15 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Strange world is it not? Instead of asking me why I don't believe in viruses, bad bacteria, contagion or disease, you resond in silly-billy talk.

I'll tell you this Sir; unvaccinated children fare far better that the jabbed up ones. I'll tell you this also; there has never been an experiment in a lab, or anywhere else, that has found a virus. I'll tell you also; contagion is a myth spread by the white-coats.

The person most likely to kill you is your doctor. c/o Dr Vernon Coleman.

Humans must rise up. We have the numbers. We can change things for the better and for the children that follow.

And this is where it stops being merely ridiculous and starts becoming dangerous!

You are perfectly entitled to believe that viruses don't exist, that contagion is a myth and that vaccines are unnecessary. But beliefs have consequences — particularly when other people depend on you.

If you have children, grandchildren or anyone else whose health and welfare is partly your responsibility, you don't have the luxury of treating medical evidence as a conspiracy theory.

A parent doesn't get to say, “I don't believe in measles,” when their unvaccinated child contracts it.

A parent doesn't get to say, “Contagion is a myth,” when that child passes an infection to a baby, an elderly relative or someone who is medically vulnerable.

And you certainly don't get to substitute the writings of a conspiracy theorist for evidence-based medicine and then pretend you're acting in the child's best interests.

Scepticism asks: “What is the evidence?”

Denial says: “I reject the evidence because I don't believe in the people producing it.”

Those are not the same thing.

You can gamble with your own health if you choose.What you cannot responsibly do is gamble with someone else's health because you've convinced yourself that virtually the entire medical profession is lying.

That's no longer “thinking for yourself”.

That's imposing your conspiracy theory on people who may have no say in the consequences.

between 1909 and 1926 my grandparents had a combined total of 13 children. 6 of the 7 that my American grandparents had lived to be adults. My oldest aunt died of anemia when she was 16. If she had lived for a few more years Vitamin B12 would have saved her. My Irish grandparents had 6, two of whom died of Scarlet Fever when they were 2 & 4 years old. As my aunt (their oldest sister) said to me: "In those days everyone lost one or two."

By all means roll back childhood vaccinations, but you had better plan on having a extra child or two!

26 minutes ago, kwilco said:

A parent doesn't get to say, “I don't believe in measles,” when their unvaccinated child contracts it.

A parent doesn't get to say, “Contagion is a myth,” when that child passes an infection to a baby, an elderly relative or someone who is medically vulnerable.

Good on story embellishment you are. Strong on evidence you are not Sir.

Measles!

Measles is a member of the 'pox' family of body symptoms. It is the body ridding itself of waste matter, toxins and general undesirables. Often associated with youngsters growing up. https://www.whatreallymakesyouill.com

Vaccinations!.

The book 'Dissolving Illusions' is a good read on the truth about vaccines. https://www.dissolvingillusions.com

Another book; The Ultimate Vaccine Timeline is a decent read also.

Contagion!

So the US Navy experiments that showed NO transfer of illness from a sick person to a well person got it all wrong? See www.humanley.com Dr Daniel Roytas lists the experiments in his book Can you Catch A Cold.

Science is locked out of the virologist's labs. They are simply making things up.

Edited August 23Aug 23 by Stiddle Mump

15 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Good on story embellishment you are. Strong on evidence you are not Sir.

Measles!

Measles is a member of the 'pox' family of body symptoms. It is the body ridding itself of waste matter, toxins and general undesirables. Often associated with youngsters growing up. https://www.whatreallymakesyouill.com

Vaccinations!.

The book 'Dissolving Illusions' is a good read on the truth about vaccines. https://www.dissolvingillusions.com

Another book; The Ultimate Vaccine Timeline is a decent read also.

Contagion!

So the US Navy experiments that showed NO transfer of illness from a sick person to a well person got it all wrong? See www.humanley.com Dr Daniel Roytas lists the experiments in his book Can you Catch A Cold.

Science is locked out of the virologist's labs. They are simply making things up.

Measles is not a pox. The "pox" family of diseases refers to infections caused by viruses in the Poxviridae family, which feature characteristic raised skin lesions, pustules, or blisters. So no, measles is not a pox. Measles is caused by a completely different virus belonging to the Paramyxoviridae family

13 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Measles is not a pox. The "pox" family of diseases refers to infections caused by viruses in the Poxviridae family, which feature characteristic raised skin lesions, pustules, or blisters. So no, measles is not a pox. Measles is caused by a completely different virus belonging to the Paramyxoviridae family

You need to learn how to read – what sort of tertiary education did you have???

As a classic example, "Dissolving Illusions" is rubbish. It’s the favourite textbook for folks who think reading 19th-century anti-vax pamphlets makes them smarter than two centuries of immunology.

The whole book relies on one cheap statistical trick: swapping death rates for case rates.

We all know that fewer people were dying of measles and polio by the mid-20th century—not because the viruses magically vanished, but because modern hospitals had IV fluids, iron lungs, and basic ICU care to keep sick kids alive. But the actual number of people catching the damn things stayed flat as a board until vaccines hit, after which case numbers didn't just fall—they fell off a cliff.

The authors also push the absurd fantasy that clean water and proper sewers cured airborne respiratory viruses. You can't scrub measles out of the air with a mop. Clean plumbing fixed cholera; vaccines fixed measles.

It’s nothing more than cherry-picked graphs, misdirected history, and pure intellectual dishonesty packaged for people looking to confirm their own biases.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Measles is not a pox. The "pox" family of diseases refers to infections caused by viruses in the Poxviridae family, which feature characteristic raised skin lesions, pustules, or blisters. So no, measles is not a pox. Measles is caused by a completely different virus belonging to the Paramyxoviridae family

Measles is not caused by any virus. It is a body function.

What is seen as the measles symptoms is the cure.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Measles is not caused by any virus. It is a body function.

What is seen as the measles symptoms is the cure.

“Measles isn't caused by a virus. It's a body function. The symptoms are the cure.”

That isn't an alternative medical opinion. It's medical nonsense dressed up as certainty.

Measles is a highly contagious viral infection. The rash is a symptom of the infection, not some miraculous cleansing process. The virus can cause pneumonia, encephalitis, permanent disability, immune-system damage — and death.

And this isn't theoretical. Children actually die from measles.

The truly dangerous part isn't merely being spectacularly wrong about virology.

It's encouraging parents to believe that a potentially fatal infectious disease is actually the body's method of making itself well — and therefore something that doesn't need preventing.

You don't cure measles by pretending the measles virus doesn't exist.

That's not scepticism.

That's ignorance with consequences.

37 minutes ago, kwilco said:

“Measles isn't caused by a virus. It's a body function. The symptoms are the cure.”

That isn't an alternative medical opinion. It's medical nonsense dressed up as certainty.

Measles is a highly contagious viral infection. The rash is a symptom of the infection, not some miraculous cleansing process. The virus can cause pneumonia, encephalitis, permanent disability, immune-system damage — and death.

And this isn't theoretical. Children actually die from measles.

The truly dangerous part isn't merely being spectacularly wrong about virology.

It's encouraging parents to believe that a potentially fatal infectious disease is actually the body's method of making itself well — and therefore something that doesn't need preventing.

You don't cure measles by pretending the measles virus doesn't exist.

That's not scepticism.

That's ignorance with consequences.

You think the white-coats are your mummy and daddy?

Google Dr Enders measles experiments of 1954. You could be enlightened.

Too much MSM for you Sir. Easily fooled.

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You think the white-coats are your mummy and daddy?

Google Dr Enders measles experiments of 1954. You could be enlightened.

Too much MSM for you Sir. Easily fooled.

“Google Dr Enders' measles experiments of 1954. You could be enlightened.”

Yes. I did. And that rather spectacularly backfires on your argument.

Enders and Thomas Peebles didn't discover that measles doesn't exist. In 1954 they successfully isolated the measles virus from an infected child, grew it in tissue culture and documented characteristic changes in infected cells. Their paper concluded that the agents they had isolated were representatives of the viral species responsible for measles.

That work produced the Edmonston strain, which became the basis for the measles vaccine licensed in 1963. The strain is still held today in a recognised biological repository, with its identity verified by whole-genome sequencing.

So your suggestion that reading Enders will somehow reveal that viruses are imaginary is rather like telling someone to read Newton because it proves gravity doesn't exist.

And then there's the usual anti-vaccine trick: take a legitimate scientific paper, find something you don't understand about its methodology, and announce that the entire field of virology has therefore been exposed as fraudulent.

That's not scientific scepticism.

It's scientific illiteracy with a search engine.

As for the “MSM” insult — Enders' 1954 paper was published in a scientific journal. The evidence doesn't become false because it appeared in a journal rather than on Facebook.

So yes, I Googled Enders.

You should try reading him rather than using his name as an anti-vaccine talisman.

Because the really embarrassing part is this:

The man you're telling me to read is one of the very scientists whose work demonstrated the measles virus and ultimately led to the vaccine you are arguing against.

You don't refute 70 years of virology by calling scientists names.

9 hours ago, kwilco said:

“Google Dr Enders' measles experiments of 1954. You could be enlightened.”

Yes. I did. And that rather spectacularly backfires on your argument.

Enders and Thomas Peebles didn't discover that measles doesn't exist. In 1954 they successfully isolated the measles virus from an infected child, grew it in tissue culture and documented characteristic changes in infected cells. Their paper concluded that the agents they had isolated were representatives of the viral species responsible for measles.

That work produced the Edmonston strain, which became the basis for the measles vaccine licensed in 1963. The strain is still held today in a recognised biological repository, with its identity verified by whole-genome sequencing.

So your suggestion that reading Enders will somehow reveal that viruses are imaginary is rather like telling someone to read Newton because it proves gravity doesn't exist.

And then there's the usual anti-vaccine trick: take a legitimate scientific paper, find something you don't understand about its methodology, and announce that the entire field of virology has therefore been exposed as fraudulent.

That's not scientific scepticism.

It's scientific illiteracy with a search engine.

As for the “MSM” insult — Enders' 1954 paper was published in a scientific journal. The evidence doesn't become false because it appeared in a journal rather than on Facebook.

So yes, I Googled Enders.

You should try reading him rather than using his name as an anti-vaccine talisman.

Because the really embarrassing part is this:

The man you're telling me to read is one of the very scientists whose work demonstrated the measles virus and ultimately led to the vaccine you are arguing against.

You don't refute 70 years of virology by calling scientists names.

Straight off AI; with a little tweaking.

Up to Enders new methodology for 'isolating' a virus, the common method was to inject, into the brains of monkeys, some toxic filth. If the monkey died; that was 'proof', they said, that there was a killer virus in the injected muck.

Enders used a different approach. He took gloop/puss from a 'measles infected' person and after adding various chemicals to his concoction, grew the mix in a petri dish. The stuff that was being grown, after being starved of nutrients; died. That was enough evidence, he said, to announce that he had found a virus.

What is not so well known is that he did a control, without the puss/gloop from a measles sufferer. The methodology of the experiment was identical, but without the virus mix. The result was the same; death of the food. And he graciously said so in his paper.

Not so widely spoken about is that. And of course, virologists since, don't do controls.

Enders didn't isolate any virus. He simply brought a new method of procedure to the 'ologists' laboratory. And it violated the gold standard of lab work in that field. The first principle; isolate and purify the entity.

One must ask; why don't the 'ologists isolate and purify the virus before doing their petri-dish experiments? Many of them have been asked. Some say the virus is too small. Some say there is not enough from one person. 'What about 100 people sick with the same virus?' No answer. Most don't/can't answer because there is no virus to be found, and they wouldn't want to be seen admitting that; would they. $$$

Nature is us. We are nature.

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature is us. We are nature.

But some are more "natural" than others!

5 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Straight off AI; with a little tweaking.

Up to Enders new methodology for 'isolating' a virus, the common method was to inject, into the brains of monkeys, some toxic filth. If the monkey died; that was 'proof', they said, that there was a killer virus in the injected muck.

Enders used a different approach. He took gloop/puss from a 'measles infected' person and after adding various chemicals to his concoction, grew the mix in a petri dish. The stuff that was being grown, after being starved of nutrients; died. That was enough evidence, he said, to announce that he had found a virus.

What is not so well known is that he did a control, without the puss/gloop from a measles sufferer. The methodology of the experiment was identical, but without the virus mix. The result was the same; death of the food. And he graciously said so in his paper.

Not so widely spoken about is that. And of course, virologists since, don't do controls.

Enders didn't isolate any virus. He simply brought a new method of procedure to the 'ologists' laboratory. And it violated the gold standard of lab work in that field. The first principle; isolate and purify the entity.

One must ask; why don't the 'ologists isolate and purify the virus before doing their petri-dish experiments? Many of them have been asked. Some say the virus is too small. Some say there is not enough from one person. 'What about 100 people sick with the same virus?' No answer. Most don't/can't answer because there is no virus to be found, and they wouldn't want to be seen admitting that; would they. $$$

Nature is us. We are nature.

This is a fascinating example of conspiracy-theory reasoning because it contains almost the entire toolkit in one post.

First, we get “AI”.

Apparently saying that something came from AI is now supposed to be an argument against it. It isn't. AI isn't a source and it isn't evidence. Neither is Google. If you want to challenge a claim, challenge the source, methodology and evidence behind it.

 

And ironically, your entire argument appears to depend upon taking a 1954 scientific paper, stripping away its context, paraphrasing it in deliberately childish language — “toxic filth”, “gloop/puss”, “petri dish” — and then announcing that you have exposed modern virology.

That's not research.

That's cherry-picking with attitude.

 

Then you repeatedly invoke the “scientific method”, while ignoring one of its most important principles:

 

You don't get to reject an entire body of evidence because you have found something you think is wrong with one experiment.

 

Enders and Peebles published their work in 1954. It was not the final word on measles. It was the beginning of decades of subsequent investigation.

The measles virus was subsequently isolated repeatedly, characterised, photographed by electron microscopy, purified, its proteins identified, its genome sequenced and its genetic variation mapped across the world. Modern laboratories can identify measles virus genetically and use its genome to trace transmission chains during outbreaks.

 

So your argument appears to be:

1954 experiment → I don't like the methodology → therefore viruses don't exist.

That's not scientific deduction.

It's a non sequitur.

You also claim that Enders' experiment violated the “gold standard” because the virus wasn't isolated and purified.

Fine.

Then explain why subsequent research succeeded in purifying measles virus and identifying its viral proteins, why electron microscopy demonstrated particles with the morphology expected of paramyxoviruses, and why serological testing confirmed measles-specific antigenicity.

More importantly, explain why completely independent researchers subsequently obtained measles-virus isolates from different patients and different countries.

You can't simply declare all of that irrelevant because you have decided that Enders' 1954 methodology wasn't good enough.

 

And then comes the conspiracy-theory classic:

“Virologists since don't do controls.”

Really?

You have just spent several paragraphs explaining why you believe a control experiment is essential — and then apparently expect us to believe that an entire worldwide scientific discipline forgot about controls for the next seventy years.

That's not an argument; that's a conspiracy story.

 

And notice the convenient escape route:

If the experiment produces the result you want, it's evidence.

If the experiment produces a result you don't want, the methodology is fraudulent.

If later experiments reproduce the result, those researchers are compromised.

If modern technology confirms the result, the technology is somehow invalid.

And if scientists disagree with you, they're apparently doing it for money.

At what point does your theory become capable of being falsified? Because if every piece of contradictory evidence can simply be dismissed as corrupt, manipulated or fraudulent, then your theory has become self-sealing. - It cannot lose … and a theory that cannot possibly be wrong isn't demonstrating extraordinary scientific insight.

 

It has simply been constructed so that evidence doesn't matter.

 

There is another rather important problem with your post.

You are presenting the entire scientific case for measles as though it rests upon one man, one experiment and one petri dish in 1954.

It doesn't.

The CDC records that Enders and Peebles isolated measles virus in 1954 and that their Edmonston-B strain subsequently became the basis of the first licensed live attenuated measles vaccine in 1963.

 

But modern measles virology doesn't rest upon Enders' reputation. - It rests upon decades of independent replication, molecular biology, genetics, microscopy, immunology, epidemiology and clinical observation. - That is what you keep missing. - You're attacking a historical experiment as though destroying one brick somehow demolishes the building. - It doesn't.

 

And finally, there is something rather revealing about the language.

“White-coats.”

“Gloop.”

“Pus.”

“toxic filth.”

“$$$$.”

These aren't scientific terms. They're rhetorical devices designed to make scientific research sound ridiculous before the reader examines it.

That's particularly useful when the actual evidence is inconvenient.

So yes — let's talk about the scientific method.

But let's actually use it.

Show the evidence. State the hypothesis. Explain the methodology. Account for contradictory evidence. Allow the claim to be falsifiable.

What you cannot legitimately do is cherry-pick one 1954 experiment, caricature its methodology, ignore seventy years of subsequent evidence, declare thousands of researchers worldwide part of a conspiracy and then call the result “research”.

 

That's not independent thinking. You need to come out of your echo chamber and learn to read up on world science.

That's just confirmation bias wearing a lab coat.

20 minutes ago, kwilco said:

This is a fascinating example of conspiracy-theory reasoning because it contains almost the entire toolkit in one post.

First, we get “AI”.

Apparently saying that something came from AI is now supposed to be an argument against it. It isn't. AI isn't a source and it isn't evidence. Neither is Google. If you want to challenge a claim, challenge the source, methodology and evidence behind it.

 

And ironically, your entire argument appears to depend upon taking a 1954 scientific paper, stripping away its context, paraphrasing it in deliberately childish language — “toxic filth”, “gloop/puss”, “petri dish” — and then announcing that you have exposed modern virology.

That's not research.

That's cherry-picking with attitude.

 

Then you repeatedly invoke the “scientific method”, while ignoring one of its most important principles:

 

You don't get to reject an entire body of evidence because you have found something you think is wrong with one experiment.

 

Enders and Peebles published their work in 1954. It was not the final word on measles. It was the beginning of decades of subsequent investigation.

The measles virus was subsequently isolated repeatedly, characterised, photographed by electron microscopy, purified, its proteins identified, its genome sequenced and its genetic variation mapped across the world. Modern laboratories can identify measles virus genetically and use its genome to trace transmission chains during outbreaks.

 

So your argument appears to be:

1954 experiment → I don't like the methodology → therefore viruses don't exist.

That's not scientific deduction.

It's a non sequitur.

You also claim that Enders' experiment violated the “gold standard” because the virus wasn't isolated and purified.

Fine.

Then explain why subsequent research succeeded in purifying measles virus and identifying its viral proteins, why electron microscopy demonstrated particles with the morphology expected of paramyxoviruses, and why serological testing confirmed measles-specific antigenicity.

More importantly, explain why completely independent researchers subsequently obtained measles-virus isolates from different patients and different countries.

You can't simply declare all of that irrelevant because you have decided that Enders' 1954 methodology wasn't good enough.

 

And then comes the conspiracy-theory classic:

“Virologists since don't do controls.”

Really?

You have just spent several paragraphs explaining why you believe a control experiment is essential — and then apparently expect us to believe that an entire worldwide scientific discipline forgot about controls for the next seventy years.

That's not an argument; that's a conspiracy story.

 

And notice the convenient escape route:

If the experiment produces the result you want, it's evidence.

If the experiment produces a result you don't want, the methodology is fraudulent.

If later experiments reproduce the result, those researchers are compromised.

If modern technology confirms the result, the technology is somehow invalid.

And if scientists disagree with you, they're apparently doing it for money.

At what point does your theory become capable of being falsified? Because if every piece of contradictory evidence can simply be dismissed as corrupt, manipulated or fraudulent, then your theory has become self-sealing. - It cannot lose … and a theory that cannot possibly be wrong isn't demonstrating extraordinary scientific insight.

 

It has simply been constructed so that evidence doesn't matter.

 

There is another rather important problem with your post.

You are presenting the entire scientific case for measles as though it rests upon one man, one experiment and one petri dish in 1954.

It doesn't.

The CDC records that Enders and Peebles isolated measles virus in 1954 and that their Edmonston-B strain subsequently became the basis of the first licensed live attenuated measles vaccine in 1963.

 

But modern measles virology doesn't rest upon Enders' reputation. - It rests upon decades of independent replication, molecular biology, genetics, microscopy, immunology, epidemiology and clinical observation. - That is what you keep missing. - You're attacking a historical experiment as though destroying one brick somehow demolishes the building. - It doesn't.

 

And finally, there is something rather revealing about the language.

“White-coats.”

“Gloop.”

“Pus.”

“toxic filth.”

“$$$$.”

These aren't scientific terms. They're rhetorical devices designed to make scientific research sound ridiculous before the reader examines it.

That's particularly useful when the actual evidence is inconvenient.

So yes — let's talk about the scientific method.

But let's actually use it.

Show the evidence. State the hypothesis. Explain the methodology. Account for contradictory evidence. Allow the claim to be falsifiable.

What you cannot legitimately do is cherry-pick one 1954 experiment, caricature its methodology, ignore seventy years of subsequent evidence, declare thousands of researchers worldwide part of a conspiracy and then call the result “research”.

 

That's not independent thinking. You need to come out of your echo chamber and learn to read up on world science.

That's just confirmation bias wearing a lab coat.

Great response Sir.

You know my view on Modern Medicine. No such this, and no evidence for that. The reason I say what I do is because of evidence; or lack of it. It is completely lacking in virology. Rather than repeat myself over and over, I'll refer to a vid that spells it out; pretty much as I see it.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/L2tMQuREdJHz

You might not want to watch any of it. But, hopefully others reading the posts on this thread might want to. And it might make people think about the wellbeing of themselves and their children/grandchildren.

Much of what we are told just ain't so. Nature rules OK!

Edited August 24Aug 24 by Stiddle Mump

50 minutes ago, kwilco said:

This is a fascinating example of conspiracy-theory reasoning because it contains almost the entire toolkit in one post.

First, we get “AI”.

Apparently saying that something came from AI is now supposed to be an argument against it. It isn't. AI isn't a source and it isn't evidence. Neither is Google. If you want to challenge a claim, challenge the source, methodology and evidence behind it.

 

And ironically, your entire argument appears to depend upon taking a 1954 scientific paper, stripping away its context, paraphrasing it in deliberately childish language — “toxic filth”, “gloop/puss”, “petri dish” — and then announcing that you have exposed modern virology.

That's not research.

That's cherry-picking with attitude.

 

Then you repeatedly invoke the “scientific method”, while ignoring one of its most important principles:

 

You don't get to reject an entire body of evidence because you have found something you think is wrong with one experiment.

 

Enders and Peebles published their work in 1954. It was not the final word on measles. It was the beginning of decades of subsequent investigation.

The measles virus was subsequently isolated repeatedly, characterised, photographed by electron microscopy, purified, its proteins identified, its genome sequenced and its genetic variation mapped across the world. Modern laboratories can identify measles virus genetically and use its genome to trace transmission chains during outbreaks.

 

So your argument appears to be:

1954 experiment → I don't like the methodology → therefore viruses don't exist.

That's not scientific deduction.

It's a non sequitur.

You also claim that Enders' experiment violated the “gold standard” because the virus wasn't isolated and purified.

Fine.

Then explain why subsequent research succeeded in purifying measles virus and identifying its viral proteins, why electron microscopy demonstrated particles with the morphology expected of paramyxoviruses, and why serological testing confirmed measles-specific antigenicity.

More importantly, explain why completely independent researchers subsequently obtained measles-virus isolates from different patients and different countries.

You can't simply declare all of that irrelevant because you have decided that Enders' 1954 methodology wasn't good enough.

 

And then comes the conspiracy-theory classic:

“Virologists since don't do controls.”

Really?

You have just spent several paragraphs explaining why you believe a control experiment is essential — and then apparently expect us to believe that an entire worldwide scientific discipline forgot about controls for the next seventy years.

That's not an argument; that's a conspiracy story.

 

And notice the convenient escape route:

If the experiment produces the result you want, it's evidence.

If the experiment produces a result you don't want, the methodology is fraudulent.

If later experiments reproduce the result, those researchers are compromised.

If modern technology confirms the result, the technology is somehow invalid.

And if scientists disagree with you, they're apparently doing it for money.

At what point does your theory become capable of being falsified? Because if every piece of contradictory evidence can simply be dismissed as corrupt, manipulated or fraudulent, then your theory has become self-sealing. - It cannot lose … and a theory that cannot possibly be wrong isn't demonstrating extraordinary scientific insight.

 

It has simply been constructed so that evidence doesn't matter.

 

There is another rather important problem with your post.

You are presenting the entire scientific case for measles as though it rests upon one man, one experiment and one petri dish in 1954.

It doesn't.

The CDC records that Enders and Peebles isolated measles virus in 1954 and that their Edmonston-B strain subsequently became the basis of the first licensed live attenuated measles vaccine in 1963.

 

But modern measles virology doesn't rest upon Enders' reputation. - It rests upon decades of independent replication, molecular biology, genetics, microscopy, immunology, epidemiology and clinical observation. - That is what you keep missing. - You're attacking a historical experiment as though destroying one brick somehow demolishes the building. - It doesn't.

 

And finally, there is something rather revealing about the language.

“White-coats.”

“Gloop.”

“Pus.”

“toxic filth.”

“$$$$.”

These aren't scientific terms. They're rhetorical devices designed to make scientific research sound ridiculous before the reader examines it.

That's particularly useful when the actual evidence is inconvenient.

So yes — let's talk about the scientific method.

But let's actually use it.

Show the evidence. State the hypothesis. Explain the methodology. Account for contradictory evidence. Allow the claim to be falsifiable.

What you cannot legitimately do is cherry-pick one 1954 experiment, caricature its methodology, ignore seventy years of subsequent evidence, declare thousands of researchers worldwide part of a conspiracy and then call the result “research”.

 

That's not independent thinking. You need to come out of your echo chamber and learn to read up on world science.

That's just confirmation bias wearing a lab coat.

You are wasting your time discussing the topic with someone who does not believe bacteria and viruses exist. You might as well be debating a goldfish on its attention span.

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You are wasting your time discussing the topic with someone who does not believe bacteria and viruses exist. You might as well be debating a goldfish on its attention span.

Yes – I wrote about this on the conspiracy theorist thread... – it's really for the benefit of others who may not have heard the arguments before – but it's hard when they are so wrong it's "not even wrong" – (Wolfgang Pauli). I experienced a neighbour like this – he crashed a motorbike and had to have surgery on a compound fracture – all of a sudden he believed in bacteria...and gravity.

His logic is so bad that it would indicate a serious mental health problem – the famous scientific and philosophical phrase: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - normal goc doesn't apply in his world - kids dying don't matter to him; it all falls into some paranoic conspiracy supported by some banal cherrypicked books and videos - a fallacious Galileo complex - he enters a rhetorical pattern where he rejects mainstream scientific or institutional consensus and compares himself to Galileo Galilei. He claims he is being persecuted by close-minded authorities for speaking a radical truth, even when his ideas lack proper evidence.

There is an expression "you are entitled to your own opinion" – this is a clear case when you are not – it isn't in reality an opinion - it is a fantasy

Edited August 24Aug 24 by kwilco

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You are wasting your time discussing the topic with someone who does not believe bacteria and viruses exist. You might as well be debating a goldfish on its attention span.

If that is directed at me, then I'll address the mainpoint.

Bacteria exist. We would not be alive if they didn't. They are natures clean up crew. On the other hand viruses have NEVER been shown to exist. Only virologists say they have found them; in their petri dishes.

Virology is a fraud. Plain and simple.

Anyone who argues against vaccines is denying children life!!

https://scontent.flhr10-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.99422-6/785111431_1083629907700180_8074561041678982022_n.png?stp=dst-jpg_tt6&cstp=mx1440x1800&ctp=s1080x2048&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=eBzvhbw2JkoQ7kNvwHmO_Ch&_nc_oc=Ado8bvGHvEH3VePPzxFhusq7Bb6moCToG9aYmAUeRevw4z1wgGxtydEHjjzyBuxzhgNBWNhuXWGHQMFeskfXklHb&_nc_zt=14&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr10-1.fna&_nc_gid=hNuBVFEMPGAVu6esxxTBzg&_nc_ss=7f2a8&oh=00_AQFILF6ABcwIoYpOILYiKhk3LGMGtMplBKrwSf9LaVux8g&oe=6A941074

On 8/24/2026 at 7:54 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

On the other hand viruses have NEVER been shown to exist. Only virologists say they have found them; in their petri dishes.

Virology is a fraud. Plain and simple.

LOL.... you're worse than a record stuck in one groove.

You might as well claim that since NOBODY can compute the exact value of π .... it doesn't actually exist.

PS: π is computed by summing enough elements of an infinite series to meet the accuracy needed.

Edited August 26Aug 26 by gamb00ler

20 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

LOL.... you're worse than a record stuck in one groove.

You might as well claim that since NOBODY can compute the exact value of π .... it doesn't actually exist.

PS: π is computed by summing enough elements of an infinite series to meet the accuracy needed.

CDC scientist that debunked MMR causes Autism facing jail for fraud .........

https://tdefender.substack.com/p/poul-thorsen-former-cdc-scientist-studies-debunk-vaccine-autism-link-plead-guilty

"A former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientist who played a crucial role in research rebutting any link between vaccines and autism is expected to plead guilty next week to wire fraud and money laundering."

Edited August 26Aug 26 by BritManToo

24 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

CDC scientist that debunked MMR causes Autism facing jail for fraud .........

https://tdefender.substack.com/p/poul-thorsen-former-cdc-scientist-studies-debunk-vaccine-autism-link-plead-guilty

"A former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientist who played a crucial role in research rebutting any link between vaccines and autism is expected to plead guilty next week to wire fraud and money laundering."

Seems that a few individuals succumb to their greedy urges after achieving some fame.... sounds a lot like those employed/elected and currently serving in DC.

I don't think there is an individual vaccine for mumps though.

To undo all the damage this clown and his 'administration' has done in 2 years will require a solid 2/3 majority total of the 2 houses of congress. And they sure have their work cut out for them.

1 hour ago, ronnie50 said:

I don't think there is an individual vaccine for mumps though.

From the wiki:

Hilleman's work led to the first effective mumps vaccine, called Mumpsvax. Licensed in 1967, its four-year development set a record for fastest development of a new vaccine.

Two unvaccinated people in Pennsylvania are first measles-related deaths in US this year

Pennsylvania reported two deaths related to measles as an outbreak there approaches 400 cases, the state Department of Health said Tuesday. Both were unvaccinated.

These are the first US deaths related to measles reported in 2026 and the first in Pennsylvania in 35 years.

Tragic that there are people who really believe it's better to be unvaccinated.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/25/health/measles-deaths-pennsylvania

Edited August 26Aug 26 by Schoggibueb
link added

16 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Two unvaccinated people in Pennsylvania are first measles-related deaths in US this year

Pennsylvania reported two deaths related to measles as an outbreak there approaches 400 cases, the state Department of Health said Tuesday. Both were unvaccinated.

These are the first US deaths related to measles reported in 2026 and the first in Pennsylvania in 35 years.

Tragic that there are people who really believe it's better to be unvaccinated.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/25/health/measles-deaths-pennsylvania

We saw that during Covid in the US too. Emergency cases who rejected vaccines and were now in serious condition pleading for the vaccine which of course was too late. There was even one case where the father was intubated and dying (vaccine skeptic) and his doctor tried to explain to the family there was nothing more he could do. They beat him in the hospital parking lot.

21 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

From the wiki:

Hilleman's work led to the first effective mumps vaccine, called Mumpsvax. Licensed in 1967, its four-year development set a record for fastest development of a new vaccine.

Is it still available/manufactured?

So regarding the vaccine skeptics - the ones who think young kids are better off without most vacines and think their bodies build strong immunities naturally - I have a question.

If you more or less agree with the above, would you also agree that it's best for mothers to breast feed their infants/babies as long as possible, or do you think canned formula is just as good for the long-term health and nutrition?

18 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

We saw that during Covid in the US too. Emergency cases who rejected vaccines and were now in serious condition pleading for the vaccine which of course was too late.

Yes lots of 'fear porn'.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9613797/

'Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups. The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested.'

so if you were aged 0 - 59 and you got infected with 'Covid' your chance of dying was a staggering

0.025–0.032% !!!!

RFK is killing Americans.....

Edited August 26Aug 26 by kwilco

19 hours ago, johng said:

Yes lots of 'fear porn'.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9613797/

'Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups. The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested.'

so if you were aged 0 - 59 and you got infected with 'Covid' your chance of dying was a staggering

0.025–0.032% !!!!

Never trust a statistic you haven't faked yourself.

Estimating COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rates (IFR)

The current COVID outbreak seems to be following previous pandemics: initial CFRs start high and trend downwards. For example, In Wuhan, the CFR has gone down from 17% in the initial phase to near 1% in the late stage. It is increasingly clear that current testing strategies are not capturing everybody. In South Korea, considerable numbers who tested positive were also asymptomatics- likely driving the rapid worldwide spread.

CFR rates are subject to selection bias as more severe cases are tested – generally those in the hospital settings or those with more severe symptoms. The number of currently infected asymptomatics is uncertain: estimates put it at least a half are asymptomatic; the proportion not coming forward for testing is also highly doubtful (i.e. you are symptomatic, but you do not present for testing). Therefore we can assume the IFR is significantly lower than the CFR.

We now want to draw your attention to the flaws in CFR estimation due to the changing nature of the testing regimes.

Italy: A change in strategy on Feb 25 limited testing to patients who had severe signs and symptoms also resulted in a 19% positive rate (21,157 of 109,170 tested as of Mar 14) and an apparent increase in the death rate—from 3.1% on Feb 24 to 7.2% on Mar 17—patients with milder illness were no longer tested.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

You can always pick out datas that look better for your purpose.