consequences are very apparent. You suffer from severe malnutrition of the brain.

The facts are not on your side Sir. Viruses do not exist as an infectious agent. Show me the evidence where they have ever been found. Don't even bother looking cause there is not any.

You are one of the sheep if you simply believe the nonsense spewed out by the establishment.

Want Facts? Read my posts. Or study nature.

41 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Want Facts? Read my posts. Or study nature.

Finding facts in most of your posts is a real challenge. The only thing I see that you get correct is to eat more natural foods. Apart from that... you've produced mostly noise.

Have you yet to become fond of the taste of your own urine?

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

One world government = The end of wars

In fact, it might be the ONLY way wars will ever end.

You can put a negative spin on anything, but it doesn't mean it's negative.

Federalisation does not mean the end of war, it just means that war will take different forms: warfare (whether kinetic or economic) will still be waged against the few nations who inevitably resist integration into the hyperstructure, and of course the citizens of said hyperstructure will be subjected to excessive government overreach, with everything this entails.

We have a practical example in the EU, which was federalised 30 years ago. Just go back and watch videos of its propoents at the time, it was going to bring peace and prosperity. How did that go?

8 hours ago, save the frogs said:

That argument is highly flawed and nonsensical and non-practical and totally and utterly absurd.

Some countries (many) have serious demographic issues ie low child birth.

Killing off massive amounts of people indiscriminately through vaccines would collapse their countries. And the leaders would no longer have a country to rule. The world leaders would essentially make themselves redundant. They need a population to rule over.

That the rulers of the hyperstucture have decided there were too many of us is a fact. That they have graced us with the charming moniker 'useless class' is also factual. As is the decade spent devising and implementing measures to resolve the problem we constitute. Make of it what you will.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Federalisation does not mean the end of war, it just means that war will take different forms: warfare (whether kinetic or economic) will still be waged about the few nations who inevitably resist integration into the hyperstructure, and of course the citizens of said hyperstructure will be subjected to excessive government overreach, with everything this entails.

Sounding very authoritative with no foundation seems to be the result of your history of producing fiction. Do they offer any undergraduate courses in producing non-fiction in your area? Some call it journalism.

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Sounding very authoritative with no foundation seems to be the result of your history of producing fiction. Do they offer any undergraduate courses in producing non-fiction in your area? Some call it journalism.

Fell free to requote my entire post and answer the question asked at the end of it.

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Fell free to requote my entire post and answer the question asked at the end of it.

Can you provide any counterpoints to AI's analysis?

This analysis examines the statement: "We have a practical example in the EU, which was federalised 30 years ago. Just go back and watch videos of its proponents at the time, it was going to bring peace and prosperity."

Accuracy Assessment

The statement contains significant factual inaccuracies regarding the nature and timing of the European Union's development.

• "Federalised 30 years ago" (Inaccurate): The EU was not federalised 30 years ago (circa 1996). The Maastricht Treaty, which formally established the European Union, came into force on November 1, 1993, but it did not create a federal state. The EU remains a sui generis (unique) entity, combining characteristics of a confederation and a federal system. Member states remain the "masters of the treaties" and retain sovereignty, including the right to withdraw (as demonstrated by Brexit), which is generally not a feature of a federal state.

• "Bring peace" (Largely Accurate): The primary goal of European integration, starting with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, was to prevent war, specifically between France and Germany. The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 for promoting peace, democracy, and human rights.

• "Bring prosperity" (Debatable/Context Dependent): The creation of the Single Market and the Euro has brought economic prosperity to many, enabling free movement of goods, services, and people. However, this is debated. Critics point to disparities between member states, particularly after the 2008 financial crisis, and argue that economic integration has created losers as well as winners.

Bias Analysis

The statement exhibits a moderate-to-high level of Eurosceptic bias.

• Simplification/Framing: It frames the complex, decades-long process of European integration as a single, abrupt event ("federalised 30 years ago") that failed, ignoring the voluntary nature of membership and treaty negotiations.

• Leading Language: The phrase "Just go back and watch videos" is designed to create a sense of irony, urging the listener to compare past "promises" with a perceived failed present. It implies that the promises of peace and prosperity have failed entirely.

• Ignoring Counterfactuals: It fails to mention that despite challenges, the EU has maintained peace among its members and provided significant economic integration.

Overall Conclusion

The claim that the EU is a "federalised" state established 30 years ago is factually wrong. The assertion that it was promised to bring peace and prosperity is historically accurate regarding the original goals, but the implication that these goals have not been achieved is a matter of political interpretation, not settled fact. The statement is highly biased, aiming to discredit the EU's performance.

17 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

That they have graced us with the charming moniker 'useless class' is also factual.

He's not saying it to be derogatory or dismissive of human beings.

He's saying it in a way that is expressing it from perspectives of governments and the monumentally difficult task they have of redistributing income to the masses to keep people fed.

If AI takes jobs in Bangladesh, they are "useless" in the sense that the govt doesn't know where the money will come from to take care of them.

If you pay attention to the tone of this speaker, it's not hostility and Darth Vader like intentions to kill off people like you conspiracy guys keep pushing.

He clearly uses Sweden as an example where the govt will be able to take care of its citizens after mass automation to highlight his point.

Keep up with your delusions and misrepresentations of reality, though.

And I will keep pointing out your foibles.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I do have TWO persistent addictions.... caffeine and facts. I heartily recommend both as research has shown they're both good for you health.

I have yet to see you partake of ANY provable FACTS. Rather than real basic facts you seem to consume a steady diet of highly processed facts and just like in foods the consequences are very apparent. You suffer from severe malnutrition of the brain.

Here is footage of Dr. Marcus Zervos, a prominent Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine at Wayne State University and Division Head of Infectious Diseases for Henry Ford Health, specialising in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention, and multidrug-resistant pathogens. He has led over 300 studies, published over 320 peer-reviewed articles, and directs global health projects.

The comments he made here followed his acquaintance with a study showing that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones. In Del Bigtree's documentary An Inconvenient Study, he is shown acknowledging the validity of the study.

In the excerpt below, Zervos says that “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.” as a justification for his refusal to pursue the conclusions of the study, although it goes against medical and scientific ethics, because it would end his career.

Do you validate that this person exists and that they did pronounce those words? If so, then there you have it, a fact. Feel free to comment on the substance of that fact.

31 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

We have a practical example in the EU, which was federalised 30 years ago. Just go back and watch videos of its propoents at the time, it was going to bring peace and prosperity. How did that go?

Typical use of loaded phrases and factually inaccurate statements. Everyday tools of fiction writers.... but hey... that's your bread and butter.

33 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

We have a practical example in the EU, which was federalised 30 years ago. Just go back and watch videos of its propoents at the time, it was going to bring peace and prosperity. How did that go?

Not sure what you are talking about.

There is no more threat of war between EU nations now since the EU has been formed.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Here is footage of Dr. Marcus Zervos, a prominent Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine at Wayne State University and Division Head of Infectious Diseases for Henry Ford Health, specialising in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention, and multidrug-resistant pathogens. He has led over 300 studies, published over 320 peer-reviewed articles, and directs global health projects.

The comments he made here followed his acquaintance with a study showing that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones. In Del Bigtree's documentary An Inconvenient Study, he is shown acknowledging the validity of the study.

In the excerpt below, Zervos says that “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.” as a justification for his refusal to pursue the conclusions of the study, although it goes against medical and scientific ethics, because it would end his career.

Do you validate that this person exists and that they did pronounce those words? If so, then there you have it, a fact. Feel free to comment on the substance of that fact.

and you have access to the unpublished study?

As reported in the Detroit Free Press, here's what Zervos's employer said about the study:

In an emailed statement, Henry Ford said:

“There are many factors that determine whether a research paper should be submitted for consideration by scientific journals. In this case, an initial peer review of the draft revealed immediate and significant concerns due to serious data flaws, including:

• The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth.

• The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample.

• The amount of time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinated children. One quarter were observed only through six months of age, and 75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases.

• The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines.

• No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease.

• Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.

"In the end, this report was not published because it did not even come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards we demand — not because of the results."

https://www.freep.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2025/08/22/PDTF/85779605007-082225-henry-ford-hospital-shooting-jw-03.jpg?width=660&height=441&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Do you validate that this person exists and that they did pronounce those words? If so, then there you have it, a fact. Feel free to comment on the substance of that fact.

You desperation knows no limits. LOL.

Someone complains because his study was rejected. Is that fact going to feed your fever dreams for months? I hope not.