Make It Difficult for People in Their Lives and They Get Vaccinated

During a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus hearing Monday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) questioned Dr. Fauci on a statement on vaccine requirements he made during a recorded interview.

Video Source

“It’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.” Official Quote by Anthony Stephen Fauci

Note: When Fauci says proven, he is clearly referring to the science behind psychological manipulating the public. He says he is a man of science, so people should hold him to that.

Just a few years ago Fauci was crowning himself as the "King of Science". This includes the famous quote where he stated that if you disagree with him, you are disagreeing with science.

It might be your first time hearing these shocking comments by Fauci, but this is him behind the mask.

So what does it mean for Australia?

Undoubtedly these same types of scientific types of people that rise to the top of bureaucratic government positions all over the world. I suspect that this is because most people they grow up in school and they think science is easy. Students just repeat what is in the textbook and they score high marks because they can regurgitate facts and memorise a formula. By the way if you didn't realise, that is not real science and just shows how poorly structured the current educational system is as it emphasises the regurgitation of facts.

People forget the Therapeutic Goods Administration is not an independent organisation. There is nothing special about the people inside that organisation, maybe they learned a few extra years of some topic at university and I hope they at least are at a standard to which they have written a thesis which is basically a long essay on a specialised topic. Some thesis papers are absolutely garbage in my opinion. But most importantly it reveals that these types of people are just ordinary people. They are just government workers to be more specific. They know very little and more critically they especially know nothing about a new pandemic. They know nothing more than the average citizen. Governments should not be given the right to control how people behave in a pandemic.

The problem is this lack of knowledge is not just constrained to scientists, but humans in general. I have met many barristers and solicitors, even former judges. Believe it or not sometimes cannot even recall the facts of a case I mention or recall key legislation in their field of expertise after a bit of uhm and ahing. If you told me if I remembered some facts of an obscure case I would probably tell you, "I am not sure myself, I believe it was something involving some type of snail-like object in the bottle, but I would not commit myself to that". However, you will often notice that because of the immunity granted to bureaucrats that they will not be frank and honest with you about what they don't know. This is why you cannot trust the government.

This is why it is my opinion that the public should focus on replacing government with uncensored artificial intelligence. People should not be scared of it. This is the reality that faces us and I don't see why the public puts so much emphasis on the government to protect its citizens when it is basically not well equipped to do any such thing. For example, the government cannot represent the people properly because the number of representatives does not account for the growth in the population. Even if representation somehow worked at the time when the Constitution was written, it clearly no longer functions as it was intended to. Has the number of senators and representatives increased by 7x in line with population growth? No it has not, representation has gone backwards to a tune of 7x. Even if you believed the government worked for the good of the people, you cannot deny that the representation has been watered down so much. I am not saying that would fix the issues immediately as there are core problems with the existence of government.

If it were a real pandemic then everyone would be clamouring to get vaccinated (provided that vaccine worked and did not have an even higher death rate than the disease it was preventing) and those foolish people who remain unvaccinated, pardon my words, will be left to rely on their natural immunity. I am sure many of the people within the anti-vax movement understand this core principle.

Bill Gates is a kind of famous oracle and he states that another type of pandemic will happen again. Time and time again his predictions/wisdom ironically seems to come true. Apparently the cusp of another Bird Flu Pandemic is here.

Ask yourself: Are you going to make the same choices next time?

Would you honestly take another experimental bird flu vaccine?

Comments

            • -3

              @trevor99: That "evidence" was a word salad tweet by a confirmed conspiracy theorist.

              I know that doesn't make a difference to you, but there are normies in this thread who might have been thinking "well Trevor dropped some facts via a link I did not click so maybe this is an excellent time to free associate about medical conspiracy"

              Which it is not. Most public institutions now have defibrillators. The "BUT WHY ARE THEY PUTTING THEM IN CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS" mania is dispelled with the realization that children in children's schools are taught by adults.

              • @Crow K: Why do people keep saying "conspiracy …"? No, it's called analysis.
                Knee jerk triggers aiming to prevent any discussions or consideration.
                Meanwhile people are dying.
                Yet again attack the messenger not the message.

                Item 63399 is a fact.
                https://www9.health.gov.au/mbs/search.cfm?q=63399&sopt=I

                • @trevor99: UK child excess deaths.
                  That means children who are now dead that shouldn't be. UK parliament.
                  Https://youtu.be/UO_d9rAFpx0?si=fXiyx8u266szkow1

                • -3

                  @trevor99:

                  Why do people keep saying "conspiracy …"? No, it's called analysis.

                  "Analysis" via looking at something and free associating there must be a secret agenda underlying it.

                  I mean, I get it. Conspiracy theorists hate being called conspiracy theorists because they know of the reputation it gets … So they want to call themselves something a bit different while still doing the exact same thing.

                  This entire discussion started because I pointed out you telling all of us we needed to cite hard evidence, and yet here you and your mates are with your "analysis" which doesn't have the same burden of proof.

                  Conspiracy theorists, theorizing conspiracies.

                  Every time.

                  • @Crow K: 🙃 Is the item number from the govt Medicare link I gave you fake? Is that what your saying? Is the youtube vid of documents and discussions in parliament fake? Or are the ministers telling lies in the UK Parliament? Which is it? Be specific.

                    • -1

                      @trevor99: Your argument was 'they are putting defibrillators in schools because of covid vaccines effects, the evidence is medicare item 63399'.

                      Does that medicare item reference defibrillators or schools? No. Did you provide any evidence that defibrillators are in schools because of covid? No.

                      You would be surprised about by the specific health devices schools now have on hand. Does it mean those afflictions are increasing too? No.

                      Do Westfields, pools, etc have them on hand because of covid? No. Places with large gatherings have these devices in case of emergencies.

                      • -1

                        @Gehirn: Got it, so you ignore vital and clear evidence of harm but demand proof that all these new installations of defribulators are not just a coincidence. Ok, take a look on your Google machine, here's an example that took me 10 seconds:
                        https://lfafirstresponse.com.au/blog/defibrillators-for-scho…
                        I can tell you this was never the case it the past. If you insist on blinkers at this point you're a candidate for the Darwin Awards, frankly. You have the right to boost up, but please think about it first with an open mind.
                        To be clear this was my quote "Have you noticed they're putting defribulators everywhere? Even in primary schools for little kids????" Totally true.

                        • -1

                          @trevor99: Does that link provide evidence that they are for covid or even mention covid? No.
                          Have you provided any "clear evidence"? No, you have provided separate events that do not reference each other.

                          To be clear this was your quote too:

                          They didn't place defribulators in primary schools years ago, because the heart attack rate was trivial. Now they do because it isn't.
                          You want evidence, here's a taste: Medicare new item 63399:
                          https://x.com/real_GGoswami/status/1800456330463121701

                          Was that evidence that the defibrillators are for covid? No.

                          • @Gehirn: Wow, you're concatenating different paragraphs now and removing spaces.
                            Didn't know you had to be a lawyer to write on here.
                            Boost up !!

                        • -1

                          @trevor99:

                          I can tell you this was never the case it the past.

                          The ever reducing cost and increasing availability of AED's is of no consequence in your determination?

                          My work place has an AED, as do many.

                          If you went back 10 years ago the number of workplaces with and without would be drastically different than today.
                          Zero to do with covid,
                          100% to do with significant cost reductions, increased availability, clear demonstratable benefits from AED availability, and increased OHS regulation regarding first aid requirements within workplaces (of which schools are)

                          Or, perhaps its all just because of covid vaccines.

                          Correlation <> Causation, but your Venn diagram is clearly just a single circle on this one.

                          • -1

                            @SBOB: But that's your opinion.
                            My opinion is you're trying to fake an irrelevant tangent that isn't there to distract yourself away from the increasing mountains of catastrophic harm of excess deaths and injuries that just happened to start with the experimental Vax. Keep it up.

                            • -1

                              @trevor99:

                              But that's your opinion.

                              These are factual items
                              - significant cost reductions,
                              - increased availability,
                              - clear demonstratable benefits from AED availability,
                              - increased OHS regulation regarding first aid requirements within workplaces (of which schools are)

                              They are the same reason that you now see AED's in more and more places.
                              Every shopping centre, workplace, public sports field, day cares, and, as you earlier identified, schools etc etc

                              The only one making irrelevant tangents would be the one that doesn't consider any of the above conditions in their assessment of increased AED's within society, nor has any actual statistics to show that a distinct and significant uptick/hocket stick in AED sales and installations occurred to align with their 'theory'

                              • @SBOB: Nice discussion you're having with yourself, of course irrelevant.
                                On another note, there's a 42% increased chance of developing a neuro problem after covid, equating to 7% of those infected.
                                Many are seeing it.

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF4PebYeYpU&t=163s

                                • -1

                                  @trevor99: Wow, youve worked out COVID had side effects.
                                  Impressive
                                  (You do realise that study /numbers isnt talking about vaccines right)

        • Does that mean we need to start blaming "Big Fib" , instead of just Big Pharma, for things now?

  • -1

    Horrifying…
    Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: "Depending on where the vaccine damage occurs, a wide variety of neurological and psychiatric illnesses can occur. Nerve failures and paralysis, but also dementia, psychoses and personality changes are on agenda for vaccinated people. The unbelievable horror story doesn't end there. Chopped DNA fragments have been found in large numbers as vaccine contaminants. Fragmented DNA sequences have increased propensity to be incorporated into the chromosomal DNA. The possible consequences are endless. The finely tuned network can be disrupted that controls cell division and differentiation. Cancer and developmental disorders can result. Mutations in sperm and fertilized eggs could make altered characteristics heritable."
    https://x.com/FMannuss/status/1801638053422792969

    • -2

      Horrifying that (a) a professional would invent things to mislead and misinform and (b) that your ideology prevents you from getting a balanced view about vaccines, their obvious advantages and their possible side-effects.

      When (IF) you finally open your mind and embrace rationality you're going to be really horrified about what covid-19 does to human bodies.

        • -3

          That's your idea of medical science? I should be shocked - no, "horrified" - but in this age of self-aggrandisement, astonishing gullibility, celebrated ignorance, pseudo science, and anti-social and essentially immoral deception, unfortunately I'm not.

          All medicines have risks. All vaccines have risks. People can have entirely different reactions to the same medication or vaccination. People died after having the Astra Zeneca vaccine, hundreds of thousands were saved. Some people have bad reactions to other covid vaccines. The vast majority of people had no or minor reactions to the various 'jabs', which saved the lives of millions around the world.

          The stats say unequivocally that the risks of serious illness and death are greatly reduced if you are vaccinated against the virus. They also suggest that if you are infected, survive and develop enough antibodies as a result then your risk of death from covid is also significantly diminished.

          Leave any arrogant ignorance, ego and ideology at the door, read the science, and learn the risks, the benefits and the huge variation in probabilities. If possible do that while considering others in your community.

          • +3

            @Igaf: You've missed the point, and you probably did not read the second Twitter link:


            BY FEB 2020 W.H.O. KNEW COVID 19 CASE FATALITY RATE WAS 0.7%

            A Joint investigative mission between China and W.H.O. had already established by the 3rd week of Feb 2020, that the CASE FATILITY RATE was 0.7% across the population.

            Quote (pg 13)

            In China, the overall CFR was higher in the early stages of the outbreak (17.3% for cases with symptom onset from 1- 10 January) and has reduced over time to 0.7% for patients with symptom onset after 1 February

            Report on the W.H.O China Joint Mission on Covid 19
            16 - 24 Feb 2020

            (link in comments)


            People who "accepted" the science, in Australia or Globally, took the emergency approval treatment (which was the recipe for ONLY for the Alpha variant) and then got worst side-effects or saw deaths too…but somehow they still get told "trust the science?"

            The TGA, 90% funded by pharma, approved something that is now being revealed, was with underreported trial data.
            What if the TGA got duped?

            The word "va*ine" was used before 2020, to mean something that had been tested over 7-10 years. People are not opposed to taking it but you'll find people opposed to sign up to experiments.

            Trusting the science should see more people take the different recipe, for the different variants, but everyone has become anti-va*cks and not taken it. Why is that?

            Pf1zer was taken to court (in 2022) by Aaron Siri, and Pf1z3r objected to releasing the adverse reactions to everyone who had accepted the " science".
            Pf1zer said it will not release the documentation for another 55 years or 75 years,…I can't remember the years, but it was that long.

            The U.S. federal judge rejected the FDA's request to produce Pf1zer's Covid-19 vaccine data at the rate of 500 pages per month and instead ordered a rate of 55,000 pages per month.
            Pf1z3r lawyers scrub / format the information…and publishes this data now —> https://phmpt.org/

            The Australian government have scrubbed their COVID 19 treatment guideline website not just leaving it static as an archive, but by overwriting it.

            Unless hackers have taken over the DNS , "Domestic Air Freight Australia" use a website called "covid19evidence.net.au"

            Check:
            https://archive.is/a8xAV

            The point is that Kristine Macartney (from Australia's NCIRS) used COVID19evidence.net.au , in her court testimony and it doesn't exist now.

          • +1

            @Igaf: "hundreds of thousands were saved"
            Prove it.

            • -2

              @trevor99: Lol. How old are you, five? Right back at ya pal, disprove it.

              That "hundred of thousands" was a come get me line. Some estimates put the number at up to14M worldwide. Google and read.

              If you dropped the arrogance (that you know better than thousands of experts worldwide) and bothered to do an hour or three's research you'd easily find statistical evidence for the efficacy of covid vaccines in reducing the likelihood of serious illness and death from covid.

              Multiples vary depending on country, stage of the pandemic (important for reasons you know doubt understand), quality of health services etc - as any informed person would expect (/s) - but factors of 8 to 10 were common outcomes from data analysis across multiple jurisdictions. In simple terms that even an uninformed anti-vaxxer shoiud be abe to understand that means an unvaccinated person was 8 to 10 times more likely to become seriously ill or die from covid than a vaccinated person.

              Furthermore, assuming you have an average IQ and the most basic ability to do arithmetic, using those multipliers you'd be able to calculate for yourself what that meant for the efficacy of covid vaccines in terms of worldwide numbers of lives saved. Alternatively you could simply search for and read detailed statistical analyses from respected experts who are comprehensively better qualified, more knowledgeable and experienced than you (and me). It may look like rocket science to naive novices who haven't even scraped the surface of the data but it's perfectly simple and valid statistical analysis.

              Your mind is not for changing but sadly, worse than that, it's not for opening.

              • +2

                @Igaf: All that blather and no proof.
                You're pushing it with claims of benefit so surely it should be very easy.

                • -1

                  @trevor99:

                  All that blather and no proof.

                  Confuscius once say: man cannot prove anything to a rock.
                  So much ignorance and no disproof. That's a given with your demographic though so no surprise.

                  Verifying the efficacy of covid vaccines IS easy, IF - and that's obviously a very big IF in some cases - you're prepared to accept expert analysis over self-imposed ignorance AND you have a REAL interest in informing yourself of both the beneifts and risks associated with covid vaccines and covid itself. Should you dip your toe into the rational adult world you will find that the risks associated with covid acquisition are, overall, far greater than the risks associated with vaccines. There ARE, as most know, exceptions you should and would be aware of if you bothered to listen to the advice of Australian health experts or were prepared to do a few hours reading and verifying of your own.

                  I've already wasted enough time on rabid anti-vaxxers so you'll either have to get your nursemaid to do the basic research I've alluded to above or better still get off this website for and hour and do your own. It will take google less than a second to find the info you're oblivious to. How long it will take you to absorb and accept the facts is anyone's guess but anthing less than a few years will be progress.

                  • +4

                    @Igaf: The Govt knows who are unvaxxed and could easily prove efficacy of vaxxed vs that control group if it worked.
                    But they don't because it doesn't. You can be sure they'd plaster it everywhere otherwise.

                    You are simply parroting Govt propaganda.

                    Sorry to advise the bad news, but you've been deceived, defrauded, attacked, brainwashed and poisoned. Yet you attempt to defend them.

                    • -1

                      @trevor99: Your paranoioia is showing. Time to don a bigger tin-foil hat.

                      The "govt" knows nothing about personal health info. Health institutions (hospitals, health centres, medical practices etc) do, and they provide aggregated information on vaccination, deaths etc to central authorities so that data analysis - such as that provided weekly for years during covid by UK and Australian health authorities - can be done in an an accurate and timely manner.

                      That you have no clue whatsoever about what goes on with health data collection and analysis is understandable. Most people would also be ignorant of the systems in place to record disease prevalence, treatment and outcomes.

                      You're not off the hook though. That you characterise what you don't know and have no capacity to understand let alone accept as "propaganda" is a testament to how far down the anti-vax rabbit hole you've descended. Only one person can fix that and a quick glance in the mirror will tell you who that is.

                      At some point in your life you will avail yourself of the massive health expertise you deny exists and your own experiennce will become part of the aggretgated system which is used to inform governments of health needs and trends. It will also contribute to health worker nwoledge and the improvement of treatments, systems etc.

                      I doubt very much you have a clue so I'll give you an example. During a more than 12 month period during the pandemic in Australia influenza almost totally disappeared (as you know /s it's a reportable disease) and there were zero deaths. I can hear that steel trap of yours trying to understand how it's possible that "the govt" knows this and what it meant for policy and in practice. Simple answer - doctors and hospitals reported what they were seeing, authrorities knew it was then unnecessary to advertise flu shots and stockkpile massive numbers of flu vaccines. No rocket science or system invention required - the systems and knowledge have been in place for decades and they are regularly refined to keep our communities as safe and healthy as possible.

                      • +1

                        @Igaf:

                        During a more than 12 month period during the pandemic in Australia influenza almost totally disappeared (as you know /s it's a reportable disease) and there were zero deaths.

                        Was testing or reporting obligations for influenza limited, ceased or suspended under health emergency or other directives, during the time you speak of?

                        • -1

                          @mrdean: What does your steel trap tell you? Authorities collected and analysed and published the data, as they do every year. I and many others who don't have their headswhere the sun don't shine read it out of interest. The alternative is that a conspiracy involving health workers across the nations existed, and not even skeptics leaked it.

                          Here's a clue pal. This is an anonymous deals website. It's not a place to get accurate or informed information on pandemics, health etc. For all you know I could be an anti-anti-vax bot.

                          • +1

                            @Igaf:

                            Here's a clue pal.

                            Hey pal, no need to get shirty. I asked a simple question, seeing how you seem to be in know & up to date with information.

                            You stated no deaths from the reportable illness influenza for 12 months. I simply asked if requirements for reporting changed or tests were minimized or suspended for it during that time. Surely that might have affected the resulting disappearance of the flu. I don't know the answer, thought you might.

                            • -1

                              @mrdean: Your question was puerile and loaded with inuendo. It got what it deserved.

                              • +1

                                @Igaf:

                                Your question was puerile and loaded with inuendo. It got what it deserved.

                                Ooooh, loaded with innuendo. Let me guess. You pored over the brilliantly produced & presented reports, with nice pictures & graphs & sciency looking tables that showed "influenza" got shafted by "covid" during that 12 month period, & you nodded your head & approved. Some really basic questions:

                                what were the testing numbers for influenza during that period compared to the previous years? huh
                                were reporting requirements suspended during that time? huh

                                Simple questions, but in your expert opinion, "puerile". Don't question! Naughty. In the corner with a tinfoil dunce cap for you!

                                • -1

                                  @mrdean: Google and read, preferably before you post completely ignorant questions on topics you obviously know sfa about. Spoonfeeding should have stopped when you reached high school.

                      • +1

                        @Igaf: It's called the Australian immunisation register. How can this not be clear.
                        https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/australian-immunisation…

                        Like I said, very sadly many of the vaxxed are in mental decline
                        https://x.com/PierreKory/status/1803808891928768690

                        • -1

                          @trevor99: Most will have a long way to go before they reach the level of decline anti-vaxxers occupy.

                          You do understand that covid can have a severe effect known colloquially as brain fog presumably? Ever heard of long covid?

                        • -1

                          @trevor99:

                          Like I said, very sadly many of the vaxxed are in mental decline

                          ignoring similar studies showing cognitive impairment, irrespective of vax status, in those who have been infected with covid19?
                          but those are probably on google scholar instead of twitter.

                • +2

                  @trevor99:

                  All that blather and no proof.
                  You're pushing it with claims of benefit so surely it should be very easy.

                  True, it's a "trust the science" argument, one that appeals to authority.

                  I did a web search on "efficacy of covid vaccines" & had a look at the first link in the results.

                  https://www.cochrane.org/news/cochrane-review-covid-19-vacci…
                  https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD…
                  comment by well qualified "dissenter" who has been ridiculed & marginalized:
                  https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD…

                  • +2

                    @mrdean: They have Stockholm syndrome.

                    Old bought and paid for papers, easily picked apart. Where are they now?

                    Can we all please remember there is a long and detailed approval process for vaccines that's there for a reason. There are several levels of trials for long term efficacy and safety for a reason. These were all bypassed with "Emergency use authorisation". And not for a small group but for the whole world.

                    • -1

                      @trevor99: Stockholm syndrome? Surely that's a myth, or do you cherry pick your authority based on whether it fits your view of the world? Rhetorical question - it's a universal trait of your demographic.

                  • -1

                    @mrdean: That authority is mostly well earned - much like the ignorance and lack of aurthority by anti-sciencers. It's what keeps societies safe, functional, and advancing, in complete contrast to your paranois skepticism. Despite your ignorance there is room for dissent - as ling as it is underpinned by sound reason, data etc. That is a fundamental of all science and why peer-review is critical.

                    • @Igaf: Peer review is a modern invention, it certainly hasn't been around in the formal structured way modern journals require for hundreds of years. It is also open to abuse. There have been criticisms of it by well known figures at some of the top journals.

                      What passes for "science" today is nothing like you imagine it to be, to the detriment of TRUTH. People have blown the whistle on it, but you've been conditioned to fob it off as "ignorance" "anti-science" "conspiracy" & other epithets.

                      Your type is enabling the following:

                      "The human race pursues the path of collective suicide, while chanting the hymn of progress." Guy Wrench, Reconstruction By Way Of The Soil, 1946.

                      • @mrdean: I'm well aware of the frailties of science. Pseudo science for example - much loved by anti-vaxxers - has become a real threat. One of many. No system involving humans is perfect. What you know about how science works and authority is earned could be written on a pinhead.

                        • +3

                          @Igaf:

                          about how science works

                          If your type are in positions of influence in the so called "scientific" establishment then no wonder things are as corrupted & pathetic as they are. Time for a clean out.

                          • @mrdean: Sure Donny.

                            If you have any credible evidence of scientific corruption or gross incompetence then feel free to provide it to the media, or even the authorities you think you know more than. Plenty of people before you, albeit with far more knowledge and wit, have done so - something you'd know IF you knew a poofteenth about science. Here's just one example exposed by an inquisitive and socially responsible journalist frommemory: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ind…

                            • +1

                              @Igaf: Ooooh, I lurv how now on an anonymous bargain related website you want not just evidence, but "credible" (the choice word par excellence of regulators & administrators who want to protect themselves & others from any criticism) evidence. Get real & just start reading books from whistleblowers like Gotzsche. But I know exactly where you'll go from there, because you see Gotzsche got ousted from the organization he helped co-found, he got marginalized & ridiculed for exposing corruption within pharma/regulators, a whole sorry saga that people like you have used to discredit him. You say you are scientific & data driven, lol, no one relied on data more than Gotzsche.
                              Your link doesn't work, but I know it's about Wakefield from the url, the usual go to for pseudo-skeptics. And yes, Brian Deer has a lot to answer for. I'd advise you to actually read the GMC transcripts & the respondents answers to questions posed, but I know you never will.

                              • +2

                                @mrdean: fyi The first listed adverse event of interest in Pfizer's "post marketing experience" (the report they tried to keep secret for 70 years but was ordered released by a judge) is 1p36 deletion syndrome. 1p36 deletion syndrome is a disorder that typically causes intellectual disabilities. They may have temper tantrums, bite themselves, or exhibit other behaviour problems

                                https://ibb.co/qsgy36x

                                • +1

                                  @trevor99: It's truly tragic how these countermeasures are now recommended for pregnant women.

                                  • +1

                                    @mrdean: It's overwhelmingly sad when thinking about those poor little babies. And the scale of all this. There's so much pain out there.
                                    As much as we try to help others we also need to step back to protect our families and live life.

                                    • +2

                                      @trevor99:

                                      And the scale of all this.

                                      Multi-generational, both past & future. Mind boggling.

                                    • +2

                                      @trevor99: What is truly sad is that adult parents will risk their children's health because they haven't bothered to inform themselves of the risks and benefits of vaccines which have overwhelmingly been of enormous beneift to humankind.

                              • @mrdean: I haven't read Gotzsche's book but reviews suggest it's revealing and convincing. Does he suggest we should throw all the big pharma companies and "authorities" under a bus like you appear to be doing?

                                We all know the failures of big pharma, failures which also extend to moral and social responsibility abandonment in poor countries especially, as outlined by the late great travel writer AAGill's Uganda sleeping sickness story.

                                So your theory is that everything and all authority is rotten to the core because companies and regulators are imperfect? Sorry, I shouldn't put words in your mouth. Another of your demographic's traits is that refuse to say exactly what they believe is wrong because they can then be pinned down, so here's your chance.

                                Precisely what is your complaint? You appear to be implying that covid data is invented or intentionally altered/skewed and that authorities and officials across the globe are complicit. Is that it?

                                • +1

                                  @Igaf: At least now you are starting to acknowledge "failures", something apparently which "we all know" about.

                                  My "complaint" could be succinctly summed up by pointing out those "failures" are endemic, not "rare" or "exceptions". How do I know this? Because of research!

                                  https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/442669/113384/medicati…
                                  Tell me which half of that trial data the pharmaceutical corporations submitted to the regulators to get approval for their drug, & tell me that the published science that touted benefits, wasn't rigged or flawed.
                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ4F_ZF3u9M&t=3014s

                                  Massaging data is common, which ironically, is what the pseudo-skeptic crowd toss out to "antivaxxers".

                                  • @mrdean: "Starting to acknowldedge"? You clearly haven't got a clue about me, or the vast majority of scientists worldwide for that matter.

                                    Endemic my arse. What you mean is that your quaint notion of science, people and organisations has been rattled by the realisation that people and systems are imperfect, except for those who you believe are perhaps? As a result you're prepared to tar everyone with the same brush, and impugn their integrity - but only on an anymous forum. Extending your proposition should we also throw out democracy because "corruption is endemic", and policies, adminstration and people are imperfect? Puerile barely does that notion justice but it's a starting point. Just one example.

                                    • +1

                                      @Igaf: Just read Gotzsche's & Angell's books, & start looking critically at government reports, scientific articles & ask the right questions. Look at who's on the boards of the big scientific publishers & their connections to industry. Assume data is being massaged to begin with, that is the only logical starting point.
                                      Did it even occur to you to ask those basic scientific questions about the influenza stats? You never answered.
                                      Of course if you're in a position where your livelihood is dependent on grant money, asking questions & being critical, having integrity, if it causes unfavorable results that go against commercial interests or the government narrative of the day, is not a wise career move.

                                      • -1

                                        @mrdean:

                                        Look at who's on the boards of the big scientific publishers & their connections to industry. Assume data is being massaged to begin with, that is the only logical starting point.

                                        Childish tosh, but further proof of the extent you will go to anonymously impugn people with not a shred of evidence. Standard fare for your ilk. Drop a few names for me with details of what you claim they've done so we can test your claims.

                                        Did it even occur to you to ask those basic scientific questions about the influenza stats? You never answered.

                                        I have no particular reason to question the broad validity of influenza or covid stats because I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I also accept that scientific authority and reputation are usually hard won in democratic nations, and that there are many checks and balances which will expose subterfuge. You on the other hand think the worst of evryone bar yourself and your conspiratorial mates. You also apparently believe that mass group-think is involved in all data collection.

                                        As you know, trends are far more important than specifc numbers during pandemics for patently obvious reasons and irrespective of country or jurisdiction they pretty much said the same thing despite varying approaches to testing, rollouts, herd immunity, virus management and obvious significant demographic differences. Even when countries like Israel announced stats and conclusions regarding multiple jab protection there were plenty of analyses pointing out the variation in parameters which needed to be accounted for when attempting to compare countries' results. I also have no reason to question the integrity of Australian or British health officials even when they made one size fits all decisions.

                                        Of course if you're in a position where your livelihood is dependent on grant money, asking questions & being critical, having integrity, if it causes unfavorable results that go against commercial interests or the government narrative of the day, is not a wise career move.

                                        Ah the old grants argument which essentially claims all science and scientists are beholden. That tired epithet has run its course through overuse during the so called "climate wars". The obvious counter - apart from the lack of any convincing evidence - is easily found in the public discussions and debate, and consistent checking by both media and scientists of the funding sources for reports. The fact that CSIRO for example continually reported anthropogenic climate change as real despite being "controlled" by the Abbott and Morrison governments gives the lie to your kowtowing claim. Can't wait for you next installment which by my reckoning should be due to include the old "they're all in it together" anti-scientist conspiracy. Question for you. Is that a new phenomenon or did it also apply when vaccines were developed for measles, the flu, whooping cough, papillomavirus etc? Another far more difficult question. What reason would governments of widely different political persuasion have to invent pandemic data, or hand over massive amounts of money to drug and PPE suppliers?

                                        • -1

                                          @Igaf:

                                          because I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

                                          Moooooo.

                                          https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/442669/113576/cowconsp…

                                          • -1

                                            @mrdean: Questions too dificult for you? Unwilling to share the names of those whose integrity you've malinged without evidence or rational consideration? I'm not surprised.

                                            Was it your upbringing which made you untrusting and dismissive of your fellow human beings or did you acquire that trait all on your own? Here's some advice. There's a HUGE difference between being informed, inquisitive, skeptical, analytical and making massive leaps of distrust based on instances of gross malpractice you've read about and assuming therefore that everyone (other than you) is dishonest and complicit. The former is adult and rational, the latter is puerile, ignorant, irresponsible and frankly dangerous for mental health and societal cohesion.

                                            Couple of ironies/disjunctions spring immediately to mind. (1) Although you are completely dismissive of advice, writings, statistics, analyses, books etc from "authorities" and/or authoritative authors, you are prepared to not only drool over "whistleblower" exposees but you will also blindly take a leap in the dark and assume, ergo, that everyone in senior/responsible positions in an industry therefore lacks integrity; (2) when you're not on an anonymous website trashing "authority" (ie generally people who know and contribute far more than you) you automatically accept that people are in fact for the most part not like your online portrayal of them at all. You willingly provide all sorts of strangers with your personal details, you interact with banks, medical practices, government institutions etc as a matter of course. You consume products that have been produced according to standards authorised by "authorities" and typically based on scientific advice. You rely on water and power systems developed and managed (with assistance obviously) by scientists. You travel over bridges/through tunnels/in tubes putting your trust in the integrity of both the science used and the scientists involved in designing and developing them and in the materials used to construct them. Presumably your paranoid distrust is selective?

                                            • +1

                                              @Igaf:

                                              There's a HUGE difference between being informed, inquisitive, skeptical, analytical and making massive leaps of distrust based on instances of gross malpractice you've read about and assuming therefore that everyone (other than you) is dishonest and complicit.

                                              Do you know who Stanley Plotkin is? He has a textbook named after him. Plotkins Vaccines.
                                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Plotkin

                                              Seeing as you're all about the integrity of science, I assume you have.

                                              Here's a legal deposition Plotkin participated in during 2018 where he was asked some very good questions by attorney Aaron Siri Esq, whose firm litigates on behalf of Del Bigtree's ICAN organisation.

                                              Here is a document prepared by them giving a snapshot of vaccines & clinical trial data: https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/no-placebo…

                                              Let's focus on HPV on that chart, because it actually was one trial that did include a small cohort who allegedly got a saline shot. Here is the fda document for that shot: https://www.fda.gov/media/74350/download
                                              Look at section 6.1 Clinical Trials Experience, pages 4-10 approx.

                                              Go to the time stamp in the deposition at around 4:20:00 to about 4:33:00. The gardasil section actually starts some time before this around 4:05:00.

                                              The data is partly there & it's phenomenal. Siri & ICAN had to sue for the clinical trial data saline data. Why? Because it shows the absolute corruption, the hiding of harms from the hpv shot. Do you see what they did? Or do I have to explain it to you like a child?

                                              In short, they combined the "saline" & "AAHS Control" numbers for "potential systemic autoimmune disorders post shot" see pages 6-8 for the tables. But when tabling "local injection site reactions" they decided to break them out (see page 4). Why? Because local reactions are minor, but potential autoimmune disorders serious. It hides the harms because then the comparison rate is the same (2.3% Table 9). Had they broken out the "saline" they would of seen……….shock horror: 0% systemic autoimmune disorders.

                                              Do you get it? How does Plotkin rationalise that? He assumes the researchers "ASSUMED" there's no reason why aluminum by itself would cause serious issues. And he comes up with the usual pseudo-rationalisations like "no statistical significance" because of the small cohort. Lol. That's not science. Even Aaron Siri was lost for words.

                                              Sorry to tell you champ, but your faith in science is sorely misplaced, & it most certainly is blind faith.

                                              Of course, there are good decent people working in science, it's just a shame such data manipulation appears to be standard operating procedure.

                                              • -1

                                                @mrdean:

                                                Sorry to tell you champ, but your faith in science is sorely misplaced, & it most certainly is blind faith.
                                                Of course, there are good decent people working in science, it's just a shame such data manipulation appears to be standard operating procedure.

                                                QED.

                                                Still no names or specfic accusations? What's stopping you pal? Fear of being exposed as a fraud or as a defamer?

                                                I'll give you your due, your cherry picking is phenomenal even for a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Your puerile and illogical conclusions need quite a bit of work though, as I've already suggested. There is nothing new about questionable business ethics and cover-ups, often exposed by the very people you continue to denigrate - scientists. In those rare moments that you pop your head over the parapet you may have heard about tobacco and cancer, 3M and forever chemicals, Erin Brokovic, Big Oil and climate….

                                                What is pretty novel is your conclusion that every scientist and manager in those industries is manifestly corrupt. That is demonstrably nonsensical and irrational, the product of a mind disconnected from reality.

                                                Here's another simple question: In your clearly limited and cossetted lifetime, how much direct interaction have you had with scientists? Educated guess says sfa - or, statistically speaking, of no significance either time or quality wise. Corollary: Of those you have had some liited intereaction with (doctors for example), how many did you conclude lacked integrity and would manipulate data at the drop of a hat? That number would have to be in the top percentile given your unhinged comments above and elsewhere.

                                                • +1

                                                  @Igaf:

                                                  What is pretty novel is your conclusion that every scientist and manager in those industries is manifestly corrupt. That is demonstrably nonsensical and irrational, the product of a mind disconnected from reality.

                                                  Is this the only thing you have to fall back on?

                                                  I've given you two pretty clear cut examples, & you have zippo to say about them apart from "cherry picking".

                                                  Here, have a look at the data again: https://www.fda.gov/media/74350/download
                                                  table 9, page 8.

                                                  If you were a parent about to give the hpv shot to a teenage daughter or son, would you consider yourself "fully informed" by looking at that table? 2.3% (about 1 in 50) reported a "potential" systemic autoimmune condition after the shot in both the "gardasil" & "aahs control OR saline" group.

                                                  See how they DECEIVE you with the word OR? If, for some inexplicable reason, you say yes, then what would you conclude if table 9 had 3 columns,
                                                  GARDASIL
                                                  AAHS Control
                                                  Saline

                                                  & you saw 2.3% in the first two columns but 0% in the Saline column. Because that's the REALITY, champ. Would you conclude the benefit still outweighed the risk? Lol.

                                                  Would you even ask the following questions:
                                                  Why only 500 or so in the saline cohort?
                                                  If the trial was run with integrity & ethics why did they include a proprietary aluminum adjuvant as a "control". What was the effect of doing that?
                                                  Shouldn't they have run a larger saline group, or even just dropped the AAHS control & used all saline in that group? There would of been a similar number of trial participants in both groups. I know, the typical vaccine zealot response is that it's not "ethical". Hilariously tragic, given these biased "trials" are what the regulators rely upon to license injections that are given to millions of kids!!

                                                  I know perfectly well why they used that "control", have you figured it out yet? I've only told you multiple times, but I'll repeat it again; to hide harms!! to give it a favorable safety profile!

                                                  I sometimes wonder, are people at these corporations & agencies aware of this, I mean do they know it's wrong, but are just afraid to speak up because they know there could be repercussions? Or do they genuinely believe vaccines are "safe & effective" & they've deluded themselves into thinking they are saving lives? If its the latter, does this justify the sleight of hand data manipulation? I don't think so, but I do understand the pressure people in these organisations face, so I wouldn't be surprised if its the former case.

                            • +2

                              @Igaf: @Igaf

                              Here's just one example exposed by an inquisitive and socially responsible journalist frommemory: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ind…

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkQlZgnbUQ

                              A clue to why CNN might not be a credible source of news on this topic is at 5 seconds into this video.
                              Yes, youtube videos are not proof of anything.
                              However would you care to point out how many commercial news outlets in this country reported on Gerald Harvey's big windfall with JobKeeper payments and refusal to give them back to the taxpayer despite HN's massive spike in profits over the lockdowns? Rhetorical question - none did. HN is practically their biggest spender with advertisements.

                              Imagine being a journalist and going to your editor "I've got this great story on bad things that one of our major sponsors are doing". What would be the response?

                              Look into how much advertising on news channels comes from military related companies, and then wonder why the last 30 years of wars (including Ukraine) have had public support.

                              • +1

                                @glennski:

                                "I've got this great story on bad things that one of our major sponsors are doing". What would be the response?

                                How can we spin it?

                                • +2

                                  @mrdean: In a more serious way I was thinking that the journalist would be told to drop it and work on something else, and possibly ridiculed or reprimanded for not knowing better.
                                  I get it, they are a business and businesses will do as businesses do - return profits to their shareholders. It's quite frightening to see news organisations effectively captured with this process, at least on certain contentious topics.

                                  Same problem is in politics with donations.

                                  • +1

                                    @glennski: It's how the current system works.

                                    RFK Jr has repeatedly told about his talk with Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, around 2015, about doing a vaccine story, but Ailes told him it was a no go area. If they did, Ailes would receive a call within 10 mins from Murdoch & probably have to let go of the journalists. I guess this eventually happened with Tucker Carlson. According to RFK Jr, Ailes mentioned around that time, about 75% of nightly ad revenue was coming from those pharmaceutical corporations. There's also the fact that Murdoch & his family have a long history promoting & pushing for vaccination through their investments & institutes like the MCRI.

                                    • -1

                                      @mrdean: RFK Jnr. Roflmao. Was that in a rare sane moment?

                                      The Murdoch media empire regularly questioned covid vax efficacy even after the ob himself got jabbed. Calrson got the arse for entirely unrelated reasons, including but not limited to his role in the Dominion $787M payout and his open criticism of Fox management. I doubt they cared much about Carlson's xenophobia, racism and lies or his rants about management but when it came to paying for his fkups it seems the wallets had some limits.

                              • -1

                                @glennski:

                                However would you care to point out how many commercial news outlets in this country reported on Gerald Harvey's big windfall with JobKeeper payments and refusal to give them back to the taxpayer despite HN's massive spike in profits over the lockdowns? Rhetorical question - none did. HN is practically their biggest spender with advertisements.

                                Not sure what the relevance is but I hope you didn't bet your house on that clearly erroneous claim. Nine, via its mediam arms (smh, the Age etc) ran numerous articles on the ludicrous unfettered jobkeeper payment issue. HN was just one of many companies involved as you know. So did the Guardian. Don't like the bloke at all but give him his due he eventually paid back his portion of the windfall, as did some others.

                                • +1

                                  @Igaf:

                                  Not sure what the relevance is but I hope you didn't bet your house on that clearly erroneous claim

                                  My apologies, my memory has failed me. I was thinking of this report by media watch:

                                  https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/harvey/13387258

                                  Yes it was reported on in some media, and if you watch the report above you can see that if you spend lots of $$$ in media it will come with certain benefits.

                                  Calrson got the arse for entirely unrelated reasons, including ….

                                  Tucker didn't get fired. His show was 'taken off air', and Fox continued to pay his salary (and possibly even still). He claims it was tied to the Dominion lawsuit settlement as a condition that his show go off air.

                                  Carlson's xenophobia, racism and lies..

                                  Do you have a qualification for those assertions? Which episodes of Tucker Carlson Tonight were those qualities displayed?

                                  Carlson had the highest rating show on cable news as a whole by an embarrassing margin. His 'role' in the Dominion scandal was sending text messages calling the lead person making the claims that the voting machines were riggged 'crazy'. If he was listened to it could have saved Fox all the $$$ in damages.

                                  RFK Jnr. Roflmao. Was that in a rare sane moment?

                                  Ad hominem

                                  Is anything of what @mrdean posted in the most recent comment above incorrect regarding RFJ Jr? I don't agree with his simping for Israel but apart from that he seems to be a very sane and intelligent man with a decorated history of fighting for the environment and trying to hold large corporations to account.

                                  The point of all this is that media can be bought/influenced through advertising spend. Do you agree or disagree?
                                  Ask yourself why Lockheed Martin needs to advertise F-35 jets to the public. Does the regular Joe buy these products?

                                  • -1

                                    @glennski:

                                    Tucker didn't get fired.

                                    https://www.google.com/search?q=carlson+fired&rlz=1C1YTUH_en…

                                    Take your pick.

                                    Carlson's xenophobia, racism and lies..
                                    Do you have a qualification for those assertions? Which episodes of Tucker Carlson Tonight were those qualities displayed?

                                    Learn to google and read.

                                    RFK Jnr. Roflmao. Was that in a rare sane moment?
                                    Ad hominem

                                    Learn to google and read. This might help you along. There's plenty more IF you want to get informed.
                                    https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-laun…

                                    The point of all this is that media can be bought/influenced through advertising spend. Do you agree or disagree?

                                    The question is both simplistic and overgeneralised, and the implication massively overstated. It contains absolutisms when equivocations should have been used. In short, the reality is far more complex than your question implies. Rework it and I'll get back to you.

                                    Question: why did you feel it necessary to insert irrelevant comments into my discussion on covid with "trev" and his anti-vax mates?

                                    • +1

                                      @Igaf: @Igaf

                                      Learn to google and read.

                                      Wow I got served. I'm so surprised to find that googling someones name who the media at large hate produces articles where the media hate him.
                                      Since he's such a big liar you should be able to name 5 off the top of your head.
                                      Xenophobia? Will you be telling me here in Australia that people are xenophobic if they don't want 500,000+ people a year immigrating to Australia and complaining of the havoc it's wrecking on cost of living, infrastructure, housing etc. ?

                                      Doing a google search on someone's name and reading the headlines proves that the person is talked about. Why do they hate him? They certainly didn't earlier in his career when he lied on behalf of establishment interests, like pushing for the Iraq war. More recently he tells the truth for example on the Ukraine war, and then starts losing sponsors.

                                      This might help you along….

                                      To be honest I don't know about half the things in that list, but the other half you could argue that to not think those things in fact makes you the conspiracy theorist. Who actually still believes that the virus originated in the wild considering the abundance of evidence and research papers supporting the lab leak, as well as American intelligence agencies? MSM are the promoters of 'wacky conspiracy theory' on that one.
                                      That article also mentions the 'conspiracy theory' that Anthony Fauci exaggerated the pandemic to promote vaccines. Here, this one I'll make it easy for you - you don't even have to google! Just learn to read the OP!

                                      I missed the part of the article where they said they contacted him for a statement or rebuttal of any sort.

                                      Question: why did you feel it necessary to insert irrelevant comments into my discussion on covid with "trev" and his anti-vax mates?

                                      The general topic of this sub thread of course is pro-vax vs. anti-vax, whatever those terms are supposed to mean. Your convo with "trev" et al. most recently was responding to their responses to some of my comments. As you politely put it: learn to read.

                                      Rework it and I'll get back to you.

                                      Media coverage of companies or the industries which they operate within can be influenced by advertising spend and/or other business relationships the companies/industries in question have with media outlets. I believe to have evidence of this as seen in the Media Watch report posted earlier. Would you care to comment with your thoughts?

                                      IF you want to get informed.

                                      The irony. Trying to help you here to understand that the news isn't the news - journalists aren't paid to blindly give an objective view and report absolute facts. There are financial interests at play. Why is it hard to admit that some of the biggest companies in the world (and who also just happen to be the most litigated against) take steps to influence what is said about them, what people think about them, what policies are made that affect their bottom line? I'm not saying that the media are bought and paid for - they don't have to be. We can see bad things happening with mere nudges (e.g advertising spend).

                                      You've linked a news article that a reasonable person on the street could categorise as an attempt at character assassination considering the lack of balance. Ad hominem - attack the person and not the merit of their argument.

                                      I think Anthony Fauci is a lying scumbag who has personally profited wildly over the course of the pandemic. But that is not an argument. There is hard evidence suggesting serious wrong doing and a seemingly blind eye turned by most of the media. We should be asking why things turned out the way they did and investigating potential criminal conduct based on this evidence.

                                      tl;dr money makes the world go around, more news at 11.

                                      • +2

                                        @glennski:

                                        There are financial interests at play. Why is it hard to admit that some of the biggest companies in the world (and who also just happen to be the most litigated against) take steps to influence what is said about them, what people think about them, what policies are made that affect their bottom line? I'm not saying that the media are bought and paid for - they don't have to be. We can see bad things happening with mere nudges (e.g advertising spend).

                                        In my opinion, this touches on a very major point. The lengths they will go to to protect their investments.
                                        lgaf in a previous comment linked to a circa 2011 article on the Andrew Wakefield story, touchingly referring to Brian Deer as the "socially responsible journalist" who investigated it.

                                        How many people know that Deer was mainly commissioned by the Sunday Times newspaper to investigate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times
                                        Who owned the Sunday Times? News Corp. Murdoch.
                                        Does Murdoch have an interest in protecting the vaccine paradigm? Yeah, you bet they do. https://www.mcri.edu.au/research/research-areas/infection-im…

                                        Brian Deer's investigation started years after that 1998 Wakefield et al paper was published & the paper was retracted by the Lancet after the GMC found Wakefield & Walker-Smith "guilty". What that paper really did was direct attention to the possibility that measles virus was involved in the etiology of something they termed "pervasive delayed developmental disorder". And it called for further research. Deer, with the help of an entity called the Association of Pharmaceutical Industries, was able to concoct a series of allegations against Wakefield that convinced people there was fraud involved when no such thing occurred.

                                        Deer was hired essentially to discredit the Wakefield et al paper by any means necessary, protect investments & the vaccine paradigm. An effect of this was to shut down that avenue of research that would of been very uncomfortable for vaccine zealots.

                                        Glaxosmithkline (GSK) is the pharmaceutical corporation that owns the MMR injection.

                                        After the threat from Wakefield was neutralized by Deer & the GMC, the son of Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, was appointed as a non-executive director of GSK.
                                        https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/glaxosmithkli…

                                        • -1

                                          @mrdean:

                                          Deer was hired essentially to discredit the Wakefield et al paper by any means necessary, protect investments & the vaccine paradigm. An effect of this was to shut down that avenue of research that would of been very uncomfortable for vaccine zealots.

                                          You mean the £435,000 paper concocted by Wakefield at the behest of a personal injury lawyer? Surely given your modus operandi that should have rung alarm bells? It would have had your ideological beliefs not blinded you to reality.

                                          You really have gone down the rabbit hole haven't you? I'd ask for your evidence but since none exists then it would have to be fabrication, something you're clearly adept at yourself if we believe the second link below. Your credentials, credibility, knowledge, experience and expertise against theirs? I'd put my house on your opinionated ignorance losing every time.

                                          These rebuttals of your opinionated ignorance would normally break the self-righteousness of any rational adult but in your case it will undoubtedly make no difference. Perhaps it will when you achieve maturity, perhaps not.

                                          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181752/#:~:tex….

                                          https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/do-vaccines-cause-autism

                                          • +1

                                            @Igaf:

                                            These rebuttals of your opinionated ignorance

                                            That's hilarious coming from someone who wrote this: "When you think you have the answer, you haven't dug or thought deeply enough."

                                            Not only that, but you link to one of Stanley Plotkin's proteges in Paul Offit. Totally unbiased & objective. Have you read that book? I have. Have you read Deer's The Doctor Who Fooled The World? I have. What about Wakefield's Callous Disregard? No? I have. Have you watched or listened to any interviews with either Wakefield or Deer over the years? No? I have. You never answered when I asked if you'd read the GMC trial transcripts that resulted in the revocation of Wakefields license. Have you? I, at least, have read certain parts of them.

                                            Isn't that what a normal rational person who wanted to hear all sides in order to come to a conclusion would do? CNN articles, webmd blogs, or books by people who are totally invested in the vaccine paradigm don't cut it pal. But no, you trust the "consensus" of experts don't you! The majority, including esteemed "experts" are saying Wakefields a fraud, so they must be right! The least you could of done was link to the so called investigation by Deer published in the BMJ in an attempt to give him some scientific legitimacy.

                                            Here I'll do it for you: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347
                                            Or even to his website, I'll do that for you too: https://briandeer.com/

                                            You don't comment on any aspect of the links to "News Corpse" I laid out for you in a previous response, or how that might have factored into the resulting immense vilification of Wakefield so that people like you (who don't dig deeply enough) assume the MSM hit pieces are actually telling you the truth. How pathetic.

                                            But since you seem to be so enamored of mainstream news articles, here's something suited to your level of comprehension, although I'm certain this information, like the other bits of information I've offered, will take a wide berth around your prefrontal cortex.

                                            The deceased Bernadine Healy, a MD at the highest levels of the NIH, actually came out with some totally rational & intelligent & fair & balanced statements about vaccines & autism. This is someone with integrity.

                                            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-open-question-on-vaccines-a…
                                            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/leading-dr-vaccines-autism-wort…

                                            I know, it's a report from the antivaxxer Sharyl Attkinson (before she was labelled an antivaxxer), who coincidentally was later coerced out of CBS. Do you reckon it had anything to do with doing stories that conflicted with the "vaccines have saved millions of lives" paradigm?

                                            • -2

                                              @mrdean: Justifying your ludicrous and demonstrably baseless disavowal of the life-saving efficacy of vaccines by using with Healy's open mind on a vaccine/autism is not just disingenuous, it's patently dishonest. Fortunately, in your case it makes no difference in the real world.

                                              Science as you know /s is predicated on uncertainty and the current state of knwoledge and data, and most credible scientists will never claim to have found the ultimate answer to anything they study. That's one of the reasons why research requires precise definition and documentation of parameters, procedures, assumptions, and statistical variability, and why reproducability is fundamental. Irrespective of the importance and weight of consensus, the vast majority of scientists understand, and acknowledge, the limitations of their knowledge and conclusions.

                                              • +1

                                                @Igaf:

                                                Science as you know /s is predicated on uncertainty and the current state of knwoledge and data,

                                                Maybe the National Academies should allow for the possibility of "uncertainty" on this page:

                                                https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/vaccines-…

                                                For example, instead of the claim "Vaccines cause autism", maybe they should of said "Vaccines, in some cases, can cause autism."

                                                Instead of "Vaccines do not cause autism" a claim which leaves no room for doubt, maybe they should of said "According to the available science we have referenced below, it is the current view that vaccines likely do not cause autism."

                                                If you're all about "uncertainty" & the "current state of knowledge & data", as well as integrity & honesty in science, I assume you'd be all for it.

                                                • -1

                                                  @mrdean: Perhaps they should have, perhaps not, it all depends on context, which is obviously important, Pretty clearly that link is to counter the unbalanced, deliberately falsified misifnformation you and your ilk attempt to inflict on naive and unknowing victims like Kelly Lacek.

                                                  Offit pulls no punches when he suggests that worries about vaccine safety are primarily based on hype, misinformation,utter nonsense, and at times patently flawed science. He correctly identifies ideology as the driver behind modern day anti-vaxxer sentiment. When Wakefield opted for the "Callous Disregard" title to his book he must have been looking into a mirror, or perhaps acknowledging what he knows exists in the souls of your tiny demographic.

                                                  • +1

                                                    @Igaf:

                                                    Context is important and clearly that link is to counter the unbalanced, deliberately falsified misifnformation you and your ilk attempt to inflict on naive and unknowing victims.

                                                    Yeah, I thought so. In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for the pre-eminent organisation in the US that houses thousands of scientists & researchers at many different centers & institutes to produce propaganda rather than being "objective". https://www.nationalacademies.org/about
                                                    Ideology indeed. You said "the vast majority of scientists understand, and acknowledge, the limitations of their knowledge and conclusions." But it's ok to forgo that objectivity when it comes to this topic, because of the greater good.

                                                    Given your non-response to my previous queries, it seems obvious you haven't read any of the books mentioned, because if you had, you would know "callous disregard" was what the GMC in their final verdict, determined Wakefield was guilty of, among other things. He used the term ironically for his book, that was published in 2010. If you had read them, you'd be a lot more informed. It's funny how you accuse me of being ignorant.

                                                    Here's some info from the preface to Callous Disregard, written by Dr Peter Fletcher, (Ex-Principal Medical Officer with responsibility for the UK’s Committee on Safety of Medicines and later Senior Principal Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer)

                                                    "My first comment on this excellent book is in respect of whether or not this whole catastrophe could have been avoided by action taken years earlier than The Lancet paper. By about 1987 in the UK, product licence (PL) submissions for three MMR vaccines had been initiated and were the subject of discussion by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). My past position of Principal Medical Officer with responsibility for the main Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and its sub-Committees leads me to the conclusion that a great deal could have been done. It would have come to my attention from minutes of the JCVI that they were urging rapid granting of PLs for the three vaccines. That news would have been alarming because the JCVI was a purely advisory committee (i.e., not a Section 4 committee under the Medicines Act) and had no powers in the granting or refusal of Pls. In the past there would have been no way in which the CSM would have recommended the granting of PLs on such scanty evidence of safety in the submissions. By 1988/9 the only evidence available was a handful of clinical trials each having no more than 7-800 subjects and none of them conducted in the UK. Had I still been there I would have required at least 10,000 patients in each submission with active safety surveillance for a minimum of 3 months with the possibility that this could be extended if untoward findings should be reported. This would most probably have solved our current problem as we now know that at least 35 cases of “autism” had been officially reported by about 1993"

                                                    Yep, another principled & ethical person in the establishment with a moral compass. Notice the pathetic safety data used to justify injecting millions of children? But wait there's more.

                                                    "My fourth comment relates to the safety evaluation of medicinal products intended for healthy people. The two biggest examples are hormonal contraceptives and vaccines. The differences between the two are mindboggling. The contraceptives have been evaluated more intensively than any other group of medicinal products both in humans and animals. In contrast, vaccines have been minimally investigated and there seems to be no hope of an improvement in the future."

                                                    Yeah, they don't seem too interested in looking at vaccines too closely do they? Just like Bernadine Healy talked about. Because what would they find, assuming truth was their aim? But wait there's more.

                                                    "Lastly, I would like to mention the general clinical picture(s) presented by these children which, in my view, constitutes a complex new syndrome. The differing clinical observations cannot each have a different and separated pathological cause. It may be that two or just possibly three different pathological processes are involved, but the root cause has to be a single initiating factor — almost certainly vaccines."

                                                    Yeah, that was in reference to the children studied in that now fraudently retracted Lancet paper in 1998.

                                                    Wakefield's book goes into detail about Deer's allegations at that time (2000-2010), & refutes each point, but because of the complicated history & events involved to summarise them here would take up too much space.

                                                    The foundations of the vaccine paradigm are based on a lack of proper science.

                                                    • -2

                                                      @mrdean:

                                                      Ideology indeed. You said "the vast majority of scientists understand, and acknowledge, the limitations of their knowledge and conclusions." But it's ok to forgo that objectivity when it comes to this topic, because of the greater good.

                                                      Are you really as obtuse as you're making out or is it the eternal problem of quick written repartee? Did I say already that what you know about vaccines, statistics, science, and scientists could be written on a pinhead? Clearly, but there's still room for things such as the greater good (the irony of an anti-vaxxer even mentioning that is palpable) and the psychology of messaging. The risks of bowel cancer are low overall and yet govt health officers insist on sending out test kits to particular demographics. Why is that?

                                                      Your demographic may struggle with the concept of limits of knowledge and need asterixes on every statement but the vast majority of the educated public understands and accepts that medical science operates within those limits every day.

                                                      Welcome to the world of messaging. Wakefield, or more likely his editor/publisher, was obviously trying to turn the callous disregard label he earned through some damned [sic] fine work back on his detractors. You seem to have missed that in return I did the same. Should I have spelt it out more clearly for you?

                                                      Fletcher's characterisation of vaccine research is complete nonsense. For starters most vaccines require a decade or more of research and testing, often directly or indirectly involving scientists across the globe. Once they've been through trials and been approved the data associated with vaccine administration is collated and analysed regularly. So, apart from the multitude of vaccine research papers every year, and the mutltiude of human years of associated work, there is myriad ongoing monitoring and analysis of post-delivery data. This is mandated in most western countries.

                                                      Fletcher's hindisght comment could be summed up as - for various reasons [including funding limitations no doubt] years ago we didn't know as much as we do now, and our systems and procedures weren't as good as they are now. Groundbreaking insight there - well actually a complete disregard for what he must have known was completely normal medical advancement. If medical science wasn't advancing in his jurisdiction either directly as a result of local expertise and experience, or osmosis from overseas, then that would suggest a massive failure of government, health administrators, and health practitioners.

                                                      If as you erroneously and irresponsibly claim "the foundations of the vaccine paradigm are based on a lack of proper science." then we've had an enormous amount of ongoing dumb luck and/or a series of extremely unlikely but fortunate coincidences for many decades. Perhaps it's "god's will" that millions of lives have been saved by vaccines and has nothing at all to do with our knowledge of how pathogens work, how our immune systems react, the combined efforts of thousands of scientists around the world, and the hunderds of thousands of human years of research and analysis involved?

                                      • -2

                                        @glennski: Quite obviously I wasn't responding to the topic in general pal, I've wasted far too much time engaging with narrow minded, self-centred, anti-science fools. Occasionally I'll see something which needs to be carved up and drop a response in to provide a reality check.

                                        I'm so surprised to find that googling someones name who the media at large hate produces articles where the media hate him.

                                        You mean like this, which analysed his show? https://www.npr.org/2022/05/12/1098488908/has-tucker-carlson…

                                        Your immediate reaction/premise is that anyone who reports on someone's behaviour therefore "hates" the target? As I've said in response to numerous other inanities on this website, I'm not in the least surprised. That you appear to believe Carlson is someone of integrity with worthwhile social values fills in a few blanks.

                                        You must have either missed the Dominion case text revelations OR got the shock of your life when he was outed for his private statements about Trump even as he publicly fawned over that dangerous pos. You must have been absolutely dismayed that Carlson admitted to being deceptive about things on air because it's what his/their viewers want to hear, and that the judge in another case found Carlson/Fox not guilty of defamation because "the general tenor of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in exaggeration and non-literal commentary." Laughably, yet ironically District Judge Vyskocil agreed, writing - without provdidng any evidence of its authenticity - "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statement he makes." Whether she had a straight face when she wrote those words is unknown but it's as beautiful an example of sardonicism as you will find anywhere.

                                        Look up Carlson and Hannity's responses to Heinrich's fact check tweet of Trump's Dominion lies. Question is did Carlon's facade fool you or is it simply that you're prepared to overlook his character because he appeals to your particular views? Again google and read, I'll help you out with some obvious some key words : Carlson deceipt racism xenophobia dominion texts lies

                                        Who actually still believes that the virus originated in the wild considering the abundance of evidence and research papers supporting the lab leak, as well as American intelligence agencies? MSM are the promoters of 'wacky conspiracy theory' on that one.

                                        Serious question? Try to keep up. The US National Intelligence Office for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Proliferation - *clearly not to be believed or trusted because it has "authority" and relies on "science" and the integrity of hundreds of scientists who run eyes over and provide assessments to govt, but fwiw /s - ultimately found no direct evidence for the lab theory but, rightly, their agencies hold the view that both natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses.The NIC and four other IC agencies assessed that the initial human infection with SARS-COV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal which carried that virus or a close progenitor. A respected Australian scientist who worked at the lab prior to the pandemic said that based on her experiences and observations there was no possibility that accidental "leakage" could have occurred. US reports weren't so unequivocal. The lab is certified to the highest standard. The question conspiracy theorists have to answer is why China would release such a potent virus in what is probably the country's foremost educational, cultural and economic hub?

                                        IF, as you imply, you're really interested in that topic then you might find this summary of US IC illuminating if not instructive: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Report-…

                                        Media coverage of companies or the industries which they operate within can be influenced by advertising spend and/or other business relationships the companies/industries in question have with media outlets. I believe to have evidence of this as seen in the Media Watch report posted earlier. Would you care to comment with your thoughts?

                                        That is a FAR better statement. It's as plain as the nose on your face - unless of course you ascribe to the media reporting, commentary and analysis "hate" theory you threw out wrt Carlson earlier - that commercial relations can have a level of influence over reporting (and government for that matter). It is not a new phenomeon, occurs across the globe, especially and ironically in the fast decaying USA. Thankfully the "hateful" media - possibly, along with the rule of law and "free speech", THE most important pillar of democracy - often provides a decent level of checks and balances.

                                        The irony. Trying to help you here to understand that the news isn't the news - journalists aren't paid to blindly give an objective view and report absolute facts.

                                        Lol, I'll give that the respect and attention it deserves. To wit News Corpse, for example?

                                        Your writings here suggest you shouldn't be advising anyone about anything related to the media. They also suggest you have an obvious major blind spot, a lack of life experience, and like to view things in black and white with little consideration for the nuance which invariably exists in real life. Understanding the differences between the sponsored puff pieces regularly exposed on Media Watch (and many other small satirical media websites), opinion pieces, analyses, and investigative journalism might help you sort the wheat from the chaff.

                                        Wrt xenophobia, racism, immigration and borders: the latter two are very complex issues, unlike the former two. That you conflate them is again instructive. In a rational adult world we should be able to discuss immigration and borders without resorting to grossly distorted racial/xenophobic rhetoric. You are no doubt aware of Carlson's false claims regarding Latin American immigrant crime (debunked by Texas crime studies). Then there's his support for the white nationalist "great replacement" conspiracy theory - featured in 400+ of his shows according to a NYT analysis - which he claims is all Democrat plot to retain power forever (he clearly knows the IQ of his audience). The NYT analysis found Carlson used terms such as "legacy Americans" which had only ever featured on racist extreme right websites previously (I'll leave you to draw your own conclusion on what that suggests). Interestingly the "great replacement" theory echoes fears dating back to the 1830s in America, fears which each time have proved unfounded.

                                        But enough of this banality. You have to find your own way through the maze but I'll leave you with these thoughts to contemplate:
                                        When you think an issue is black and white, you're almost certainly wrong.
                                        When you think an issue is simple, you're probably still wrong.
                                        When you think you have the answer, you probably haven't dug or thought deeply enough.
                                        As renowned philosopher Betrtrand Russell famously said: The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

                                        • +1

                                          @Igaf:

                                          The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

                                          Nice addition there. Yeah, people like Paul Offit, Stanley Plotkin, Peter Hotez, are all so "full of doubts". /s

                                          • -1

                                            @mrdean: Without asking them specific questions you wouldn't know whether they have doubts or not on any topic.

                                            When you grow up you MAY learn not to take things so literally; that the world isn't black and white like you think it is; that science and scientific authority is hard earned but sometimes far from perfect; that science is limited to the current state of knowledge; that ideology binds and blinds your mind irrationally; that in general ignorant and arrogant amateur opinions have no weight when compared to that of experts; that some people will lie and distort in order to prey on the doubts, fears and ignorance of others; that starting from a position of complete distrust of anyone and anything which doesn't fit your very narrow life view is puerile and debilitating; That there's a vast difference between scepticism and denial; that humans and their systems are both fallible and sometimes corruptible; that balance and perspective are critical to human and societal function.

                                            That shouldn't stop you from being inquisitive, or critical of systems and people when you have valid concerns. People around the world function on that basis without being captured by conspiracy, distorted reality and extremism.

                                            In current times, small pockets of societies embrace ignorance over knowledge even as they live their lives "blissfully" unaware of the science and knowledge which underpins the systems they rely on every day of their existence. In educated democratic societies knowledge and expertise will always eclipse egoistical, opinionated ignorance.

                                        • +1

                                          @Igaf:

                                          Quite obviously I wasn't responding to the topic in general pal, I've wasted far too much time engaging with narrow minded, self-centred, anti-science fools. Occasionally I'll see something which needs to be carved up and drop a response in to provide a reality check.

                                          As renowned philosopher Betrtrand Russell famously said: The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

                                          On that second quote, who are you trying to paint as a fool and fanatic? I'd wager that the reasonable person would read the first quote as someone who is quite certain of themselves since they feel the need to come and impart their wisdom to provide a 'reality check'.

                                          They also suggest you have an obvious major blind spot, a lack of life experience, and like to view things in black and white with little consideration for the nuance which invariably exists in real life

                                          That's a pretty black and white characterisation you've made there.

                                          and the integrity of hundreds of scientists who run eyes over and provide assessments to govt

                                          anti-science fools

                                          Would you be talking about the government scientists working for any of these agencies?: https://web.archive.org/web/20240408203114/https://www.bmj.c…

                                          How about the medical journals?
                                          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/

                                          No, these articles don't prove anything. But maybe give a reason for hesitancy or doubt?

                                          Double blind randomised trials are generally accepted as the gold standard. They are also exceedingly expensive to run, often costing millions of dollars. Business do not spend this kind of money to get no return on their investment. They will likely not pony up to run a new trial on an off patent drug, instead would be much more inclined to invest in proprietary products which can offer a great return on investment.
                                          In my view greater scrutiny needs to be applied to products approved over the course of the pandemic, considering a) the amount of tax payer dollars spend across the world on these and b) the suspicious evidence that has emerged since. It's very curious that this isn't talked about more in mainstream media.

                                          But enough of this banality.

                                          Agreed. You go your way, I'll go mine.

                                          and wiser people so full of doubts.

                                          As I was trying to say in the last post and also this one, is that a little doubt of what we're told to believe from 'authoritative' sources would go a long way to a better world.

                                          • -3

                                            @glennski:

                                            On that second quote, who are you trying to paint as a fool and fanatic?

                                            Oh I'm not painting the anti-vax demographic as fools and fanatics, they're doing a perfectly good job of that themselves. That is a general quote for all anti/pseudo-science protagonists and their numerous hangers-on ("freedom" junkies, anti-establishment/authority agitators, anarchists, etc etc).

                                            I'd wager that the reasonable person would read the first quote as someone who is quite certain of themselves since they feel the need to come and impart their wisdom to provide a 'reality check'.

                                            I'm pretty confident that I'm better informed that the vast majority of those I respond to simply because their statements are based on cherry picked pseudo-science at best and irrational nonsense at worst. That indeed may be foolish but hey I'm one of those imperfect humans your demographic constanty rails about. On a related note, just so you know, I admit I'm extremely ignorant compared to most experts and "authorities."

                                            That's a pretty black and white characterisation you've made there.

                                            But somehow, based on your comments it seems more than reasonable.

                                            In my view greater scrutiny needs to be applied to products approved over the course of the pandemic.

                                            Greater than what? Judging from the amount of cherry picked links on this topic alone (and I've ony looked at a tiny number of comments) it seems there's a HUGE amount of scrutiny already, and that's not counting the ongoing research by academics and industry yet to be published, and the enormous amount of human years involved in regular analysis of covid vaccine data - something which, as you know, is routinely done for all vaccines.

                                            I've previously suggested on other forums that there should and will be an enormous amount of studies not just on covid vaccines but also on the relative effectiveness of pandemic management policies. All credible reviews and papers are important, some will be far more valid and relevant than others to the Australian experience. Many people are eagerly waiting on the results of Australia's inquiry, not so blame can be laid and and smug finger wavers can say I told you so in hindsight, but because it's absolutely critical that we learn from our mistakes, the experiences of other similar countries, and plan for better management in future. During this pandemic, for obvious reasons there was undoubtedly (and reasonably) a level of "winging it", with an emphasis on harm minimisation.

                                            a little doubt of what we're told to believe from 'authoritative' sources would go a long way to a better world.

                                            I totally agree, but that's not the tenor of irrational extremists who will never acknowledge the enormous success of covid vaccines - for example. That "doubt" and assoiated accountability has existed in most advanced democratic coutries for decades. I'm surprised you've missed it. This "discussion" alone is a pretty fair clue to the amount of scrutiny being applied. although it rarely ventures into the motives of many involved.

                                            How is your mate Tucker looking after you read text transcripts?

                                            • +2

                                              @Igaf:

                                              pseudo-science

                                              Yes. If you'll follow, my point is that what is in front of us in the medical/science world in 2024 is a lot of pseudo-science driven by greed and business interest. If you pay for the study it will have the results that you want. And if you want to do a study that won't result in opportunity for profits, then good luck with your funding.

                                              irrational extremists who will never acknowledge the enormous success of covid vaccines

                                              These vaccines are not an enormous success. Pfizer was touted as having '95% efficacy' when announced.

                                              Why was the Pfizer trial unblinded when it would obscure adverse events when comparing to the control group?
                                              Why were people that caught covid within 7 days of their dose excluded from the results?
                                              Why was the public mainly given death statistics that lumped those who died with covid in with those who died from covid?
                                              What were the demographics of those who were deemed to have died because of covid, and how does it compare to other respiratory viruses such as the common cold/flu?
                                              What were the comorbidities of those who were deemed to have died because of covid, and how does it compare to other respiratory viruses such as the common cold/flu?
                                              Why is the basis of all 'lives saved' modelling using results from a test which has been shown can produce significant false positives, and is only testing for partial genetic material of the virus rather than the complete virus?
                                              Why was treatment never an option, and 'the only way out of the pandemic is through vaccination'?
                                              Why did covid continue to spread even after 90+% of the population was double vaccinated?
                                              If the reason covid continued to spread was because of different variants becoming dominant, why did we continue to be vaccinated against the original variant?
                                              Why did people keep dying even though 90+% of the population was double vaccinated?
                                              Why did the government purchase enough doses for the whole eligible population to get 4 additional jabs as early as July 2021?
                                              Why were children as young as 5, teenagers, and young adults encouraged to get vaccinated when their immune systems would run rings around older adults i.e little to no risk?
                                              Why wasn't it a choice to get vaccinated (no jab = no work is hardly a choice)?
                                              Why wasn't it a choice to get vaccinated if you didn't fit the risk profile?
                                              Why were we not told about the need for booster shots at the start of the rollout?

                                              And more questions on the 'science':

                                              Why were possible treatments (ivermectin, hydroxychlorequin) poo-pooed immediately and then 'taken off the shelves' by the TGA?
                                              Why did the FDA in the US start a social media campaign branding ivermectin as horse medicine and unfit/unsafe for human consumption, despite it being on the WHO's list of essential (human) medicines?
                                              Why were doctors threatened with losing their license to practise if they decided to prescribe these drugs as treatment?
                                              Why were doctors not allowed to give individual advice to patients regarding vaccination?
                                              Why has the vaccine been given full approval after 2 years despite vaccines traditionally requiring a 10 year+ process including positive long term studies?
                                              Why have safety signals such as myo/pericarditis ignored when historically such events would cause a product to be pulled from the market?
                                              Why was the pandemic plan that was already in place abandoned?
                                              What was the science behind wearing masks and the flip flopping advice early on about whether we needed to wear them?
                                              Why did we need to wear masks outside?
                                              What was the science behind social distancing?
                                              What was keeping 1.5 meters away from others indoors supposed to do?
                                              Why did we need to social distance outside?
                                              What was the science behind sanitising all surfaces?
                                              What was the science behind the idea that a respiratory virus could transmit via touch?

                                              Why was the media given money by the government to report on covid 19?
                                              What effect would this have on bias of reporting?
                                              How were media ratings affected by covid 19?
                                              Would audience ratings encourage neutral reporting?

                                              This "discussion" alone is a pretty fair clue to the amount of scrutiny being applied

                                              Most who venture into these discussions are smeared as conspiracy theorist nutters. Is that healthy?

                                              I live in a world where money corrupts and science as a whole is a gigantic global business with ruthless practices.

                                              You appear to live in a world I used to live in (please correct me if I'm wrong) where this is not the case.

                                              How is your mate Tucker looking after you read text transcripts?

                                              You mean consulting with the balanced and objective New York Times? The same one that told it's journalists not to use the words genocide, ethnic cleansing and occupied territory when reporting on Gaza?

  • -2

    Covid is BACK!!

    Old age homes report new epidemic levels.

    • -3

      Where are those reports from the nursing homes?

      • -2

        Ask the Hon William Shorten, instead looking after the sick he is usually travelling.

        • Shorten isn't responsible for Health and Aged Care. Nor is he a medical practitioner so he won't be able to assist with your foot in mouth problem.

          • @Igaf: yep the failed ndis
            he is all yours
            I have met him and no leadership lol

            • -1

              @payless69: No, he's not mine and unless you met him at his place of work then the worthless comment you made about the fact that he has to travel is ironic no?

              The NDIS has failed? Do you have a direct line to "the creator" or did you mistake your hopes for reality?

  • +1

    Another US state is suing Pfizer

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4726687-kansas-sues-pf…

    Unedited press conference given by the AG bringing the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-mdJKu4d34

    Not the best quality video, it was hard to make out his tin foil hat.

    • -1

      So we on verge of, ha ha ha, a serious bird flu virus ,shit
      Which chooks birds pigeon, brains will get the experimental chook shot, clot shot Vax this time ! ! !

  • -1

    Studies flooding in - trending worse.
    Psychiatric adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02627-0#Fig3

    The evidence is in
    https://x.com/SaiKate108/status/1804028420961063337

    • Evidence has suggested an increased risk of psychiatric manifestations following viral infections including coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).

      while reducing the incidence and risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

      • -1

        Interesting. Being in nature it is presumably done by smart people but it me it reads more like correlation than causation. All the paranoid types don't get vacc'ed? No schizophrenia in the vaccinated. Chicken littles rush out to get vacc'ed before they die an agonizing death from COVID-19? Lots of vaccinated people with anxiety.

        That said, while I doubt "Aluminum" has much effect it would almost be surprising if triggering an immune response had no hidden effect on our minds.

        • That said, while I doubt "Aluminum" has much effect it would almost be surprising if triggering an immune response had no hidden effect on our minds.

          https://drchristopherexley.substack.com/p/hpv-vaccine

          From a real scientist, with integrity & morals, who lost his career due to economic & political interests. Just like Wakefield.

          • @mrdean: Do you think the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) (a known organisation with a specific agenda) would still give him money if his results did not favour their agenda?

            Follow the money.

            • +1

              @Ughhh: Lol. I can see you've been suckered into articles like this: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/move-over-christopher-shaw-…

              Haven't you figured out yet the site is used to discredit anyone who goes against the consensus? That site should give you a pretty good clue as to who the scientists with integrity, morals & ethics are!! Yes, Claire Dwoskin through CMSRI has supported Exley's work over the years.

              Science should have truth as its objective, no matter where that truth leads. Do you agree?

              • -1

                @mrdean: Are you saying he didn't receive any money from a non neutral organisation?

                Is it only "follow the money" if it's not something you want to hear? You're not very consistent.

                Also, no, that's not the article I visited.

Login or Join to leave a comment