4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

After decades of active sports my knees are giving me issues - those Covid vaccines really did job on me, I'm not sure which one causes the knee pain, if its the adenovirus or mRNA - but one of them is causing my knees to hurt.

I'm just waiting for the right meme so I can know for sure...

If that is all you can muster, then the position you are defending really is on its last legs (no pun itended).

I'm not defending anything in these ridiculous meme-filled disinformative circle jerks anymore - I'm simply taking the pish because thats all there is left... its all just too silly to bother with seriously...

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

I'm not defending anything in these ridiculous meme-filled disinformative circle jerks anymore - I'm simply taking the pish because thats all there is left... its all just too silly to bother with seriously...

What I see as silly is the persistent unwillingness to acknowledge the fact (or even entertain the idea) that this vaccine is actually much more problematic than what was initially said.

Why not simply recognise it? Humans can be so stubborn at times. It is astonishing… There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There is an ever-expanding body of published science addressing serious side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.

COVERSE has made this research public via a curated collected at The Lens, an online platform that makes access to article details possible via collaborations with the major open access scholarly and open data initiatives, including the global public resource of PubMed.

Use the search feature below to explore this collection, which currently numbers over 4,500 papers.

https://coverse.org.au/science/

Just now, rattlesnake said:

What I see as silly is the persistent unwillingness to acknowledge the fact (or even entertain the idea) that this vaccine is actually much more problematic than what was initially said.

You’re right, no vaccine or consumable is completely risk-free - that applies all, food, liquids, vaccines, including the Covid vaxes. The real issue is balance. When something is given to millions, there will inevitably be some adverse events, but that doesn’t mean the overall risk is high - it simply means you're arguments are disproportionate.

Putting that into perspective, even something as ordinary as drinking water carries risk - people choke on liquids every year, and aspiration (when fluid goes into the airway) can lead to injury or even death, particularly in vulnerable groups - more so than vaccine negatives ?... worth a look into.

According to organisations like the National Health Service and the World Health Organisation, accidental choking and aspiration are recognised causes of injury worldwide.

The point of course isn’t that water is dangerous - it’s that risk exists in everyday life. What matters is whether the benefits outweigh those risks, and the evidence shows that vaccines (and Covid vaccines - at the time) reduced severe illness, transmission and death for the vast majority of people (anti-vaxxers will ask for then argue those facts) - you, and those arguing along side you fail to recognise that very simple facet - balance of risk compared to every day life - crossing a road, driving, drinking wine.

So.. what I see is the silly persistent unwillinness to acknowledge those facts ( or even entertain that idea) because you are so locked into anti-vax bias.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Why not simply recognise it?

Because its intellectually dishonest - your implication's are that vaccines do nothing and more people are harmed by them than any good they do - thats always been your underlying sentiment in these threads - recognise that - I'd go as far and see such opinions as being dangerous from the wider public health perspective.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Humans can be so stubborn at times. It is astonishing… There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There is an ever-expanding body of published science addressing serious side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.

COVERSE has made this research public via a curated collected at The Lens, an online platform that makes access to article details possible via collaborations with the major open access scholarly and open data initiatives, including the global public resource of PubMed.

Use the search feature below to explore this collection, which currently numbers over 4,500 papers.

https://coverse.org.au/science/

There is also an ever-expanding body of published “science” (the word used just as loosely as in your comment) claiming that the Earth is flat and that the Moon landings never occurred.

“Quoting ‘there are none so blind’ doesn’t make your argument stronger - it’s a verbal meme. It’s all you anti-vaxxers have left.

Now… you are either implying a quote from the Book of Jeremiah (5:21):
“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not”... though I'm not sure Jezza was keen on vaccines either back in circa 600 BCE...

Or… you are (mis)quoting Jonathan Swift:
“Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired” [A Letter to a Young Gentleman, Lately Enter’d into Holy Orders, 1721].

But… dumbing it down for meme-like consumption while trying to sound steeped in grand quotes - it’s not even a quote (though I note you didn’t use quotation marks). Nevertheless, the implication is clear. Your ‘ye olde’ tone points to “There are none so blind as those who will not see” - because they’re not your words. Otherwise, you’d have simply said: “Some people won’t see the truth because they don’t want to” or “People ignore facts on purpose"...

And with that, you’ve twisted reality - accusing others of ignoring facts while building your argument on the same fallacy. It boils down to: believe me, or you’re ignoring evidence. Then you pad it out with “papers say” and dismiss disagreement as “mainstream science".

I will of course concede there are plenty of papers critical of vaccines - that’s exactly how science works: question, test, verify, repeat. But quantity isn’t proof. If it were, every fringe theory with a stack of articles would be true - and every self-appointed ‘expert’ on those anti-vax forums wouldn’t sound so consistently detached from reality (its so easy once again to bring up Stiddle's viruses don't exist arguments).

What matters is the overall weight of high-quality evidence - the benefits dwarf the risks for essentially everyone. And people like you take an infinitesimally small minority of adverse cases and inflate it into a major public health threat - which is simply wrong.

So… be careful how you drink your water - there are thousands of studies on swallowing and aspiration. The fact that even water can go down the wrong way isn’t controversial - unless, of course, it were being sold by pharmaceutical companies, in which case you and every contrarian like you would be posting on ‘anti-water’ sites instead.

Yes - that's gaslighting again if you like - but that’s the point: to highlight the ridicule I see in arguments like yours, pushed by like-minded, self-styled ‘independent thinkers’ and anti-authoritarians who relentlessly recycle this flawed, repetitive narrative as if they’re victims of some grand Big Pharma, white-coat conspiracy.

--- ---- ---

And so - that’s my measured response to this silliness. I’ll only put this level of effort into replying to you - on occasian and those are getting less because of the repetitive daftness, also because the others aren’t worth it (and yes, they can take offence if they like - I’m not concerned they're to stupid to entertain unless I'm feeling sufficiently facetious to bite and jibe). Most of them can’t present a coherent, well-structured argument - at least you can, which is why you get a proper reply when I can be bothered...

So, lately, it’s just a quick jab at the underlying flaws in basic reasoning - something many are far too thin-skinned to handle.

For most, this will be TL;DR - which suits me fine. If they (dumb arsed half-wits who'll find that specific comment objectionable because they know they are being directly referenced) can’t follow the science with intellectual balance, they’re unlikely to grasp the nuance layered into what I’ve written anyway and simply retort with an AI authorship or word salad accusation.

Enjoy the month... sip slowly.

As a general question about Covid vaccinations, is the 'push back' against ALL Covid vaccines, or just against those using mRNA technology? Going 1 step further, is the 'push-back' against ALL vaccines, such as the Polio, Smallpox, Pneumonia vaccines?

1. mRNA Vaccines (Messenger RNA): These vaccines (e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) provide instructions to cells to make a harmless piece of the "spike protein," which triggers an immune response. They are fast to develop and have high efficacy.

2. Protein Subunit Vaccines: These (e.g., Novavax) use harmless pieces (proteins) of the virus, rather than the entire germ, to stimulate immune system recognition.

3. Viral Vector Vaccines: These (e.g., Oxford-AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J) use a different, harmless, and non-replicating virus (the vector) to deliver genetic instructions to cells to produce the spike protein.

4. Inactivated Virus Vaccines: These (e.g., Sinovac) use a traditional approach, involving a version of the virus that has been inactivated or killed, rendering it unable to replicate but still capable of producing an immune response

mRNA Vaccines (Messenger RNA): These vaccines (e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) provide instructions to cells to make a harmless piece of the "spike protein," which triggers an immune response. They are fast to develop and have high efficacy.

You give yourself away when you claim the spike protein is "harmless".

Either that, or your AI was trained using the Pfizer library.

Just now, impulse said:

You give yourself away when you claim the spike protein is "harmless".

Either that, or your AI was trained using the Pfizer library.

Hmm, I simply asked ChatGPT........ But ignoring its comment, can you reply to my original question?

I feel stronger since the vaccine and my camshots have pressure.

And I can't shut up

Just now, simon43 said:

As a general question about Covid vaccinations, is the 'push back' against ALL Covid vaccines, or just against those using mRNA technology? Going 1 step further, is the 'push-back' against ALL vaccines, such as the Polio, Smallpox, Pneumonia vaccines?

1. mRNA Vaccines (Messenger RNA): These vaccines (e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) provide instructions to cells to make a harmless piece of the "spike protein," which triggers an immune response. They are fast to develop and have high efficacy.

2. Protein Subunit Vaccines: These (e.g., Novavax) use harmless pieces (proteins) of the virus, rather than the entire germ, to stimulate immune system recognition.

3. Viral Vector Vaccines: These (e.g., Oxford-AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J) use a different, harmless, and non-replicating virus (the vector) to deliver genetic instructions to cells to produce the spike protein.

4. Inactivated Virus Vaccines: These (e.g., Sinovac) use a traditional approach, involving a version of the virus that has been inactivated or killed, rendering it unable to replicate but still capable of producing an immune response

It is not just about vaccines sorts that you list , themselfs ,

it is also about all the other things they put in the shots.

You just cannot trust it anymore.

Just now, FlorC said:

It is not just about vaccines sorts that you list , themselfs ,

it is also about all the other things they put in the shots.

You just cannot trust it anymore.

Wait! does no-one want to give a relevant reply to my question?!

For example - Sinovac, which was created using 'traditional' techniques of using an inactivated virus, so that it's impossible to 'multiply' when the cell it's residing in multiplies.

Are you against Sinovac? Is it just mRNA vaccines that you/others don't like or claim post-vaccination problems with? Is it ALL vaccinations that are created by different methods (inactivated virus, genetically modified etc) that you're against?

Just trying to understand your point of view.

Here's something for all you highly 'edjoocated' to chew over.

Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Senate-PSI-Majority-Staff-Interim-Report-April-29-2026-FINAL.pdf

Just now, rattlesnake said:

What I see as silly is the persistent unwillingness

It seems your mirror is working correctly.

5 hours ago, simon43 said:

Just for fun, I posed a statistical question to ChatGPT, which then searched for data to reply to my question:

"A question about well-known antivaxers, those people who claim that the Covid vaccination caused more harm than good etc. do you know about what percentage of these claims were made by US citizens?"

Go ask ChatGPT yourself... the data shows in simple terms, that the vast majority of these nut jobs are US citizens......

So, no surprises there, at least not for me :)

The most prolific 'anti-vaxxer' posters on this sub-forum are NOT citizens of the US.

Sharing the uncomfortable truth that all vaccinations are harmful is not limited to those holding a US-passport.

With regular vaccines it's a slow process, but the madness of providing tens of those shots (with the US topping +80) to children starting from the 1st day of birth, guarantees that adverse effects will materialize sooner or later. And mind you this is for 'regular vaccines'.

With Big Pharma propoganda using the manufactured Scamdemic to claim that the mRNA covid-jabs are a novel, more efficient and innovative form of vaccine. They are NOT and these shots are way more dangerous and harmful both in the short, mid and long-term.

In a sense we should be grateful that they overplayed their poisonous hand with these Covid-jabs, as it has resulted in a steady wake-up process of people experiencing the often brutal adverse effects on themselves or their loved ones.

Edited May 2May 2 by Red Phoenix

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

9,000 proven cures is a little bit more than a claim, but you are never going to actually look into it, are you? That's the beauty of residing atop an FDA-sponsored pedestal, One Knows.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Science (not Science™) should be all over Dr. Hulscher's incredibly effective and promising treatment, instead of trying to stifle it.

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

9,000 proven cures is a little bit more than a claim, but you are never going to actually look into it, are you? That's the beauty of residing atop an FDA-sponsored pedestal, One Knows.

Its a claim along with countless others. If something comes from it great but if it disappears into the void, it will be the same as most other "treatment claims"

Turns out vaccines are good. People get sick and rarely vaccines fault. So you can focus on something else. Thanks for reading this.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It depends on how you look at it and how far you believe their strategic vision stretches. People have been, for all intents and purposes, sterilised – pregnancies have taken a massive, simultaneous dive worldwide and miscarriages are through the roof. For someone who sees overpopulation as the biggest problem, that's not a bad result.

Show some proof of your claims if you can. Make sure you use the correct verifiable statistical data too not just some numbers randomly thrown out there

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Turns out vaccines are good. People get sick and rarely vaccines fault. So you can focus on something else. Thanks for reading this.

Thanks! Your eloquent reasoning ( "Turns our vaccines are good." ) convinced me of the error of my ways to dismiss these wonderful and beneficial shots as harmful.

Edited May 2May 2 by Red Phoenix

"...that all vaccinations are harmful..."

OK, now I understand your position re vaccinations.

So let's do away with rabies vaccinations, polio vaccs, hepatitis vaccs, cervical cancer vaccs, pneumonia vaccs blah blah blah because they will all (either in the short-term or long-term) harm us in some way.

What's your position re electromagnetic radiation from 5g mobile phone masts?

Just now, simon43 said:

"...that all vaccinations are harmful..."

OK, now I understand your position re vaccinations.

So let's do away with rabies vaccinations, polio vaccs, hepatitis vaccs, cervical cancer vaccs, pneumonia vaccs blah blah blah because they will all (either in the short-term or long-term) harm us in some way.

What's your position re electromagnetic radiation from 5g mobile phone masts?

Also 5G generated electromagnetic radiation is proven as harmful. And also on that subject a powerful industry lobby is pushing to pollute even further the already toxic environment that we are living in.

Just now, Red Phoenix said:

Also 5G generated electromagnetic radiation is proven as harmful. And also on that subject a powerful industry lobby is pushing to pollute even further the already toxic environment that we are living in.

Whilst my medical knowledge of vaccines is certainly less than a doctor who specialises in this sector, my knowledge of electromagnetic radiation is second to none, holding an MSc from London University in this sector, plus a first Class Honours degree, and having more than 40 years of professional design and hands-on experience in the EM radiation sector. Non-ionising EM radiation is only harmful when the power levels can cause heating of cytoplasm in cells through absorption of that EM radiation, and that requires substantial RF energy, such as generated by a microwave oven - which is why it's not advisable to put your pet cat in that oven......

Anyway, 5g mobile phone mast radiation is another 'tinfoil hat' topic, and that's off-topic to the tinfoil hat topic of this thread :)

Edited May 2May 2 by simon43

Just now, simon43 said:

Wait! does no-one want to give a relevant reply to my question?!

For example - Sinovac, which was created using 'traditional' techniques of using an inactivated virus, so that it's impossible to 'multiply' when the cell it's residing in multiplies.

Are you against Sinovac? Is it just mRNA vaccines that you/others don't like or claim post-vaccination problems with? Is it ALL vaccinations that are created by different methods (inactivated virus, genetically modified etc) that you're against?

Just trying to understand your point of view.

It is a relevant reply.

The covid shot lit the fuse to distrust other vaccines too.

I would not trust Sinovac not just because it came from China,

but like I said any shot (conventional or mrna) has additives which cannot be trusted.

Big pharma cannot be trusted.

Just now, simon43 said:

"...that all vaccinations are harmful..."

OK, now I understand your position re vaccinations.

So let's do away with rabies vaccinations, polio vaccs, hepatitis vaccs, cervical cancer vaccs, pneumonia vaccs blah blah blah because they will all (either in the short-term or long-term) harm us in some way.

What's your position re electromagnetic radiation from 5g mobile phone masts?

Way stop at 5g ?

4g 3g wifi bluetooth , dect and others are all more or less harmfull.

At least some you don't hold next to your ear/head like phones

Just now, FlorC said:

Way stop at 5g ?

4g 3g wifi bluetooth , dect and others are all more or less harmfull.

At least some you don't hold next to your ear/head like phones

(Shakes head in amazement at the ignorance of some and goes off to 'play' with his ham radio transmitter...) :)

5 hours ago, simon43 said:

As a general question about Covid vaccinations, is the 'push back' against ALL Covid vaccines, or just against those using mRNA technology? Going 1 step further, is the 'push-back' against ALL vaccines, such as the Polio, Smallpox, Pneumonia vaccines?

1. mRNA Vaccines (Messenger RNA): These vaccines (e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) provide instructions to cells to make a harmless piece of the "spike protein," which triggers an immune response. They are fast to develop and have high efficacy.

2. Protein Subunit Vaccines: These (e.g., Novavax) use harmless pieces (proteins) of the virus, rather than the entire germ, to stimulate immune system recognition.

3. Viral Vector Vaccines: These (e.g., Oxford-AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J) use a different, harmless, and non-replicating virus (the vector) to deliver genetic instructions to cells to produce the spike protein.

4. Inactivated Virus Vaccines: These (e.g., Sinovac) use a traditional approach, involving a version of the virus that has been inactivated or killed, rendering it unable to replicate but still capable of producing an immune response

Where did you copy that from? Absolute nonsense. On all counts.

They do not Instruct anything. They do not use pieces of any virus.

The gullible sheep - still in the majority unfortunately - are being lied to. You Sir, if you are indeed one, and the other sheep, are being asked to put toxic filth into yer body to stop, or lessen the effects of. something that don't exist.

The $$$ white-coats are dripping tears of laughter into their wine. 'Safe n effective'. Where have i heard that before?

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

Where did you copy that from? Absolute nonsense. On all counts.

They do not Instruct anything. They do not use pieces of any virus.

The gullible sheep - still in the majority unfortunately - are being lied to. You Sir, if you are indeed one, and the other sheep, are being asked to put toxic filth into yer body to stop, or lessen the effects of. something that don't exist.

The $$$ white-coats are dripping tears of laughter into their wine. 'Safe n effective'. Where have i heard that before?

Ah, I welcome your comment to lighten up the proceedings :) I recall that you are basically a 'loony'...... so out of sympathy for your mental condition, I'll refrain from commenting further........ :)

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

What matters is whether the benefits outweigh those risks, and the evidence shows that vaccines (and Covid vaccines - at the time) reduced severe illness, transmission and death for the vast majority of people (anti-vaxxers will ask for then argue those facts) - you, and those arguing along side you fail to recognise that very simple facet - balance of risk compared to every day life - crossing a road, driving, drinking wine.

All we wanted initially was the right not to take it. The pressure and two-tier treatment, through which the unvaccinated became second-class citizens with everything it entails, was the initial impetus which set the whole antivax movement in motion and still, to this day, fuels the resentment we feel (and very rightly so because it was very tough and unfair). Was it wrong to mandate it and persecute those who didn't want it? Was Michael Gunner right or wrong to say "If you are anti-mandate, you are an antivaxxer"?

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The point of course isn’t that water is dangerous - it’s that risk exists in everyday life. What matters is whether the benefits outweigh those risks, and the evidence shows that vaccines (and Covid vaccines - at the time) reduced severe illness, transmission and death for the vast majority of people (anti-vaxxers will ask for then argue those facts) - you, and those arguing along side you fail to recognise that very simple facet - balance of risk compared to every day life - crossing a road, driving, drinking wine.

So.. what I see is the silly persistent unwillinness to acknowledge those facts ( or even entertain that idea) because you are so locked into anti-vax bias.

The comparison with driving or drinking water is a false equivalence, as vaccines are mandatory. Make them optional and watch the antivax sentiment become much more mellow. If I were living in France, I would have social services on my back for not vaccinating my son, that is the gist of the issue.

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Because its intellectually dishonest - your implication's are that vaccines do nothing and more people are harmed by them than any good they do - thats always been your underlying sentiment in these threads - recognise that - I'd go as far and see such opinions as being dangerous from the wider public health perspective.

I recognise it.

Now we can discuss how I was intially a pro-vaxxer who took all the recommended boosters before moving to Thailand in 2009 and subjected his son to the whole schedule a few years after that. At the time, I didn't know anything about vaccines, zilch – I just subscribed to the idea that they were a benefit to mankind, without even considering challenging it. Nowadays, I am much more knowledgeable on the topic, I know what the ingredients are, I know what effects they can have on a baby's (and an adult's) body (not through memes but articles and studies, of which there are hundreds) and I know just how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is. My transition from pro-vax to anti-vax was concomitant with a transition from ignorance to knowledge – that's all.

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

“Quoting ‘there are none so blind’ doesn’t make your argument stronger - it’s a verbal meme. It’s all you anti-vaxxers have left.

Now… you are either implying a quote from the Book of Jeremiah (5:21):
“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not”... though I'm not sure Jezza was keen on vaccines either back in circa 600 BCE...

Or… you are (mis)quoting Jonathan Swift:
“Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired” [A Letter to a Young Gentleman, Lately Enter’d into Holy Orders, 1721].

But… dumbing it down for meme-like consumption while trying to sound steeped in grand quotes - it’s not even a quote (though I note you didn’t use quotation marks). Nevertheless, the implication is clear. Your ‘ye olde’ tone points to “There are none so blind as those who will not see” - because they’re not your words. Otherwise, you’d have simply said: “Some people won’t see the truth because they don’t want to” or “People ignore facts on purpose"...

It's a common proverb, like "the early bird catches the worm" or "don't put all your eggs in one basket" – I wasn't trying to quote anyone and wasn't even aware of any such quotes, although the Bible one does ring a bell now you mention it.

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

And so - that’s my measured response to this silliness. I’ll only put this level of effort into replying to you - on occasian and those are getting less because of the repetitive daftness, also because the others aren’t worth it (and yes, they can take offence if they like - I’m not concerned they're to stupid to entertain unless I'm feeling sufficiently facetious to bite and jibe). Most of them can’t present a coherent, well-structured argument - at least you can, which is why you get a proper reply when I can be bothered...

I appreciate the effort.

---

Conclusion:

As I see it, the fundamental question is, can we have a conversation, or are we going to remain locked in our fixed standoffs where nobody is willing to concede an inch?

I am willing to tone down the rhetoric a little and entertain the idea that all vaccines are not necessarily bad. After all, I received a bunch myself, both as a kid and as an adult, and didn't grow a third arm. And people I respect, such as Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the world's top virologists, are pro-vaccine – I can only assume he has valid reasons to hold his stance as an expert. He is, however, very critical of the Covid vaccine as it isn't the same thing. The same can be said of Peter McCullough.

(Of course, entertaining an idea does not oblige one to ultimately subscribe to it.)

Now, if I were to repost the peer-reviewed study which shows that the Spike protein is still present in the body after one year, would you be willing to look at this data at face value and discuss the potential implications of such a finding? In a serene setting, of course, where one doesn't feel that conceding a point will be disingenuously used by the opposing party to push simplified talking points.

Edited May 3May 3 by rattlesnake

In hindsight, once could certainly argue that many mistakes were made by authorities in different countries. With Covid, Sweden adopted the 'herd immunity' model, where no vaccine was given and the virus spread fast amongst the general population, with the 'weaker' succumbing and the vast majority gaining immunity. But most other countries went down the vaccine route, and that generally only works if ALL the population are vaccinated - so those who refuse to have the vaccine are increasing the risk of the virus spreading.

Also, was any vaccine actually needed? Possibly, the urge to vaccinate was out of a fear that this virus, - widely thought to have been manufactured in China as essentially a weapon against the West, and authorities had a knee-jerk reaction, fearing a virus that might totally wipe out civilisation (well, Western civilisation anyway...)

Finally, there should be thought as to the type of vaccine that was used. China went down the traditional route of using a deactivated virus, usually considered as the safest way to create a vaccine. Their Sinovac vaccine worked, but not as well as synthetic vaccines, which mimic the 'appearance' of the real virus to our immune system, even though there is no part of the actual virus (deactivated or not) in that synthetic vaccine.

IMHO, synthetic vaccines (mRNA etc) should not have been used so rapidly, but I guess the kneejerk reaction was so strong in some countries, that this caution was overridden.

IMHO, either herd immunity or traditional, deactivated virus vaccines would have been the better route to follow, but it's easy to say this after the event.

I had the 2-part Astro-Zeneca vaccine in Laos, then a Moderna booster in Turkey some time later, and then a Pfizer booster in Thailand many months later, (because I have a chronic lung disease, so did not want to risk a bad case of Covid-19!). No side effects and I remain reasonably healthy to this day.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

The comparison with driving or drinking water is a false equivalence, as vaccines are mandatory.

In your universe is it not mandatory to drink water? The only difference is that it's Nature's rule not a human's rule.

On 5/1/2026 at 10:52 AM, FlorC said:

Fauci & Gates and their gang must be very diappointed too.

Absolutely.

Fauch, Gates of Hell, Boris Johnson, Just in true dough, Jacinda, Andrews... and lest we forget Matt Hancock, seen here in a dubious acting performance as he tearfully announces William Shakespeare gets the first jibby jab in Britain.

Yes. William Shakespeare. What are the chances.

Duper's delight indeed!

https://youtu.be/oKyzFSxfA6I?si=DsWs3xQrTuTBGWar

Edited May 3May 3 by Woke to Sounds

On 4/30/2026 at 8:50 AM, Red Phoenix said:

Have you had your hearing checked lately? As we get older it's difficult to separate signal from noise. It sounds like a lot of noise is coming from your neighborhood.

On 4/30/2026 at 8:50 AM, Red Phoenix said:

As Brian Cox would say. BollocX

Edited May 3May 3 by VocalNeal
spelling