1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

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.

Desperation to do or achieve what? This is merely Sunday banter.

Try to forget our antagonism for five minutes, if you are able to. Look at it at face value: why does Zervos say that? You have mentioned yourself repeatedly that you value and respect expert views. Zervos is an expert and he validates the study. Why does he say he can't publish it because it would end his career? This is not a trick question and there is no need to overthink it. I am not trying to 'be right' or 'win' here.

15 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

and you have access to the unpublished study?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

That does not answer the question. Zervos validates it but said “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

What does that mean, in your opinion?

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Desperation to do or achieve what? This is merely Sunday banter.

Try to forget our antagonism for five minutes, if you are able to. Look at it at face value: why does Zervos say that? You have mentioned yourself repeatedly that you value and respect expert views. Zervos is an expert and he validates the study. Why does he say he can't publish it because it would end his career? This is not a trick question and there is no need to overthink it. I am not trying to 'be right' or 'win' here.

It's a rubbish product because of its flawed design. Even experts make mistakes. A true expert doesn't make such self-serving comments when a mistake is made.

I'm an expert gambler.... I made dozens of mistakes. I was an expert in PDP-11 assembler programming.... thousands of mistakes.

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

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

Oh….yes….of course.

So the vaccine enthusiast who recently complained about having a heart attack and how he can’t live with the pain, can’t walk, blah blah blah. He’s probably just a fat sicko and should refrain from any type of physical exertion. It certainly could never ever ever be the safe and effective clot shot.

I wonder about that other poster who used to show up and wish death upon us (and remind us of how stupid we unvaccinated are, were and forever will be). He still posts elsewhere…but not here. Maybe he’s not feeling up to it after the recent chemotherapy. At least no heart attack yet! Bless his ❤️

Don’t hear from that other guy who used to post continuous fear mongering on a near daily basis. I sure hope he’s ok….kidding! I really don’t care

You guys are funny. Desperately trying to prove things to yourself under the guise of returning to these threads day after day…hour after hour….to combat our dangerous misinformation, that nobody but yourselves might read.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

That does not answer the question. Zervos validates it but said “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

What does that mean, in your opinion?

It means Zervos is adamant that he didn't make a mistake and like a certain President, he just doubles down. If he had legitimate arguments as counterpoint to the criticisms of the study design he was free to make such clarifications. Instead he acted like a spoiled child.

The mistakes listed in his employer's statement were very significant, not just technicalities. It was a poor attempt and as such should not be published without ammendment. Contrary to your biased view, science has high standards for studies. Of course there are for-profit journals that with lower standards and upon payment of high fees....will publish such crap. Unfortunately, there is a demand for anything that can taint scientists that support science that political opponents support.

I bet that's not your favored answer.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

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?

Sir!

I have told you why I don't believe viruses exist.

I've told you why there is so such thing as a disease.

I've explained to you why vaccines have never done anything but harm. And why they cannot be safe, effective or necessary.

If you don't buy into the above; then so be it.

Nature has the answers we seek.

41 minutes ago, Airalee said:

So the vaccine enthusiast who recently complained about having a heart attack and how he can’t live with the pain, can’t walk, blah blah blah. He’s probably just a fat sicko and should refrain from any type of physical exertion. It certainly could never ever ever be the safe and effective clot shot.

Yes, that's right.

He's probably a fat sicko.

The vast majority of health problems are caused by diet and lifestyle.

Some pharmaceuticals can cause problems, but not one dose. People take them for month or years.

25 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature has the answers we seek.

and.... that's why ALL science starts with nature and ultimately adds to our knowledge of it.

Obviously, humans cannot conduct any hard science outside of the nature of our universe.

<delete>

24 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

It means Zervos is adamant that he didn't make a mistake and like a certain President, he just doubles down. If he had legitimate arguments as counterpoint to the criticisms of the study design he was free to make such clarifications. Instead he acted like a spoiled child.

He does not act like a spoilt child, he acts like someone who is afraid.

31 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The mistakes listed in his employer's statement were very significant, not just technicalities. It was a poor attempt and as such should not be published without ammendment. Contrary to your biased view, science has high standards for studies.

The statement by his employer was made after the documentary came out and is more akin to damage control than anything else.

According to the ethical methodology, which @scottiejohn colloquially referred to as 'real science' earlier in this thread, Zervos would have shown this study to his colleagues, who would have listened to his findings attentively, more studies might have been made, the process refined, perhaps he would have been disproved… and perhaps something would have come to light to further consolidate the knowledge base on childhood vaccines.

What happened instead was that Zervos nervously told Del Bigtree (and the full conversation is available in the actual documentary) that there are dire consequences for indivduals who do anything to undermine what is after all, a multi-billion dollar industry:

“publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

There is a word for that: corruption. Acknowledging it does not mean one has to relinquish their belief in the benefits of vaccination, but I am sure we can all agree that something is wrong from a systemic viewpoint; something that needs to be rectified.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The statement by his employer was made after the documentary came out and is more akin to damage control than anything else.

The timing of the statement has zero bearing on its criticisms of the structure of the study. Justification of the rejection is clear in their statement. Do you have any proof that the criticisms were unfounded?

You're just fabricating a story that fits your view and as usual without any supporting facts.

Do you have access to the rejected study?

13 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Do you have access to the rejected study?

Yes, here the link to the Henry Ford study which was not published as it would have been a career killer for dr Zervos.

> https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf

12 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The timing of the statement has zero bearing on its criticisms of the structure of the study. Justification of the rejection is clear in their statement. Do you have any proof that the criticisms were unfounded?

You're just fabricating a story that fits your view and as usual without any supporting facts.

Do you have access to the rejected study?

And your tiptoeing, ridiculous laugh emojis and lame deflections, around an issue so glaringly obvious that a child would recognise it in an instant, is proof enough that you are not interested in the truth, and therefore there is no point whatsoever in talking to you (which I already knew, but it is now clear as day for all to see).

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

He does not act like a spoilt child, he acts like someone who is afraid.

If you are so deeply interested in his motives take some journalism classes... you know where they learn how to find, corroborate and report facts.... and go interview him. Neither your nor my opinion on his motives are relevant.

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The statement by his employer was made after the documentary came out and is more akin to damage control than anything else.

Perhaps a fact.... but not relevant to the actual validity of the report's design.

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What happened instead was that Zervos nervously told Del Bigtree (and the full conversation is available in the actual documentary) that there are dire consequences for indivduals who do anything to undermine what is after all, a multi-billion dollar industry:

Of course the anti-vaxers (like Del Bigtree) would never misrepresent or be wrong about anything, ever!

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

but I am sure we can all agree that something is wrong from a systemic viewpoint

The system is not perfect nor is it the best of all choices.... but you never suggest improvements, only fire off biased, emotionally loaded criticisms.

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

emotionally loaded criticisms

Says the guy who posts a laugh emoji at every single one of my posts (I guess I should be flattered?).

8 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yes, here the link to the Henry Ford study which was not published as it would have been a career killer for dr Zervos.

> https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf

Thanks.

As stated in the Henry Ford statement:

there is a very large disparity in the number of participants in the studied groups, significant differences in the health of the children at birth.

No adjustment of results were attempted to account for the above discrepancies. Such adjustments would be difficult to conduct without arbitrarily skewing the results.

As is always the case in studies where the population makes choices that determine which study group they are in.... there is the real possibility of selection bias. This factor is nearly impossible to eliminate in health related studies.

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

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.

You obviously are not well acquainted with Yuval Noah Harari. To him, we are but numbers in an equation and his world view is grim to say the least…

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Says the guy who posts a laugh emoji at every single one of my posts (I guess I should be flattered?).

stop posting laughable explanations in areas you have no fundamental understanding.

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Not sure what you are talking about.

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

Is there a threat of war against Russia? What is your take on the billions in taxpayer money sent to Zelenskyy while the native population of the EU can't afford to put decent food on the table? 23 out of 27 EU member states were integrated into NATO and have participated in most, if not all kinetic theatre of operations in recent decades, none of which served the native people's interests.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

and.... that's why ALL science starts with nature and ultimately adds to our knowledge of it.

Obviously, humans cannot conduct any hard science outside of the nature of our universe.

Vaccines are anti-science and anti-nature.

That's why they cause so much harm; for no benefit whatsoever.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Vaccines are anti-science and anti-nature.

That's why they cause so much harm; for no benefit whatsoever.

A ridiculous interpretation of the meaning of the words 'nature' and 'science'.... no wonder you've become lost.

Things that happen or have happened 1000's of light years from Earth still have an impact on life here. Therefor those events and objects are part and parcel of nature here on Earth.

Just ask Joni:

"We are stardust, we are golden, and we have to get ourselves back to the garden"

Science consists merely of detailed observation of how elements of nature behave on their own or in concert with other elements of nature.

Hopefully something will click in your thought processes and you will recognize that you've fallen into a rabbit hole.

I'll hold up a mirror so you can more easily see your predicament:

On 3/13/2026 at 11:35 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Quite possibly. When a thread is flooded with the same rhetoric over and over again, it becomes difficult to invest much effort trying to find a diamond in all the chaff.

I’m not someone who believes vaccines are incapable of causing adverse effects. Of course they can. Any medical intervention can. The question has always been about scale of risk versus benefit.

Take VITT (vaccine induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) as an example. It absolutely exists. It was identified during the COVID vaccination campaigns and has been studied extensively. The incidence was estimated at roughly 1 case per 50,000–100,000 doses with adenovirus vector vaccines, and much lower with mRNA vaccines. Importantly, the mechanism is now understood and clinicians know how to recognise and treat it early.

But in comparison with the risks from the disease itself. COVID infection increased the risk of thrombosis many times over, with studies showing blood clot rates several orders of magnitude higher than vaccine-associated clotting. Severe respiratory infections in general - including influenza - significantly increase clot risk due to inflammation, dehydration, and vascular stress.

The same applies to myocarditis. Many people talk about it as if it appeared out of nowhere with COVID vaccines. In reality myocarditis has been recognised for decades as a complication of viral infections, including influenza, adenovirus, and many common respiratory viruses. In fact infection-associated myocarditis occurs far more frequently than vaccine-associated myocarditis, and tends to be more severe.

So yes - I am well aware that vaccines can have side effects. Pretending they are impossible would be dishonest.

What I do not do is exaggerate extremely rare risks while ignoring vastly larger risks from the diseases themselves.

Medicine is never about zero risk. It is about which option results in the least harm overall. On that balance, vaccines remain one of the most overwhelmingly positive public health interventions ever developed.

If that is considered “not too intelligent”, I’m comfortable with that.

Fair enough. I didn't read the whole post above but read the last few paragraphs :)

I had three Covid vaccines and am not worried but people should not have been forced to get vaccinated considering it was killing almost exclusively the unhealthy. This was known from the beginning and governments should have focussed on vaccinating the unhealthy and getting them out of harms way.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Desperation to do or achieve what?

Only you know the answer.... why are you clutching at such wispy straws?

45 minutes ago, atpeace said:

This was known from the beginning and governments should have focussed on vaccinating the unhealthy and getting them out of harms way.

Just ask the military (or google) about layered defenses.

Widespread vaccination is like a layered defense. In a population with herd immunity the spread of virus will get choked off due to a lack of new infections that is required for the virus to continue to reproduce. New infections are necessary because the already infected will soon stop reproducing the virus and will be immune to recurrent infections for some time.

11 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Is there a threat of war against Russia?

Sorry, I can't answer all your questions.

Interesting fact about Russia: the life expectancy for males was down to around 57 years at one point. Maybe due to alcoholism caused by despondency? Not sure what it is now.

I doubt most people in the EU have it that bad. Some countries in the EU have the highest life expectancies in the world.

8 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Sorry, I can't answer all your questions.

Interesting fact about Russia: the life expectancy for males was down to around 57 years at one point. Maybe due to alcoholism caused by despondency? Not sure what it is now.

I doubt most people in the EU have it that bad. Some countries in the EU have the highest life expectancies in the world.

Is your rationale that being in the EU increases life expectancy? It is currently at 73-74 in Russia. France has the highest level of antidepressant consumption in the world.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

France has the highest level of antidepressant consumption in the world.

Why?

I don't know about France.

There was a Youtuber in Thailand from Italy.

He said Italian people are constantly complaining about politics, the government. They're constantly miserable.

Yet, it is one of the most touristed countries in the world.

As far as I can tell, there is no reason for Italians to be so miserable, apart from maybe they are being manipulated by the media to be miserable.

They may not have the highest GDP in the world, but they have one of the best quality of life in the world, if you factor in culture, community, climate, food, scenery, nature, nice architecture everywhere.

17 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

As far as I can tell, there is no reason for Italians to be so miserable, apart from maybe they are being manipulated by the media to be miserable.

I take it you re not a European?

There are many reasons for EU citizens to be miserable. I would say the two main ones are impoverishment and mass migration. Both are a result of their integration into the EU as there are specific frameworks governing these predicaments.

Let's take the example of Italy and the Lisbon Treaty as an example to illustrate economic degradation.

One of the arguments of EU proponents is that member States receive a lot of money in handouts. While this is true, what is not said is that this money is paid back tenfold over time, by the taxpayer.

EU integration de facto places you under the Lisbon Treaty, namely with regards to State funding. What does that mean? A mechanism compels EU States to borrow from the European Investment Bank, which requires borrowing on the financial market (whereas before that, they self-financed themselves).

What is truly cynical is that these same institutions claim they focus on 'stability' and 'sound management' when they are designed to cause abyssal debt (leading to 'reforms' and 'austerity', always to the detriment of the people).

The Treaty was signed in 2007 and became effective in 2009. Here is a self-explanatory graphic for Italy:

21 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Vaccines are anti-science and anti-nature.

That's why they cause so much harm; for no benefit whatsoever.

Read and weep to try to overcome your ignorance with regards to vaccines and science.......but then again, looking at your previous posts there is no chance of that happening the old saying applie in your case:- "ignorance is bliss".

 

By the 1940s and 1950s, polio had become the most feared disease in America.

Every summer, it arrived without warning. Swimming pools closed. Movie theaters shut down. Parents kept children indoors, terrified.

In 1952—the worst year on record—nearly 58,000 Americans were infected. More than 21,000 were paralyzed. Over 3,000 died.

Most of them were children.

Albert Sabin had been studying polio since the 1930s. He performed autopsies on every polio victim within 400 miles of his lab in Cincinnati—trying to understand how the virus worked.

He discovered that the poliovirus attacked the intestinal tract first, before moving to the nervous system.

That meant an oral vaccine might work.

Meanwhile, in Pittsburgh, Jonas Salk was working on a different approach: a killed-virus vaccine, given by injection.

In 1955, Salk's vaccine was approved. It was hailed as a miracle. Jonas Salk became a national hero overnight.

The Salk vaccine worked. It prevented paralysis. It saved lives.

But Albert Sabin believed he could do better.

Salk's vaccine had limitations.

It required injection—which meant sterile needles, trained medical personnel, refrigeration. In poor countries, in rural areas, in places without infrastructure, mass vaccination was nearly impossible.

And the Salk vaccine didn't provide intestinal immunity. You could still carry and spread the virus even if you were vaccinated.

Sabin's approach was different.

He developed a live, weakened virus. One that would multiply in the intestines—just like the natural infection—but wouldn't attack the nervous system.

It could be given orally. No needles. No trained medical staff required.

Just a few drops on a sugar cube.

Children would actually want to take it.

And because the weakened virus multiplied in the gut, it would spread to unvaccinated people through normal contact—creating herd immunity even in populations that hadn't been directly vaccinated.

It was brilliant. Elegant. Perfect for mass immunization campaigns.

There was one problem.

The United States wasn't interested.

By the late 1950s, America was already using the Salk vaccine. It was working. The polio rate was dropping.

The U.S. government saw no reason to test a competing vaccine.

Pharmaceutical companies weren't interested either. The Salk vaccine was profitable. Why develop something new?

Albert Sabin needed somewhere to test his vaccine on a large scale.

And then, in 1956, a delegation of Soviet virologists visited his lab in Cincinnati.

They were desperate. Polio was devastating the USSR. They had tried producing the Salk vaccine, but the logistics were overwhelming.

They asked Sabin if he would help them test his oral vaccine.

It was the height of the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union were enemies. Nuclear war felt imminent.

Albert Sabin—a Jewish refugee who had escaped Russia, who had built a life in America—was being asked to collaborate with the Communist government.

He said yes.

Sabin traveled to Leningrad and Moscow. He met with Soviet virologist Mikhail Chumakov.

He handed over the master strains of his vaccine. For free.

No patent. No contract. No profit.

In 1959, the Soviet Union vaccinated 10 million children with Sabin's oral polio vaccine.

In 1960, they vaccinated 77 million more.

The results were stunning. Polio cases plummeted.

The World Health Organization reviewed the data. Independent American scientists verified the findings.

The Sabin vaccine worked. And it worked better than anyone had imagined.

Finally, in 1960, the United States agreed to test it.

They called them "Sabin Sundays."

On three consecutive Sundays in 1960, millions of American families lined up at churches, schools, and fire stations across the country.

Children opened their mouths. A volunteer placed a sugar cube on their tongue—pink, sweet, treated with a few drops of vaccine.

That was it. No needles. No pain. No fear.

Just a sugar cube.

The campaign was so successful, so easy to administer, that it inspired the Sherman Brothers when they were writing songs for Mary Poppins.

"Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."

That line came directly from the Sabin vaccine.

By 1961, the Sabin oral polio vaccine was approved for use in the United States.

Within a few years, it had replaced the Salk vaccine as the primary tool for polio eradication worldwide.

It was cheaper to produce. Easier to administer. More effective at stopping transmission.

And it could reach places the Salk vaccine never could.

Remote villages in Africa. Slums in India. War zones in the Middle East.

All you needed was a sugar cube and someone to hand it out.

The Sabin vaccine became the backbone of the global polio eradication campaign.

Between 1988 and 2018, polio cases dropped from 350,000 per year to just 33.

The vaccine prevented an estimated 500,000 deaths and 5 million cases of paralysis.

Wild polio was eradicated from the Americas in 1994. From Europe in 2002. From Southeast Asia in 2014.

Today, polio remains endemic in only two countries: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Albert Sabin never made a penny from his vaccine.

Pharmaceutical companies begged him to patent it. Colleagues told him he was being foolish.

He refused.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Here is a self-explanatory graphic for Italy:

If you focus most of your attention on negative things, you will be miserable.