1 hour ago, atpeace said:

during Covid switched to actual confirmed Flu cases which is dishonest. It is like comparing an ant to an elephant. They aren't even remotely similar.

Bull <deleted> but if you really believe that I would recommend you take VERY regular booster shots - the more the better.

Same thing different branding:
.

Edited Tuesday at 09:03 AM2 days by Tourist2

@Airalee

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

@Airalee

So only people who had the vaccine get cancer these days?

7 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

So only people who had the vaccine get cancer these days?

Everything is going to be okay, Callum. There is nothing out of the ordinary happening and no reason to worry.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Everything is going to be okay, Callum. There is nothing out of the ordinary happening and no reason to worry.

Why don't you just answer the question? Do you have proof that the vaccine is the cause for the cancer from the lady you quoted?

I know, with me everything will be OK, with you something hasn't been OK for a long time already.

20 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Why don't you just answer the question? Do you have proof that the vaccine is the cause for the cancer from the lady you quoted?

I know, with me everything will be OK, with you something hasn't been OK for a long time already.

It always boils down to the same principle: either you are able and willing to look at the facts dispassionately and objectively, or you are not:

26 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Do you have proof that the vaccine is the cause for the cancer from the lady you quoted?

The anecdotal evidence continues to pile up while the 'eggspurts' continue to bury their head in the sand refusing to even consider any possibility of a link while simultaneously being 'baffled' as to the possible causes...if you don't look you wont find and as they refuse to look they will not find.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

@Airalee

I can’t find anywhere that she pushed/praised the vax. It’s usually pretty easy to find. All AI says is that she did news coverage of the pandemic. The only coverage I could find was a news report about Haiti from 2020 and there didn’t seem to be any vax praise from what I saw with a quick scan.

26 minutes ago, johng said:

if you don't look you wont find and as they refuse to look they will not find.

But that only works when you look at everything with your eyes and mind wide open and not when you are tunnel visioned looking only for what you want/need to find to support YOUR already established so called facts!

There is gonna be more and more, injuries, cancers and deaths.

And it will get even worse as the $$$ dictates that mRNA shots are the answer to just about everything. Ingrowing toe-nail; we have the answer. Like wine too much; we have the answer. Too much nose-hair; we have the answer.

''What's the problem Mrs Soap?''

'' I've stubbed my toe. The nail is going black.''

''Stubbed yer toe eh? Let's see now. You are, according to my computer, 4 months preggers. We have this new mRNA vaxx for stubbed toes.''

''But doctor, will the vaccine hurt my baby?''

''Not enough MSM for you. Never you mind about that.''

''OK, doctor. I trust you.''

''Just a 75% chance baby will get hurt. Now, roll up yer sleeve Mrs. Safe and effective.''

14 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

But that only works when you look at everything with your eyes and mind wide open and not when you are tunnel visioned looking only for what you want/need to find to support YOUR already established so called facts!

So the Germ Theory' is a fact is it? Viruses are facts are they? Vaccines are safe n effective' are they? Vioxx and Thalidomide were OK were they?

You are hoodwinked Sir. Facts, or rather 'evidence, is hard to find in modern medicine.

9 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

So the Germ Theory' is a fact is it? Viruses are facts are they? Vaccines are safe n effective' are they? Vioxx and Thalidomide were OK were they?

You are hoodwinked Sir. Facts, or rather 'evidence, is hard to find in modern medicine.

Here, I'll provide links https://microbiologysociety.org/why-microbiology-matters/what-is-microbiology/what-are-viruses/are-viruses-alive.html from established sources..........https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology. some who have done the research, and aren't opinions https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X20302304 from the armchair quarterbacks that have you fooled https://hmsc.harvard.edu/online-exhibits/world-viruses/............................https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3427559/

On 9/3/2026 at 1:14 PM, rumak said:

you're riight . covid and the conditions of the world are just topics. If you haven't noticed... i rarely post on this or any forum . Once in a while i have a little time to waste and creating a post without stupid AI gives my brain some exercise . I am sorry you read so much into my occasional posts. yes. many times on covid but i try to blend some humor along with some opinions. Try not to take it too seriously . I know i should spend more time arguing with others here about inane subjects like so many do... but nah, not really my style.

See ya next time . always good to hear your judgements about my psychological conditions that you amazingly can come by so easily. Thanks, froggy !

I am amazed I have made it to 83 with so many vaccinations. Without them, I would probably make it to 120.

Have you had your Shingrix shots yet, @rumak ? I gather with shingles you don't die. You just wish you could.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

In the context of the article referred to, it is blatant dishonesty and you know it.

Let's ask for Gemini's take on my initial statement, shall we?

---

Query:
Is the following statement accurate, regarding the media's portrayal of the baby who died of a ruptured spleen in Pennsylvania?

"Initially, it was presented as "a measles death because of RFK and his antivaxxer supporters."

Answer:
Yes, the media initially presented the story heavily tied to RFK Jr. and his anti-vaccine platform because Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro chose to frame it that way.

When the state health department first announced the two "measles-associated deaths," Governor Shapiro explicitly used the moment to publicly criticize Robert F. Kennedy Jr., stating that there are "real-life consequences to spreading misinformation" and linking the tragedy to anti-vaccine rhetoric [abcnews.com, nx-s1-5946842]. Because the governor directly injected this political angle into the initial announcement, major news outlets naturally followed suit, framing their first wave of headlines and coverage around the clash between the governor's office and RFK Jr. [abcnews.com, nx-s1-5946842, vaccine-misinformation-rfk-jr-measles-deaths-pennsylvania].

LOL.... ask a biased question.... get a biased answer.... dumb software just tries to give you what you ask for. Exactly the type of response the wrong headed posters produce.

You asked for what you wanted... et voilà

Old software guys will get this analogy.... you're trapped in a maze of twisty little passages.

Edited Tuesday at 11:07 AM2 days by gamb00ler

56 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I can’t find anywhere that she pushed/praised the vax. It’s usually pretty easy to find. All AI says is that she did news coverage of the pandemic. The only coverage I could find was a news report about Haiti from 2020 and there didn’t seem to be any vax praise from what I saw with a quick scan.

There's this detailed timeline that I found:

Maryam Moshiri has a BA in Italian from University College London and a postgraduate diploma in broadcast journalism. She possesses no medical degree, no scientific training, no epidemiology background, and no public-health qualification of any kind. She reads a teleprompter for a living.

During 2021–2022 she sat in the BBC News chair and delivered the approved line while the corporation treated vaccine hesitation as a character defect. She presented government policy on NHS worker mandates, care-home requirements, and travel restrictions as settled fact, never once using the platform to challenge transmission claims, natural immunity, or the people being fired, locked out, or socially isolated for refusing the product. She was the polished face of narrative control, not evidence.

13 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Here, I'll provide links https://microbiologysociety.org/why-microbiology-matters/what-is-microbiology/what-are-viruses/are-viruses-alive.html from established sources..........https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology. some who have done the research, and aren't opinions https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X20302304 from the armchair quarterbacks that have you fooled https://hmsc.harvard.edu/online-exhibits/world-viruses/............................https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3427559/

From the https://microbiologysociety.org link: Viruses are the name given to cell debris, that can be seen under electron microscopy. A virology name given to an artifact, that many think of as exosomes. IMO, there is no such thing as a virus.

From the Wiki link: "The virus was finally isolated by Max Theiler (1899–1972) in 1932 who went on to develop a successful vaccine."

The above is absolute nonsense. He didn't isolate any virus at all.

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

LOL.... ask a biased question.... get a biased answer.... dumb software just tries to give you what you ask for. Exactly the type of response the wrong headed posters produce.

You asked for what you wanted... et voilà

Old software guys will get this analogy.... you're trapped in a maze of twisty little passages.

"Is this statement accurate?" is an unbiased question. I had already checked before posting my initial statement, by the way, as you aren't exactly unpredictable.

19 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Old software guys will get this analogy.

GIGO ?

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

From the https://microbiologysociety.org link: Viruses are the name given to cell debris, that can be seen under electron microscopy. A virology name given to an artifact, that many think of as exosomes. IMO, there is no such thing as a virus.

From the Wiki link: "The virus was finally isolated by Max Theiler (1899–1972) in 1932 who went on to develop a successful vaccine."

The above is absolute nonsense. He didn't isolate any virus at all.

Well, that's what you've been saying all along. and I'm sorry to say, they're research overrides the people you believe in. Take some time and read the links, so you'll understand the scientists have been doing their jobs, and the conspiracy theorists have their own agenda, not based on research but fear.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

"Is this statement accurate?" is an unbiased question. I had already checked before posting my initial statement, by the way, as you aren't exactly unpredictable.

As well as weak English comprehension, you've got serious memory issues. Here is your AI query:

Query:
Is the following statement accurate, regarding the media's portrayal of the baby who died of a ruptured spleen in Pennsylvania?

"Initially, it was presented as "a measles death because of RFK and his antivaxxer supporters."

Sure... the first 5 words of your query are perfect. It went seriously downhill immediately.

Maybe ask AI how to properly get an unbiased answer. Follow up with... what should I avoid that may introduce bias in my query results.

Edited Tuesday at 01:03 PM2 days by gamb00ler

4 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

Bull <deleted> but if you really believe that I would recommend you take VERY regular booster shots - the more the better.

Same thing different branding:
.

Not sure what upset you. I just stated confirmed cases is not the same as estimated cases. Do you think they are the same?

Edited Tuesday at 02:04 PM2 days by atpeace

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

As well as weak English comprehension, you've got serious memory issues. Here is your AI query:

Query:
Is the following statement accurate, regarding the media's portrayal of the baby who died of a ruptured spleen in Pennsylvania?

"Initially, it was presented as "a measles death because of RFK and his antivaxxer supporters."

Sure... the first 5 words of your query are perfect. It went seriously downhill immediately.

Maybe ask AI how to properly get an unbiased answer. Follow up with... what should I avoid that may introduce bias in my query results.

Why would I phrase it differently? My point was precisely about how the media used this baby's tragic death. Even people on your side of the debate agree they ran with this story against RFK to push a pro-vaccine agenda.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It always boils down to the same principle: either you are able and willing to look at the facts dispassionately and objectively, or you are not:

Did you explore the articles written by Hulscher and the journals that published those articles? I bet not.

Several of the 'journals' are considered 'predatory publishers' which basicaly do a spell check on the articles but charge high fees. Fringe authors can't get published by actual scholarly publishers so they pay up just so they can claim... "I'm a published medical researcher"

Those searches you perform for confirmative material.... LOL.... catch a lot of rubbish. Such a gullible soul.

I hope you have a financial guardianship already set up... I can see you falling for those call center scammers.

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Well, that's what you've been saying all along. and I'm sorry to say, they're research overrides the people you believe in. Take some time and read the links, so you'll understand the scientists have been doing their jobs, and the conspiracy theorists have their own agenda, not based on research but fear.

The know-nothing, fraudulent white-coats are not doing their jobs at all.

In this sort of lab work, establishing the effects of viruses, the very first things are:

1 - get some snot/mucus/tissue that has the entity you are looking for.

2 - isolate the entity.

3 - purify the entity,

4 - get to work seeing what effect it has in the petri-dish, and the further steps of the experiment.

Best practice, is to do another experiment, that runs alongside, WITHOUT the purified entity. Why do this? So one can be sure that it is not the procedure casusing the effects, and it is in fact the entity. Without the 'control' (the other experiment) there is no experimentational integrity what so ever, and any effects the might arise are uncertain; maybe meaningless.

So why do the 'ologists not follow these principles? Well, one reason, as Enders found out, is that other experiment will yield the same results. And secondly, they can't find enough 'virus'. IMO, they will never be able to find enough virus. 'Cause there is not one to be found.

It is all make-believe pseudoscience.

These institutions and labs, that say they have isolated and purified a virus are simply lying. They have to be called out for their fraudulent activities/procedures..

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

Did you explore the articles written by Hulscher and the journals that published those articles? I bet not.

Several of the 'journals' are considered 'predatory publishers' which basicaly do a spell check on the articles but charge high fees. Fringe authors can't get published by actual scholarly publishers so they pay up just so they can claim... "I'm a published medical researcher"

Those searches you perform for confirmative material.... LOL.... catch a lot of rubbish. Such a gullible soul.

I hope you have a financial guardianship already set up... I can see you falling for those call center scammers.

As I said, it's all 'baseless conspiracy theory'. Just as the thousands of testimonies claiming to be cured of cancer thanks to Hulscher's ivermectin+fenbendazole protocol are lies. Just as the fact that he was offered a fortune by the medical establishment to not open his cancer clinic (because his protocol actually works and the multi-billion cancer 'treatment' industry is at stake) is just hearsay.

Keep up the 'fact-checking'!

4 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Facts, or rather 'evidence, is hard to find in modern medicine.

yes... we're all aware of your blind spots ... should have gone to see one of those dreadful white coats sooner.

10 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Well, one reason, as Enders found out, is that other experiment will yield the same results. And secondly, they can't find enough 'virus'.

LOL.... unsurprisingly, you've been fooled by the internet ghouls that seek out weak minded individuals.

The Actual History and Facts of the 1954 Experiment

In 1954, John F. Enders and Thomas C. Peebles successfully isolated the measles virus (specifically the Edmonston strain) using tissue culture techniques. The claim that "other experiments will yield the same results" without the virus, or that they "couldn't find enough virus," distorts two specific aspects of their research:

1. The "Same Results" (Cytopathic Effects) Misconception:
   In his paper, Enders noted that uninoculated (control) monkey kidney cells sometimes showed cellular breakdown (cytopathic effects like syncytia or cell vacuolation) that looked similar to the damage caused by the measles virus.

   • The Truth: Enders did not conclude that the virus didn't exist or that the experiment was flawed. Rather, he discovered that some laboratory monkeys were already naturally infected with a simian virus (like SV40). To resolve this, they weeded out the contaminated animal tissues and successfully isolated the pure human measles virus in human kidney and amnion cells.

2. The "Can't Find Enough Virus" Misconception:
   Before 1954, scientists struggled to study the virus because it could not be grown easily in laboratory environments outside a living host.

   • The Truth: Enders' groundbreaking achievement was solving this exact problem. By utilizing his tissue culture technique (which won him the 1954 Nobel Prize for his work on polio), his team was able to multiply, harvest, and maintain vast amounts of the measles virus in a lab environment for the first time.

https://lifesciencehistory.com/john-enders-and-thomas-peebles-isolated-the-measles-virus-in-cell-culture/

https://scienceheroes.com/enders-polio

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1954/enders/facts/

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.47.3.275

42 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

LOL.... unsurprisingly, you've been fooled by the internet ghouls that seek out weak minded individuals.

The Actual History and Facts of the 1954 Experiment

In 1954, John F. Enders and Thomas C. Peebles successfully isolated the measles virus (specifically the Edmonston strain) using tissue culture techniques. The claim that "other experiments will yield the same results" without the virus, or that they "couldn't find enough virus," distorts two specific aspects of their research:

1. The "Same Results" (Cytopathic Effects) Misconception:
   In his paper, Enders noted that uninoculated (control) monkey kidney cells sometimes showed cellular breakdown (cytopathic effects like syncytia or cell vacuolation) that looked similar to the damage caused by the measles virus.

   • The Truth: Enders did not conclude that the virus didn't exist or that the experiment was flawed. Rather, he discovered that some laboratory monkeys were already naturally infected with a simian virus (like SV40). To resolve this, they weeded out the contaminated animal tissues and successfully isolated the pure human measles virus in human kidney and amnion cells.

2. The "Can't Find Enough Virus" Misconception:
   Before 1954, scientists struggled to study the virus because it could not be grown easily in laboratory environments outside a living host.

   • The Truth: Enders' groundbreaking achievement was solving this exact problem. By utilizing his tissue culture technique (which won him the 1954 Nobel Prize for his work on polio), his team was able to multiply, harvest, and maintain vast amounts of the measles virus in a lab environment for the first time.

https://lifesciencehistory.com/john-enders-and-thomas-peebles-isolated-the-measles-virus-in-cell-culture/

https://scienceheroes.com/enders-polio

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1954/enders/facts/

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.47.3.275

Enders did not isolate and purify any virus. Both experiments and the control yielded the same result. And he said so in his conclusion. It was the procedure, the poisoning, staining snd starving of the culture, that broke down the petri-dish samples.

AN readers, and our fellow posters, must wonder why the virologists do not isolate and purify the virus first.

Nature has the answers we seek.

Edited Tuesday at 03:56 PM2 days by Stiddle Mump

16 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Enders did not isolate and purify any virus. Both experiments and the control yielded the same result. And he said so in his conclusion. It was the procedure, the poisoning, staining snd starving of the culture, that broke down the petri-dish samples.

AN readers, and our fellow posters, must wonder why the virologists do not isolate and purify the virus first.

Nature has the answers we seek.

LOL. he must have fooled a lot of folks then.... good thing you haven't fooled a single one.

18 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

And he said so in his conclusion. It was the procedure, the poisoning, staining snd starving of the culture, that broke down the petri-dish samples.

and your conjecture has been peer-reviewed and had been repeated by many that followed the well documented procedures used by Enders? Please fill us in by providing links that show the 'errors' you keep claiming.