10 minutes ago, Dan O said:

People initial were dying at a extremely high rate and what were considered as normal medical treatments were ineffective often accelerating the impact.

Rubbish the IFR was always very low and they knew that from very early on.

morphine and remdesivir sent many to the afterlife not the 'virus'

1 hour ago, johng said:

Rubbish the IFR was always very low and they knew that from very early on.

morphine and remdesivir sent many to the afterlife not the 'virus'

You apparently have perception bias or ignorance on the actual timeline and facts. Do some research before you post bs

22 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You misunderstood the point. Let me be precise.

"I'm middle-aged and healthy and wouldn't have died of Covid" is not a medical assessment. It's a feeling dressed up as a conclusion. You cannot argue from an unknown. You have no idea what Covid would have done to you specifically, because you never caught the first wave, and your immune system never got the memo about your fitness.

I'm fit and healthy too. I'd like to believe I'd have sailed through it. But "I'd like to believe" is not epidemiology. It's optimism. And optimism has never once overruled a cytokine storm.

What you're describing is the Dunning-Kruger of medical self-assessment. The same cognitive glitch that causes the overwhelming majority of men to genuinely believe they could land a passenger jet in an emergency. No training, no experience, no actual data - just absolute unshakeable confidence in a completely untested assumption about their own capabilities.

You don't know you would have survived. I don't know I would have survived. Nobody who didn't catch the first wave knows. That's not a minor caveat - that's the entire argument. Certainty about a hypothetical you never lived through isn't knowledge. It's just confidence wearing knowledge's clothes.

And confidence, as Covid demonstrated repeatedly and without sentiment, couldn't care less.

Influenza doesn't care. Measles didn't care when it was tearing through populations at a scale that would be considered a civilisational catastrophe today. Polio didn't care how fit you were before it quietly introduced itself to your nervous system and made permanent, life-altering decisions on your behalf. Smallpox, which we eradicated so completely that entire generations have grown up never once having to think about it, was completely unmoved by confidence, fitness, or optimistic self-assessment.

These diseases all share one characteristic. They do not negotiate. They do not review your lifestyle choices before deciding how hard to hit you. They find a host, they replicate, and they leave the consequences entirely to chance.

The difference with most of them is that we developed vaccines. And then watched, in real time, infection rates collapse, death tolls crater, and diseases that had shaped and shortened human lives for millennia get quietly, efficiently, and almost undramatically removed from the list of things capable of killing your children.

That's not pharmaceutical propaganda. That's just what happened. Historically, verifiably, on a global scale.

Nature has the answers ?? Yep - it did for hundreds of thousands of years. The answers were graveyards.

The above demonstration would only be valid if the initial, universally disseminated narrative – that we were dealing with a plague which was killing people as quickly and efficiently as a bulldozer charging through an ant farm, and that the vaccine was the solution which brought this onslaught to a screeching halt – were true.

You omit to mention the scandal of the financial incentives paid to hospitals to label deaths as caused by Covid when they in fact blatantly weren't ("died from Covid" vs. "died with Covid" fallacy), the scandal of the remdesivir/ventilator protocols which precipitated people's deaths throughout the world when they could have been avoided, the scandal of the initial lie that the virus stopped with each vaccinated person, the scandal of the threats weaponised towards medical personnel who voiced any concern about mRNA, and the scandal of the underreported and downplayed vaccine adverse events.

Take the above elements into consideration and the overall picture changes significantly.

As for Dunning-Kruger: I don't think I could land a passenger jet… but I know I was right not to take the vax.

And as for what Covid would have done to me: indeed I can't know as I never caught it, but I know several people who did (which is why I don't subscribe to the "Covid doesn't exist" claim) and I am pretty sure it would have been rough but not anywhere near fatal.

My dad and brother both caught it in December 2024 when they were spending Xmas together. My dad (in his 70s and triple-vaccinated, AZ x 2 and Pfizer x 1) had a very rough time and was bedridden for weeks, losing a lot of weight and suffering internal damage because of the violence of his coughing. My brother, in his 30s and unvaccinated, was bedridden for three days, then felt off for another couple of weeks but was still able to work. He said it took another month to completely shake off the occasional coughing, and that it was basically a "flu on steroids".

The above anecdote just goes to show the limits of the "vaccinated are okay / unvaccinated cause the hospitals to overflow" mantra.

4 hours ago, Dan O said:

You apparently have perception bias or ignorance on the actual timeline and facts. Do some research before you post bs

What's your take on this?

6 hours ago, Dan O said:

The only position you've made accurately is that you have every right to decide your own fate in seeking or avoiding treatments but your decisions were applicable only for you.

And it is the position that matters the most. Trying to force me to subject myself to a medical procedure against my will was wrong.

6 hours ago, Dan O said:

As a counterpoint to your pressumption, i lost healthy family members that were middle aged and without underlying condition to covid in the first 9 months of the outbreak so your argument doesnt hold up across the spectrum

I am sorry to hear that. It must have been terrible.

However, just as I am repeatedly told that there could be a number of reasons why people could develop health issues immediately after their Covid jab, there could be a number of reasons for the unfortunate demise of your loved ones during that period.

Ultimately, I am a body sovereignty absolutist. If people want to take a vaccine, by all means they should and I would never try to tell them what to do or not with their bodies. And the same principle applies to me and my decision not to take a vaccine. This is what it comes down to and it is a fundamental philosophical issue, governed by the Nuremberg Code which is the bedrock of modern medical ethics.

9 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Relevant.... to some... but not very faithful to the truth.

In response to my query "Senator Ron Johnson accuracy" AI says:

1. COVID-19 Misinformation: Johnson has been accused of promoting unproven treatments and spreading misinformation about vaccine safety. For example, he claimed, without evidence, that athletes were "dropping dead" due to COVID-19 vaccines.

2. 2020 Election Claims: Despite initial acknowledgments of Wisconsin’s election results, he later pursued "fake elector" schemes and alleged voter fraud in Milwaukee, which investigations have not substantiated.

3. January 6th and Political Violence: He has frequently downplayed the severity of the January 6th attack, questioning whether it was truly an "armed insurrection".

4. Russian Disinformation: Some of his investigations, particularly regarding Ukraine, were found to have relied on material identified by U.S. intelligence officials as Russian disinformation.

5. Specific Legislative Accuracy: A recent analysis of his Shutdown Fairness Act noted that while his description of the bill's function (ensuring pay for essential federal workers during a shutdown) is accurate, his arguments against Democrats regarding its obstacles were considered misleading.

In other words..... he got Trumpified.

I typed this in an AI interface:

"Someone said this about Ron Johnson. What can be retorted in defence of Johnson's positions?"

Then I posted your above post. Here was the response:

1. COVID-19 and Vaccine Safety

Defenders argue that Johnson is not "anti-vaccine" but "pro-transparency" and an advocate for informed consent.

• Giving a Voice to the "Injured": Johnson maintains he is providing a platform for individuals whose vaccine side effects have been ignored by federal health agencies. He views this as a necessary form of oversight into what he calls "captured" scientific research.

• Use of Official Data: His claims often cite the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). While critics note VAERS data doesn't prove causation, Johnson argues that the sheer volume of reports warrants more rigorous government investigation than it has received.

2. 2020 Election and "Fake Electors"

Johnson has defended his actions as a pursuit of legal clarity rather than an attempt to subvert democracy.

• Preserving Legal Options: He has characterized the "alternate slates of electors" as a standard legal precaution to ensure court cases weren't rendered "moot" before they could be heard.

• Questioning Irregularities: He asserts that "irregularities" in Wisconsin’s election administration—such as changes to ballot drop-box rules—created a lack of public trust that required a full investigatory audit.

3. January 6th Characterization

Johnson disputes the term "armed insurrection" based on his interpretation of the evidence from that day.

• Definition of "Armed": He frequently cites FBI testimony that no firearms were confiscated at the Capitol on January 6th as proof that the event did not meet the traditional definition of an "armed" uprising.

• Focus on Agitators: He argues that the vast majority of attendees were peaceful and that the violence was limited to a small group of "agitators," rather than the entire movement.

4. Ukraine Investigations and "Russian Disinformation"

Johnson maintains that his investigations into Ukraine were fact-based and that accusations of "disinformation" are political "smear tactics."

• Rejection of Intelligence Briefings: He has dismissed FBI warnings that he was a target of Russian disinformation as a partisan "ploy" designed to discredit his findings before they could be published.

• Defense of Findings: He asserts that his reports relied on official U.S. records and that the American public has a right to see the information regardless of its geopolitical implications.

5. Legislative Record

Johnson’s supporters view his legislative arguments as a defense of fiscal responsibility and fair governance.

• Shutdown Fairness Act: While his rhetoric is criticized, his proponents argue his primary goal was simply to ensure that essential federal workers—who are legally required to work during a shutdown—receive their pay immediately.

18 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Ah... yes.... anecdotes... the best evidence in the possession of the deniers. It has the same weight and respect that hearsay has in a court.

Kinda like saying "I had three vaccines and am still doing fine"… Anecdotal evidence, with all its limitations, is often not completely irrelevant.

28 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Kinda like saying "I had three vaccines and am still doing fine"… Anecdotal evidence, with all its limitations, is often not completely irrelevant.

There is no evidence to the contrary.

59 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What's your take on this?

Thats overly simplistic.

9 hours ago, Dan O said:

You apparently have perception bias or ignorance on the actual timeline and facts. Do some research before you post bs

It's you who need to do some research,you also seem to have a short or bad memory of what actually happened during the Covidiocy.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The above demonstration would only be valid if the initial, universally disseminated narrative – that we were dealing with a plague which was killing people as quickly and efficiently as a bulldozer charging through an ant farm, and that the vaccine was the solution which brought this onslaught to a screeching halt – were true.

You omit to mention the scandal of the financial incentives paid to hospitals to label deaths as caused by Covid when they in fact blatantly weren't ("died from Covid" vs. "died with Covid" fallacy), the scandal of the remdesivir/ventilator protocols which precipitated people's deaths throughout the world when they could have been avoided, the scandal of the initial lie that the virus stopped with each vaccinated person, the scandal of the threats weaponised towards medical personnel who voiced any concern about mRNA, and the scandal of the underreported and downplayed vaccine adverse events.

Take the above elements into consideration and the overall picture changes significantly.

A reasonable challenge, and some of it deserves genuine engagement rather than dismissal. But let's be precise about what's solid and what's doing far more work than it should.

The "died from vs died with Covid" distinction is legitimate and was genuinely debated by serious epidemiologists throughout the pandemic - I quipped at the time, "eaten by an alligator and died with Covid" ... But it doesn't come close to explaining 67,000 excess deaths in 2020 alone. Excess deaths aren't counted by diagnosis. They're counted by comparing total deaths against the historical baseline. No coding, no labelling, no financial incentive changes that number. Bodies are bodies. The excess was real.

Remdesivir and ventilator protocols being potentially harmful - were / are also a legitimate concern raised by serious clinicians, not just conspiracy forums. Absolutely worthy of scrutiny. Absolutely. But again, excess mortality predates widespread remdesivir use and persisted across countries with entirely different treatment protocols. It can't carry the full explanatory weight being asked of it here.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

As for Dunning-Kruger: I don't think I could land a passenger jet… but I know I was right not to take the vax.

You can't possibly know that - That's still the 'passenger jet fallacy' wearing a different coat. You didn't catch Covid. You don't know what would have happened. Feeling certain about an untested hypothesis isn't knowledge.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

And as for what Covid would have done to me: indeed I can't know as I never caught it, but I know several people who did (which is why I don't subscribe to the "Covid doesn't exist" claim) and I am pretty sure it would have been rough but not anywhere near fatal.

I do conceed that "vaccine stops transmission" narrative was oversold. Genuinely. That was a communication failure of the first order and the walkback was handled appallingly.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

My dad and brother both caught it in December 2024 when they were spending Xmas together. My dad (in his 70s and triple-vaccinated, AZ x 2 and Pfizer x 1) had a very rough time and was bedridden for weeks, losing a lot of weight and suffering internal damage because of the violence of his coughing. My brother, in his 30s and unvaccinated, was bedridden for three days, then felt off for another couple of weeks but was still able to work. He said it took another month to completely shake off the occasional coughing, and that it was basically a "flu on steroids".

The above anecdote just goes to show the limits of the "vaccinated are okay / unvaccinated cause the hospitals to overflow" mantra.

Now your anecdote. Your dad, triple vaccinated, in his 70s, had a brutal time. Your brother, unvaccinated, thirties, recovered in days. You're presenting this as evidence against vaccination.

But your dad is in his 70s. Your brother is in his 30s. That's not a vaccine comparison. That's an age comparison with a vaccine variable inserted. The most rigorous clinical trial on earth couldn't untangle those two variables from a sample size of two people at Christmas dinner.

"Flu on steroids" for a healthy thirty year old is actually precisely what the vaccination argument predicts. The concern was never primarily fit young men. It was always the elderly, the vulnerable, the immunocompromised.

Your dad's rough experience at seventy-something, despite vaccination, doesn't undermine that. It rather confirms that vaccines reduce risk, not eliminate it, in the exact population where risk is highest - your father may well have contracted Covid via an unvaccinated person. Equally so, the very vaccine you argue against may well have saved his life, any may very well have made your brothers experience less severe - ultimately an unknown.

The only argument there is IF you believe there is if your fathers condition would have been identical had he taken the vaccine - i.e the if you believe the vaccine was 100% ineffective.

I'm not so sure as you are on this - I'd take a vaccine as unlike others I do not believe the risk outweighs the benefit - and I do the same for influenza (seasonally) to prevent getting crusted up over an important holiday period.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Ultimately, I am a body sovereignty absolutist. If people want to take a vaccine, by all means they should and I would never try to tell them what to do or not with their bodies. And the same principle applies to me and my decision not to take a vaccine. This is what it comes down to and it is a fundamental philosophical issue, governed by the Nuremberg Code which is the bedrock of modern medical ethics.

This is an underlying point of contest - agreeable from one context, but not from another:

Body sovereignty is most definitely principle worth defending and nobody serious is arguing otherwise in context. Your body, your choice, full stop. But, that's not the debate here.

The Nuremberg Code is doing enormous heavy lifting here and it's worth being precise about what it actually says and what it doesn't.

The Nuremberg Code was written in 1947 in direct response to Nazi physicians conducting forced medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners without consent. People who were imprisoned, with no ability to refuse, subjected to procedures designed not to help them but to generate data for the state. That is the specific horror the Code was written to prevent.

Applying it to a government recommending a voluntary vaccine that you, by your own account, simply chose not to take, is a comparison so stretched it's practically translucent. You weren't imprisoned. You weren't experimented on. You declined and went home. You may have lost work. You may have been refused travel. But the Code worked exactly as intended - you still had a choice over what went into your body - albeit somewhat of a Hobsons choice.

The deeper issue with body sovereignty absolutism isn't the principle itself. It's the word absolutist. Because infectious disease is the one area of medicine where your body and my body are not entirely separate sovereign territories. A virus doesn't respect philosophical frameworks. It moves between bodies. Which means decisions made about your body have a non-zero effect on what enters mine.

We already accept this implicitly everywhere else. You cannot drive drunk because your sovereign decision affects other bodies. You cannot smoke indoors because your sovereign choice enters other people's lungs uninvited.

Body sovereignty is a genuinely important principle. But it has always, in every functioning society, had limits precisely where one person's body becomes a vector affecting another's.

I don't think thats authoritarianism. That's just what living near other humans has always meant.

As many pointed out at the time - The deal was always simple. Opt out of the vaccine entirely if that's your philosophical position. Own it completely. But then own the full consequences of that position too, which includes not circulating freely through hospitals, care homes, crowded public spaces and immunocompromised people's lives while potentially carrying something that could kill them, on the grounds that your personal sovereignty trumps their right not to be infected.

You cannot claim absolute sovereignty over what goes into your body and simultaneously claim absolute access to other people's bodies, spaces and vulnerable relatives. Those two absolutes are mutually exclusive and always were.

Liberty ends, as it always has, precisely where it begins damaging someone else's. That's not a pandemic invention. That's the foundational principle of every functioning society that has ever existed.

Body sovereignty absolutism is a coherent position. But absolutism of any kind tends to collapse the moment it encounters another person. And other people, unfortunately, are everywhere.

Stiddle here, trying to educate you medical industry sheep.

There was no such thing as COVID.

It you insist that taking vaccines is good for you, them I cannot help you. But I beseech you, keep the toxic filth away from preggers women, babes, toddlers and kids,

Thank you.

42 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Stiddle here, trying to educate you medical industry sheep.

There was no such thing as COVID.

It you insist that taking vaccines is good for you, them I cannot help you. But I beseech you, keep the toxic filth away from preggers women, babes, toddlers and kids,

Thank you.

Take that up with @rattlesnake - you are accusing him of being a 'medical industry sheep' - he has clearly stated that both his brother and father suffered from Covid.

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Stiddle here, trying to educate you medical industry sheep.

There was no such thing as COVID.

It you insist that taking vaccines is good for you, them I cannot help you. But I beseech you, keep the toxic filth away from preggers women, babes, toddlers and kids,

Thank you.

Take that up with @rattlesnake - you are accusing him of being a 'medical industry sheep' - he has clearly stated that both his brother and father suffered from Covid.

Indeed, both my father and brother caught the same ailment, which was nothing like they had ever suffered before and the symptoms of which broadly matched those associated with Covid in the general media.

As I am an open-minded person, I am fine with entertaining alternative explanations, as long as they make sense. I recall Stiddle saying that the symptoms associated with the flu are in fact a body cleansing mechanism (correct me if I am wrong, Stiddle). Fair enough, but that mechanism has to be triggered by something, and that something has to occur in the same place and at the same time as multiple people simultaneously affected… I have an example of my son being hospitalised with the flu when he was a little boy, and he passed it on to me that night – I then tested for the flu at the hospital and it came back negative. The doctor said my immune system was fighting it and not letting it infect me, that I would feel terrible for a day and then I would get better… and that is exactly what happened.

Now, the above explanation (the nefarious 'flu virus' attacking the body and the 'immune system' army bravely drawing their swords to defend the fortress from the invader's onslaught) is coherent under the viral paradigm. What is the alternative explanation? Terrain, I assume? In any case, something was passed on to my son and then to me, it might not have been a virus but it was definitely something, I guess we could call it a 'pathogen', perhaps…

So Stiddle, if you have the time and inclination to, please briefly refresh my memory regarding what, in your view, happened to my dad and brother when they were floored by this ailment which was labelled 'Covid' at the time.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I guess we could call it a 'pathogen', perhaps…

So... if Viruses do on exist (Stiddle) it must be another form of pathogen...

So what type of Pathogen ? or is Stiddle going to excuse Covid away with a sudden global onset of 'the body being tired' because we didn't bathe in nettles and drink dandylion tea ?

Bacteria ?

Single-celled organisms that cause diseases like tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis), strep throat (Streptococcus pyogenes), salmonella, cholera, and Lyme disease. They can be treated with antibiotics.

Fungi ?

Can cause surface infections (athlete's foot, ringworm) or serious systemic infections in immunocompromised people, like Candida, Aspergillus, and Cryptococcus. Treated with antifungals.

Parasites ?

Two main subtypes:

• Protozoa (single-celled): Plasmodium (malaria), Toxoplasma, Giardia, Leishmania, Trypanosoma (sleeping sickness)

• Helminths (worms): tapeworms, roundworms, hookworms, schistosomes

Prions ?

Misfolded proteins that cause fatal brain diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and fatal familial insomnia. No treatment exists. They're not living organisms but are still classified as pathogens.

Ectoparasites ? (that somehow got inside instread ?)

Live on the skin rather than inside the body. Examples: scabies mites, lice, ticks (which can also transmit other pathogens).

Viruses ?

Tiny particles that hijack host cells to replicate. Examples include influenza, HIV, herpes, hepatitis B/C, Ebola, and the common cold (rhinovirus).

Nah - no such thing as viruses... Stiddle is right, science, medicine, the worlds Dr's are wrong - as for Virologists, well, they've got to make something up or they'd be out of a job - the longest running scam in medical history.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So... if Viruses do on exist (Stiddle) it must be another form of pathogen...

So what type of Pathogen ? or is Stiddle going to excuse Covid away with a sudden global onset of 'the body being tired' because we didn't bathe in nettles and drink dandylion tea ?

Bacteria ?

Single-celled organisms that cause diseases like tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis), strep throat (Streptococcus pyogenes), salmonella, cholera, and Lyme disease. They can be treated with antibiotics.

Fungi ?

Can cause surface infections (athlete's foot, ringworm) or serious systemic infections in immunocompromised people, like Candida, Aspergillus, and Cryptococcus. Treated with antifungals.

Parasites ?

Two main subtypes:

• Protozoa (single-celled): Plasmodium (malaria), Toxoplasma, Giardia, Leishmania, Trypanosoma (sleeping sickness)

• Helminths (worms): tapeworms, roundworms, hookworms, schistosomes

Prions ?

Misfolded proteins that cause fatal brain diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and fatal familial insomnia. No treatment exists. They're not living organisms but are still classified as pathogens.

Ectoparasites ? (that somehow got inside instread ?)

Live on the skin rather than inside the body. Examples: scabies mites, lice, ticks (which can also transmit other pathogens).

Viruses ?

Tiny particles that hijack host cells to replicate. Examples include influenza, HIV, herpes, hepatitis B/C, Ebola, and the common cold (rhinovirus).

Nah - no such thing as viruses... Stiddle is right, science, medicine, the worlds Dr's are wrong - as for Virologists, well, they've got to make something up or they'd be out of a job - the longest running scam in medical history.

As I said, I am open to entertaining any explanation as long as it makes sense. I'll have to check out what Mike Yeadon has to say on it, as he recently shifted to the 'there are no such things as viruses' side of the debate.

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

As I said, I am open to entertaining any explanation as long as it makes sense. I'll have to check out what Mike Yeadon has to say on it, as he recently shifted to the 'there are no such things as viruses' side of the debate.

Well, ironically, he could be suffering from Naegleria fowleri - an actual brain-eating amoeba - but since that's a protozoan and not a virus, he'd probably accept that diagnosis. Or maybe it's Toxoplasma gondii quietly rewiring his decision-making from the inside, which would at least explain the ideological pivot.

.... If we're going full conspiracy, a prion slowly misfolding his prefrontal cortex would be possible - no virus required, just his own proteins turning against him..

... And if none of those pan out, there's always good old Cryptococcus setting up a nice little fungal colony where knowedge base and critical thinking used to live.

The great irony there is, that whatever has eaten his brain, almost certainly isn't a virus - so he can rest easy on that one...

Or maybe he's just taking the pish, the same way I naively assumed Stiddle was for a long time - thinking no one could genuinely be that breathtakingly, weapons-grade, industrial-scale nuts. Turned out the bottom of that particular barrel goes a lot deeper than any sane person would care to imagine.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Well, ironically, he could be suffering from Naegleria fowleri - an actual brain-eating amoeba - but since that's a protozoan and not a virus, he'd probably accept that diagnosis. Or maybe it's Toxoplasma gondii quietly rewiring his decision-making from the inside, which would at least explain the ideological pivot.

.... If we're going full conspiracy, a prion slowly misfolding his prefrontal cortex would be possible - no virus required, just his own proteins turning against him..

... And if none of those pan out, there's always good old Cryptococcus setting up a nice little fungal colony where knowedge base and critical thinking used to live.

The great irony there is, that whatever has eaten his brain, almost certainly isn't a virus - so he can rest easy on that one...

Or maybe he's just taking the pish, the same way I naively assumed Stiddle was for a long time - thinking no one could genuinely be that breathtakingly, weapons-grade, industrial-scale nuts. Turned out the bottom of that particular barrel goes a lot deeper than any sane person would care to imagine.

We nutcases come in all shapes and sizes… ☺️

Will check out what Yeadon has to say (gamb00ler would call it 'dredging') and report anything of note.

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

We nutcases come in all shapes and sizes… ☺️

Will check out what Yeadon has to say (gamb00ler would call it 'dredging') and report anything of note.

Yeadon has now said it plainly and repeatedly - not "no novel viruses" or "no coronaviruses" but no viruses exist full stop.

A stiddle Mump level exclamation... A man who spent over 30 years developing drugs built entirely on the premise that pathogens exist and interact with the body in predictable ways is now saying there's no scientific evidence any virus has ever existed.

Which leaves only two possibilities: either his entire career was built on a lie he was part of, or something has gone seriously wrong with his thinking along the way (he might even be Stiddle Mump !).

And... the The "no virus" camp does raise some legitimate methodological questions, specifically around:

- Whether virology's isolation techniques actually prove what they claim to prove.

- Whether cytopathic effects in cell cultures are actually caused by a virus or by the toxic conditions of the culture itself.

- Whether genomic sequencing actually proves a discrete entity exists.

I don't believe these are entirely stupid questions - thats the basis of science, to ask questions and some credible dissidents have poked at the methodology.

But here's where it falls apart for Yeadon and 'viruses don't exists' crowd specifically:

The burden of proof problem. He's now saying "no scientific evidence for the existence of any virus has ever been found and published" and challenging anyone to falsify that. That's not how science works. You don't get to flip the burden of proof and demand others disprove your negative claim.

The electron microscopy problem. Viruses have been directly photographed. HIV, influenza, SARS-CoV-2 - imaged repeatedly, independently, across dozens of countries and institutions.

That's not a methodology argument, that's just... direct observation.

The coordination problem. For "no viruses" to be true, you'd need every virology lab on earth, across hostile competing nations, to be either all wrong or all lying simultaneously.

So, it could be argued that new evidence is possible in theory. But what he's actually presenting isn't new evidence. It's a reinterpretation of existing methodology gaps, dressed up as a conclusion.

There's a difference between "the evidence isn't as solid as we thought" and "none of it exists." He's jumped straight to the latter - just like Stiddle.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

As for Dunning-Kruger: I don't think I could land a passenger jet… but I know I was right not to take the vax.

You can't possibly know that - That's still the 'passenger jet fallacy' wearing a different coat. You didn't catch Covid. You don't know what would have happened. Feeling certain about an untested hypothesis isn't knowledge.

I didn't say I knew what would have happened if I had caught Covid, I said I knew I was right not to take the vaccine: I believe I made the right call and no subsequent events have contradicted me so far. You are implying that taking the vaccine would have automatically produced a more favourable outcome for me. I beg to differ, I would have exposed myself to unnecessary risks. I have seen enough vaccinated people catch Covid and enough unvaccinated people not catch it to know that this isn't a "vaccinated = OK / unvaccinated not OK " dichotomy, despite what was relentlessly repeated.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Now your anecdote. Your dad, triple vaccinated, in his 70s, had a brutal time. Your brother, unvaccinated, thirties, recovered in days. You're presenting this as evidence against vaccination.

No, I am not presenting it as evidence against vaccination, I am offering an empirical example to illustrate my point, c.f. "vaxxed vs. unvaxxed" dichotomy mentioned above.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

"Flu on steroids" for a healthy thirty year old is actually precisely what the vaccination argument predicts. The concern was never primarily fit young men. It was always the elderly, the vulnerable, the immunocompromised.

Exactly, so why was he threatened, pressured and singled out as a threat to society? This is the core issue.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your dad's rough experience at seventy-something, despite vaccination, doesn't undermine that. It rather confirms that vaccines reduce risk, not eliminate it, in the exact population where risk is highest - your father may well have contracted Covid via an unvaccinated person. Equally so, the very vaccine you argue against may well have saved his life, any may very well have made your brothers experience less severe - ultimately an unknown.

The only argument there is IF you believe there is if your fathers condition would have been identical had he taken the vaccine - i.e the if you believe the vaccine was 100% ineffective.

My opinion is that the vaccine weakened him (and there have been scientific publications on the nefarious effects repeated vaccinations can have on the immune system when received in a short time frame), as he was fit as a fiddle and stronger than ever until he took it. In his own words, the 3rd shot "killed him" and he felt terrible for months after taking it. He now refuses to take another shot as he has realised that it is not as innocuous and fail-proof as it was made to be.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The Nuremberg Code was written in 1947 in direct response to Nazi physicians conducting forced medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners without consent. People who were imprisoned, with no ability to refuse, subjected to procedures designed not to help them but to generate data for the state. That is the specific horror the Code was written to prevent.

Applying it to a government recommending a voluntary vaccine that you, by your own account, simply chose not to take, is a comparison so stretched it's practically translucent. You weren't imprisoned. You weren't experimented on. You declined and went home. You may have lost work. You may have been refused travel. But the Code worked exactly as intended - you still had a choice over what went into your body - albeit somewhat of a Hobsons choice.

• Article 1 of the Nuremberg Code:
  The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
  

• "The virus stops with every vaccinated person": is that not deceit?

• "Take the vaccine or lose your job": is that not coercion?

• 24/7, relentless belittling, insulting and threatening unvaccinated people on all media outlets, by people of authority, celebrities, social media influencers and top-level politicians: is that not duress?

• Doctors and Health Ministers explaining that not taking the vaccine is tantamount to manslaughter: is that not overreach?

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The deeper issue with body sovereignty absolutism isn't the principle itself. It's the word absolutist. Because infectious disease is the one area of medicine where your body and my body are not entirely separate sovereign territories. A virus doesn't respect philosophical frameworks. It moves between bodies. Which means decisions made about your body have a non-zero effect on what enters mine.

We already accept this implicitly everywhere else. You cannot drive drunk because your sovereign decision affects other bodies. You cannot smoke indoors because your sovereign choice enters other people's lungs uninvited.

Body sovereignty is a genuinely important principle. But it has always, in every functioning society, had limits precisely where one person's body becomes a vector affecting another's.

In a healthy society, most individuals will voluntarily abide by guidelines, principles and processes which work for everybody and contribute to general wellbeing. But when you reach the point where a significant portion of the population refuses to abide, it is society's failure, not the individuals'. And if society's response to this lack of abidance is authoritarianism, all it is doing is doubling down on its own failure.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

As many pointed out at the time - The deal was always simple. Opt out of the vaccine entirely if that's your philosophical position. Own it completely. But then own the full consequences of that position too, which includes not circulating freely through hospitals, care homes, crowded public spaces and immunocompromised people's lives while potentially carrying something that could kill them, on the grounds that your personal sovereignty trumps their right not to be infected.

I was absolutely fine with that deal, but as we all know (though some seem eager to forget about it), it devolved significantly past this initial, reasonable compromise. It quickly became mainstream public debate to entertain the idea of imprisoning unvaccinated people, forcefully injecting them, refusing them access to ICUs… On this latter point (ICUs), my response at the time was that I was okay with it, as long as the logic was extended all the way and I was therefore exempted from paying taxes. I can't be expected to contribute to the funding of a system of which I am excluded. I also knew that the legal implications were so complex and problematic that they would never go through with their threats… but the rhetoric was there and a lot of more impressionable, fragile people were therefore de facto coerced into getting vaccinated and that was unacceptable (and I don't think it is hyperbolic to say it was criminal).

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

As I said, I am open to entertaining any explanation as long as it makes sense. I'll have to check out what Mike Yeadon has to say on it, as he recently shifted to the 'there are no such things as viruses' side of the debate.

Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist and retired pharmacologist who attracted media attention in 2020 and 2021 for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists" and "a key figure in the antivax movement".

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yeadon has now said it plainly and repeatedly - not "no novel viruses" or "no coronaviruses" but no viruses exist full stop.

A stiddle Mump level exclamation... A man who spent over 30 years developing drugs built entirely on the premise that pathogens exist and interact with the body in predictable ways is now saying there's no scientific evidence any virus has ever existed.

You have to wonder why the human body through years of evolution developed an immune system as a vital defense against bacteria, viruses and parasites, if they don't exist to begin with. 🤔

12 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

You have to wonder why the human body through years of evolution developed an immune system as a vital defense against bacteria, viruses and parasites, if they don't exist to begin with. 🤔

The 'no virus' proponents generally don't deny the existence of bacteria and parasites.

25 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The 'no virus' proponents generally don't deny the existence of bacteria and parasites.

Isn't there some hypocrisy in the fact that a 'no virus' proponent would take his son to a hospital with flu (a virus).

Viruses either exist, or don't exist.

5 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Isn't there some hypocrisy in the fact that a 'no virus' proponent would take his son to a hospital with flu (a virus).

Viruses either exist, or don't exist.

I am not a 'no virus' proponent per se, Liquorice.

That being said, I don't reject the idea that viruses don't exist, as I understand the rationale that the viral paradigm conveniently allowed for the multi-billion dollar industry to exist (and that is definitely something to be wary about) and I can totally envision a non-viral pathogen being transmitted from an individual to another, and whatever subsequent effect being determined by a person's 'terrain' (c.f. Béchamp terrain theory on which I started a thread some months ago – several prominent scientists such as Florence Nightingale, Claude Bernard, Rudolf Virchow, Günther Enderlein, Ernst Almquist, Albert Calmette, Gaston Naessens, and Royal Raymond Rife were proponents of this terrain model).

In any case, if my son is very sick, then I will take him to hospital so that he can be taken care of (whether they choose to call it 'the flu' or anything else is secondary).

On 5/12/2026 at 3:00 PM, rattlesnake said:

What's your take on this?

I believe I already addressed this. Perhaps you should work on comprehension skills. Read slowly and think and you may get it. Nice try at gaslighting what I wrote

On 5/12/2026 at 3:10 PM, rattlesnake said:

And it is the position that matters the most. Trying to force me to subject myself to a medical procedure against my will was wrong.

I am sorry to hear that. It must have been terrible.

However, just as I am repeatedly told that there could be a number of reasons why people could develop health issues immediately after their Covid jab, there could be a number of reasons for the unfortunate demise of your loved ones during that period.

Ultimately, I am a body sovereignty absolutist. If people want to take a vaccine, by all means they should and I would never try to tell them what to do or not with their bodies. And the same principle applies to me and my decision not to take a vaccine. This is what it comes down to and it is a fundamental philosophical issue, governed by the Nuremberg Code which is the bedrock of modern medical ethics.

I never said anyone that I lost had a covid shot as it was within 9 months of the outbreak and no vaccines were available yet and they had no underlying condition and healthy.

This is part of the fallacy of most of the arguments about covid and the vaccines. Taking things out of the context and making implications of something that wasn't said as the basis to prove an unproven position.

no one held you down and forced you to take a vaccine, you made a choice not to and that is exactly the same position I have stated, personal choice based on a variety of factors. I have argued the strawman statement people try to us to justify anti-vaxxing positions

19 hours ago, johng said:

It's you who need to do some research,you also seem to have a short or bad memory of what actually happened during the Covidiocy.

nope Im well aware of the timeline as I was in asia when it started prior to returning to the USA. You are taking isolated instances and painting a broad position that didnt occur in the way you imply. But then thats what you've done all along.

32 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I believe I already addressed this. Perhaps you should work on comprehension skills. Read slowly and think and you may get it. Nice try at gaslighting what I wrote

I am willing to work on my Dan O comprehension skills, but I need a methodology to do so.

Edited May 13May 13 by rattlesnake