Holocaust revisionism will not prosper

[Lamprecht]

You brought up the subject, you got to proof the points here.

He has not even made the case that "Holocaust" revisionism is being associated with any position on the virus or shots either. He gave zero examples to support his position. He is actually the only person I have ever seen to conflate the two completely different concepts.

Proof that disease causing viruses exist and proof that vaccines actually work and aren't adverse to health.

I will also like to point out that the existence of viruses is a separate position from being against the mRNA shots, or any SARS-CoV-2 "vaccines" in general. Most of "anti-vaxxers" do believe that viruses are real.
Further, being against these specific shots (just mRNA, or any SARS-CoV-2 "vaccine") is not incompatible with supporting every single other vaccine that exists (not that I do). In fact, there are many licensed medical professionals that are "anti-vaxxers" that have complained that these terrible mRNA jabs are causing the public to lose faith in ALL vaccines, and doctors in general.

The obsession with "debunkers" focusing only on specific claims like
- Viruses aren't real at all
- All vaccines are inherently bad without exception
- Covid-19 isn't a real disease / renamed flu (I discussed this above
... instead of the cold, hard verifiable data that shows that these mRNA shots are/were unnecessary, unsafe, and ineffective. This is a tactic used by exterminationists very often. The HC Bloggers did this with their "Twitter denial" crap. A thread about this: viewtopic.php?t=12399

Find the most ridiculous claims made by amateur "deniers" - stuff that no serious revisionist has ever claimed - and "debunk" them and now you have refuted all "deniers" right? Yet with this "logic" one can debunk the entire "Holocaust" by showing the absurdity of just a few claims made by the USSR or lying eyewitnesses.

Given how popular the C19 and vax-skeptic position is you will undoubtedly come across a large number of very terrible positions. In the USA alone, tens of millions of people are "anti-vaxxers" with regards to the C19 jabs. Some of these people are going to make very bad arguments.
There are also many millions of people that surely agree with OP that the shots are safe + effective and actually are "vaccines" by definition. But if I questioned some of these people and quoted obviously false statements they have made regarding the subject, and used that to prove that OP is wrong, he would correctly see that as fallacious.

Instead I made a very simple case and asked him to prove me wrong. He can't do this. He only wants to complain that other people disagree with him.

The point with the anti-vax movement is often just opposition to compulsory vaccinations and actual unlawful behavior by medical staff who are pro-vaxxers. They treat it like the sacrament of vaccination.
I don't know any that want to ban vaccines though, while I actually think there may be a case for this (fraud).

There are certainly some "anti-vaxxers" that are calling for these mRNA shots to be banned. I'm sure some person, somewhere on the planet, wants all vaccines banned, but there are no big names making this claim.
They are citing a large number of deaths and serious adverse events from these shots as justification for their claims. As I showed in my previous post, the CDC's safety signal has been met with an adverse event (death) with regards to these shots, so it would actually be appropriate to pull them off the market.

[Kwashiorkor]

I've been reading this forum before and have come across plenty of anti-vaccinationist sentiment almost as if being opposed to life saving vaccines is somehow obligatory if one wants to become a historical revisionist. Quite what WWII revisionism has got to do with epidemiology, immunology and virology is a mystery to me. I've even read quite laughable comments on this very forum that Jews (always with the Jews) are implementing dysgenic policies and if this is supposed to be forum which adheres strictly to fact then I should want to see some evidence which backs up this incredible assertion. I abhor eugenics so would welcome dysgenic social engineering and I say more power to those devilish Jews.

Before I leave this conversation permanently I should just like to say I am not a Holocaust revisionist but was prepared to listen to their arguments but not if revisionism entails adopting a paranoid Manichaean worldview. Ordinary men, women and children are corrupt not our public health officials and medical practitioners. The banality of evil as one philosopher put it.

[Lamprecht]

Lamprecht. We are not some "supporters" of the vaccines or Covid measures.

OP literally started this thread out with claims regarding imaginary "anti-vaccinationist rhetoric" that he cannot cite. He also said that "the efficacy of separately developed Covid-19 vaccines, mRNA or otherwise" is an established fact.
I disagree entirely.
The mRNA shots are unsafe and ineffective.
He also has suggested that my positions are incorrect, yet he refuses to quote the statements that I have made that he finds objectionable.

For me at least the biggest problem is the grand conspiracy in which very many people even in "revisionist" circles seem to believe.

What conspiracy is this? Can you quote revisionists making this argument?
Can you quote an example of something I said in this thread that was incorrect?
Any time millions of people have a belief about something, someone is going to make stupid statements about it. I have myself commented on what I believe are bad arguments made by "Holocaust" skeptics: viewtopic.php?t=12430

It's an open discussion, and if I was making very bad arguments I would want someone to let me know so that I stop making them. It's partially why I like to debate these subjects. When I do make arguments that turn out to be very weak or even outright wrong, I stop making them.

Most of them seem to believe that the vaccines are used to deliberately genocide people.

That is a completely separate issue. The mRNA shots (again, they simply are not "vaccines") are unsafe, deadly even, and ineffective. They also were never necessary or even a good strategy. So, of course, people are going to theorize about why they were pushed so heavily (with mandates and such) when they're objectively a bad thing. Since they appear to result in massive amounts of death, seemingly without actually saving any lives from the virus, I can see why someone would suspect that it is deliberate.
It could also be incompetence, yes. The reason "why" the shots are unsafe + ineffective is a separate issue from whether or not they are. Among "anti-vaxxers" that all agree that the shots are a bad idea, you will find disagreements about what the motive for them was.

Consider that:
- There has been a fixation among Western elites for centuries about the issue of "overpopulation" and there are multiple examples of this leadership engaging in highly unethical population control operations

- Governments around the Western world cannot fund retirements (pensions, social security, medical care) of the elderly they have promised to fund

- Vaccines (prior to this event) had the benefit of widespread faith by the population and are feasible to deploy on a massive scale. There has been decades of research into developing sterilizing vaccines; there are also examples of them being used covertly on the third world

- Despite serious concerns by experts about these mRNA shots potentially affecting fertility, these warnings were ignored and the shots mandated on young women of childbearing age despite the extremely low risk posed by the virus within this group

- After the mRNA shots came out, a Japanese FOIA (Freedom of information act) request showed that the LNPs accumulated in the ovaries (a red flag for fertility) and that menstrual abnormalities were one of the most common side effects. This knowledge was deliberately hidden and pregnant + childbearing age women were still subjected to these mandates

- The SARS-CoV-2 virus itself was clearly made in a lab, and the exact mechanism behind how the virus was released from the lab is still not known. In fact, the mainstream position is that the virus has zoonotic origin, a position for which there is no evidence. A conspiracy (but not "theory") within the government to push this baseless zoonotic origin theory and cover up the lab origin has been revealed in FOIAd documents

- The "pandemic" itself was predicted multiple times in the recent past, including just months prior to December 2019


Again, I am not saying that these shots were necessarily part of a depopulation program. I don't know the exact motive. I also do not know why or how the virus was released from a lab. Maybe we will never know.

What I do know is that there was a massive propaganda campaign about anyone critical of the story being pushed by the media regarding the virus, and then the shots. This propaganda campaign was engaged in a massive censorship conspiracy, a fact that has been confirmed but the entire scope of this effort is not yet known and likely never will be. The censorship does imply a malicious motive though.

In reality Jews are more vaccinated than other people Anudda shoah!

I don't see how this negates any alleged malicious motive. Note that I have not assigned any motive to the unsafe + ineffective nature of these shots.

"Jews have the lowest levels of vaccine 'hesitancy' of any religious group in the country, according to a report released Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute, with 85% vaccinated or planning to get the shot — compared to 71% of all Americans."

Forward: Guess which faith group is most likely to be vaccinated?: https://forward.com/news/473643/jews-ac ... ps-survey/

So what? It doesn't have anything to do with the subject that I'm aware of.

Keep in mind that Israel sat on important data showing how harmful these mRNA shots are and did not release it. Government corruption is confirmed. A causal nature between the shots and serious adverse outcomes is confirmed. The lack of interest in reporting these findings - by the Israeli media, government, and mainstream medical community - also is confirmed. Despite the massive Israeli press blackout on the subject, the Israeli population is increasingly coming out against these shots. Nobody is being held accountable, there is no ongoing investigation. When the story was leaked to the Israeli presses, it was quickly censored.

It really is the censorship conspiracy that makes people theorized about the "why" aspect. And yes, conspiracy. Not "conspiracy theory" because it's not a theory, but it is an obvious [factual, proven] conspiracy by the definition of the term. And I suspect that making a case in favor of a benign reason for why the censorship took place (despite there being great risk to human lives) will be very difficult for you. That is why nobody is doing it, instead just doubling down on the censorship campaign.

Again: the mass censorship is systematic, it's not a coincidence; it is the product of a planned, deliberate, collaborative effort.
Because of the known risk of harm from these shots, which is being withheld from the public, a sinister motive cannot be ruled out on principle.

[fireofice]

In reality Jews are more vaccinated than other people Anudda shoah!

It's also a Jewish tradition to mutilate the genitals of their own infants, and the more extreme ones suck the blood off after they're done. Jews harming other Jews is a known thing to happen. "Israel does this, so we should do it too" is not a valid argument. In fact, if we really took that position, all Jews would have to do to harm us would be to harm themselves and then wait for us to copy them. Clearly not a strategy we should take on.

[Lamprecht]

I've been reading this forum before and have come across plenty of anti-vaccinationist sentiment almost as if being opposed to life saving vaccines is somehow obligatory if one wants to become a historical revisionist.

1. Please quote where anyone said that to question the so-called "Holocaust" you need a specific position on the Covid-19 "vaccines"
2. Please quote anything that I have said about the virus or so-called "vaccines" in this thread that is incorrect
3. Why do you believe these so-called mRNA "vaccines" are "life saving" when they are known to sometimes cause serious adverse outcomes and not even protect against the virus itself? The virus is rarely ever a threat to young, healthy people

They are not life saving at all

Quite what WWII revisionism has got to do with epidemiology, immunology and virology is a mystery to me.

Agreed. You are the only one that has claimed that anyone is conflating the two. You have not provided a single example of anyone doing this. It is literally the entire point of your thread. It appears to be something you made up.

I've even read quite laughable comments on this very forum that Jews (always with the Jews) are implementing dysgenic policies

Please quote these alleged comments

and if this is supposed to be forum which adheres strictly to fact then I should want to see some evidence which backs up this incredible assertion.

This is a debate forum. There does not appear to be any rule that says you cannot post untrue statements. In fact, such a rule would produce too much moderation bias.

The idea is that if someone says something that is factually incorrect, anyone can respond and expose their inaccuracies. If you do read the rules, the only one that is breaking them here is you, since you're refusing to discuss the topic at hand and dodging simple challenges.

I abhor eugenics so would welcome dysgenic social engineering and I say more power to those devilish Jews.

Why do you claim to be responding to certain alleged posts on this board, but do not quote or link to them?
Can you debunk anything I have stated in this thread about SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, or the mRNA shots?

Before I leave this conversation permanently

Why are you afraid of debate? You cannot quote a single thing that I have said that is inaccurate. Please quote one false statement that I have made in this thread. You can't. I wonder why.
When was the last time you took a booster?

I should just like to say I am not a Holocaust revisionist

It was obvious. I called that out previously: viewtopic.php?p=107218#p107218

but was prepared to listen to their arguments

You were actually never going to do this. You are not an open-minded person, you're a charlatan. You refuse to actually debate and discuss topics. You come and complain that people disagree with you and declare that you intend to leave.
Thankfully you're making a great case for revisionists + "anti-vaxxers" with your childish behavior.

but not if revisionism entails adopting a paranoid Manichaean worldview.

1. That's something that you invented, nobody else ever said that
2. Please explain exactly what I said that was wrong in this thread regarding C19/vaccines. Be specific. Quote me.

Ordinary men, women and children are corrupt not our public health officials and medical practitioners. The banality of evil as one philosopher put it.

Our public health officials are not corrupt? Justify all of the lawsuits showing this. Justify the mass censorship. Your position here is fringe.

[Hektor]

You brought up the subject, you got to proof the points here.

He has not even made the case that "Holocaust" revisionism is being associated with any position on the virus or shots either. He gave zero examples to support his position. He is actually the only person I have ever seen to conflate the two completely different concepts.
.....

Indeed just because there are people holding the same positions on various subject doesn't mean that this is now "associated". It's however a common fallacy made by dimwits that If someone holds position A, that this position is discredited, if that person also holds position B. It's a fallacy of relevance. But it works since people are afraid to be associated with 'unpopular positions'.

And "anti-vaxxer" is a position that has been disparaged over decades. It happens to be a position that isn't in favor of people that benefit from the medical-industrial complex in which the owners/controllers of big media are heavily invested as well. Well it isn't even one position, at all since it is used as an umbrella term for people that can hold several positions. Some only oppose compulsory vaccination, in fact those are most of them. Others have doubts about the benefits of vaccinations. But there also people that reject 'the science' of 'virology' or 'vaccinology'. Neither field actually complies with the scientific method. Virologists postulate viruses, but never demonstrate the existence of a virus. What they do is kill off cells in their experiments and then claim it is due to the virus. Vaccinology is more like alchemy and homeopathy, claiming that their fiddling with cell goop and toxins creates a substance that can protect patients against rare diseases (rather conditions). Too complex to debate this here in detail, but people really should read the journal articles those people actually publish. Lots of methodological problems therein. They get away with it, because almost everyone in the field makes the same mistakes and well... Very few people actually know what science and the scientific method is. But there is a para-religious belief in 'experts' and 'doctors' that are treated like gurus and priests. And dare not to criticize them, then you are a heretic.

As said conflation is a common debate tactic, what he displayed was only a bit more extreme that the way that is usually done. Academics are usually more subtle in applying this. They rather rely on people's vanity and shaming. E.g. if postulates from a field are dismissed. Simply ask whether the critics are 'qualified', insinuating that all 'experts agree' and only uneducated people disagree... Which is actually a fallacy of relevance.

Appeal to consensus is a good indication that those 'experts' can't prove the fundamentals of their paradigm.

[Kwashiorkor]

I'm not engaging with the barrage of vaccine scaremongering because I'm not qualified in epidemiology, immunology, virology or even vaccinology! That there is popular disapproval of vaccines only speaks to the anti-intellectual and hysterical attitudes prevalent among a general populace enamoured with thugs such as professional footballers and the regurgitation of sensational tabloid copy.

I will reiterate, previously I thought Holocaust revisionism was a minoritarian view albeit a controversial one. The majority of revisionists I'm acquainted with have an academic background while only a few crackpots such as David Icke have flirted with Holocaust denial without doing any serious research on the subject. My impression was Holocaust revisionism was distinct from broader clichéd and defamatory allegations of Jewish plots against Christendom and indeed one of the earliest revisionists was a French partisan who fought the National Socialists so I believe (his name presently escapes me).

Unfortunately since the global pandemic Holocaust revisionism has become, or is at risk of becoming entangled with paranoid ontologies propagated by Counter Enlightenment dissenters and their ilk espousing all manner of dubious rejected knowledge including anti-vaccinationism. In this fertile environment of whispers old hoary antisemitic canards will once again thrive. I was asked to give one such example from this very forum so will comply with that request.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=13812&p=102026&hilit=Cacogenics#p102026

[Lamprecht]

I'm not engaging with the barrage of vaccine scaremongering because I'm not qualified in epidemiology, immunology, virology or even vaccinology!

Congratulations on proving me 100% right. You are a charlatan. When asked why you will not defend your beliefs, you claim you are not qualified. So you are not qualified to say the shots saved any lives; you are not qualified to say that they are "safe" or "effective."
You are the one claiming this about yourself. Yet you so passionately believe that they are safe and effective. This appears to be nothing more than a coping mechanism to justify your bad decision-making ability.
I will however point out that there is absolutely zero "consensus" among experts on this subject.

Here is what I said in a previous post:

So I'm not going to say someone is always a fool if they just assume the experts are correct about a topic. But in such a case, the response to hearing another opinion should as a rule be:
"I recognize that you have a different opinion about this topic. However, I simply do not care enough about this subject to spend any time researching different positions. So I will assume the mainstream consensus is most likely correct and remain agnostic on the issue, but I will not get upset at you for not agreeing with me."

A lot of people probably are like this by default, but the emotionally-charged nature of the controversial topics in question prevents them from thinking rationally about it.

You take the most childish and irrational response. You are claiming you don't know anything about the subject, you won't debate because you're not educated enough, you can't explain how anything I said is wrong, but you are still somehow sure of it!
Sure enough to make an angry post explaining how upset you are that people disagree with you. This is pathetic, frankly

That there is popular disapproval of vaccines only speaks to the anti-intellectual and hysterical attitudes prevalent among a general populace enamoured with thugs such as professional footballers and the regurgitation of sensational tabloid copy.

But, by your own admission, you are not qualified to make any such claims. They could very well be correct and you could be wrong. You have admitted that you are not qualified to determine whether or not these people are correct and you are wrong.

I will reiterate, previously I thought Holocaust revisionism was a minoritarian view albeit a controversial one. The majority of revisionists I'm acquainted with have an academic background while only a few crackpots such as David Icke have flirted with Holocaust denial without doing any serious research on the subject. My impression was Holocaust revisionism was distinct from broader clichéd and defamatory allegations of Jewish plots against Christendom and indeed one of the earliest revisionists was a French partisan who fought the National Socialists so I believe (his name presently escapes me).

You keep going on about "Holocaust revisionism" when this thread is about the shots or the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Additionally, according to your own "logic" you are not qualified to say anything about "Holocaust revisionism" and be taken seriously.
The name is Rassinier.

Unfortunately since the global pandemic Holocaust revisionism has become, or is at risk of becoming entangled with paranoid ontologies propagated by Counter Enlightenment dissenters and their ilk espousing all manner of dubious rejected knowledge including anti-vaccinationism.

You're not making sense. "Anti-vaccinationism" is not "paranoid" - in fact, the people peddling these shots are the ones that are paranoid. It's simply the position that they are unnecessary and potentially harmful. Keep in mind there is absolutely no data showing long-term safety for this completely unnecessary experimental medical treatment.

In this fertile environment of whispers old hoary antisemitic canards will once again thrive. I was asked to give one such example from this very forum so will comply with that request.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=13812&p=102026&hilit=Cacogenics#p102026

A random post almost 2 years ago by Turpitz (who is known to make silly posts). I have made posts before that were removed because I was responding to Turpitz, and the (recently retired) moderator thought his posts were trollish nonsense. But I have no complaints because Turpitz will actually debate the subject if you press him on it. He will not make a bunch of claims and say that he's correct and everyone that disagrees is wrong, and then say that he refuses to discuss the topic further because he lacks the qualifications. At least I have never seen that.

The rules on this forum are clear and do not say anything about "you will be censored if you post an idea [someone] does not like"
If someone posts an idea you disagree with, tell them they're wrong and why. You only do the first part: say that they are wrong, and then when asked to explain why, you claim to be unqualified to explain.
Basically you have shown your position to be absurd and your beliefs to be ridiculous.

FACTs:
- You refuse to debate me on the vax/Covid-19 issue, because you will lose. You will lose because you are wrong
- Being "anti-vax" has such widespread popular support that indeed some revisionists will be anti-vax
- Most anti-vax believe the "Holocaust" happened. By your "logic" your beliefs are associated with this
- The number of "anti-vaxxers" is growing rapidly, so if revisionism was associated with it (it's not) that would be beneficial
- You claim to be unqualified to justify your positions on this issue, yet you are so passionate about your beliefs. This is foolish
- Your desire to associate all sorts of random, unrelated -ism's to those that question the "Holocaust" is fallacious and only shows that you are a scoundrel, not a reasonable person
- You can't quote anything I have said in this thread and prove it wrong. None of it

You are upset. That's OK. You made a mistake, we all have done so at one point or another. It just so happens that a large number of people never made this particular mistake (or only did it once) because it was so obviously a bad idea.
Grow up. Adults are able to live with their mistakes. If you refuse to debate the topic, your positions are worthless. If you can't understand why that is the case, you're probably a teenager and you need to come back here when you've developed into an adult. The fact that you are so upset over people not agreeing with your decision to take the shot(s) suggests that you are having second thoughts about it.

[Kwashiorkor]

The logic proceeding from my admission that I am not qualified in epidemiology, immunology and virology is that those who developed the vaccines in question are and know a lot more about this subject than either me, you or that loathsome thug Kanye West and the public who adore him. I thought that was obvious but you obviously want to misrepresent this as a failure of vaccine technology in general.

Vaccines go though both preclinical medical trials on nonhuman animal test subjects and later clinical trials on human test subjects. There is a body of academic literature attesting to the efficacy of vaccines without even getting into the generality of the achievements vaccines have been responsible for in the eradication of disease. I shouldn't need to remind anyone of this.

It's actually you who are getting emotional because I accept the prevailing consensus that vaccine technology is beneficial to public health.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... 9-vaccines

Now we haven't drilled down into the specifics of which vaccines you think are evil but in the UK at least there was some concern that Vaxzevria (Oxford AstraZeneca) vaccine was responsible for a rare type of blood clot. This is far from confirmed and the vaccine has not been found to be the causative agent.

https://www.leedsccg.nhs.uk/news/inform ... 9-vaccine/

I started this thread because I noticed other posts on this forum which hinted at a general distrust of vaccines and sceptical dismissal of an unprecedented crises in public health and your posts (Lamprecht) have only confirmed that this forum and Revisionism is such a hotbed of antiscience.

[Lamprecht]

The logic proceeding from my admission that I am not qualified in epidemiology, immunology and virology is that those who developed the vaccines in question are and know a lot more about this subject than either me, you or that loathsome thug Kanye West and the public who adore him.

The people that developed these so-called "vaccines" have a vested interest in people believing that they are safe + effective. The people that encouraged others to get them also have such a vested interest, because it would look bad if they were exposed as promoting something that was dangerous. Many of the people that have taken the shots have a vested interest in claiming they are safe + effective because they don't want to admit that they made a mistake.
Various experts have come out in opposition to these shots. The number of people that are against these shots is continuing to grow.

You claim to be unqualified to debate this topic, yet you have an opinion on the shots. You're an unreasonable person. If you were reasonable, you would either (1) say that you aren't sure if they are safe + effective or not; or (2) be willing to debate. You are saying that you are not capable of determining this using your own brain, but you insist that what you say is true and anyone that claims otherwise is wrong.

But you cannot debunk anything that I have posted in this thread.

I thought that was obvious but you obviously want to misrepresent this as a failure of vaccine technology in general.

The "failure" is that these shots are neither safe nor effective. The so-called "pandemic" also is not over, and the "vaccinated" continue to get sick, often at higher rates. Additionally, it appears that endless "boosters" are required to maintain the alleged effectiveness.

Vaccines go though both preclinical medical trials on nonhuman animal test subjects and later clinical trials on human test subjects.

1. The mRNA shots are not vaccines
2. mRNA "vaccines" have never been used on the public before. There is no long-term data on them
3. The mRNA shots do not have any double-blinded, RCTs conducted by neutral parties with long-term follow-ups
4. In fact, Pfizer was sued by a whistleblower that exposed various problems (fraud) with one of the RCTs; the US government dropped the case because they knew about the fraud

There is a body of academic literature attesting to the efficacy of vaccines without even getting into the generality of the achievements vaccines have been responsible for in the eradication of disease. I shouldn't need to remind anyone of this.

I shouldn't need to remind you that every single so-called "vaccine" needs to investigated independently. The [alleged] proof of safety + efficacy for vaccines going back decades says absolutely nothing about the safety + efficacy of vaccines that have only been in common use for about 2 years.

It's actually you who are getting emotional because I accept the prevailing consensus that vaccine technology is beneficial to public health.

I am not getting emotional at all. I merely request that you quote what I have said in this thread that is incorrect and explain how I am wrong. You have refused to do this. You haven't addressed any of my arguments.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-research-reinforces-the-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccines

The UK government has already been exposed as fabricating data on Covid-19 related deaths by "Vaccination" status.
The study cited there is rather worthless, only comparing so-called "prior infection" to those that have taken shots. The previous group is based only on medical records, when we know that the majority of people exposed to the virus are not symptomatic, or do not have any record of being infected. This study was published in February 2022, claiming only 28% of the subjects had a previous infection, when data from the US at the time has showed over half of people were exposed to the virus by then. It is of course also not randomized, so it's inappropriate to estimate an "effectiveness" figure - although it's quite telling that it shows that it drops considerably over time:

Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection.

In fact, research has shown that protection from the virus eventually goes to negative with the "vaccinated" - so what does this mean, bi-annual boosters for eternity?



You talk a lot about prior research on "vaccines" being valid for this new experimental form, yet prior vaccines did not have an issue with the protection not lasting for even one year, requiring additional shots. Keep in mind that the virus is not even a significant threat for young, healthy people compared to things like automobile accidents, choking on food, slipping in the shower, drowning in a swimming pool, and so on.



It's totally reasonable for a young, healthy adult to not think it's worth the risk for taking these untested, experimental shots.
Data from the US shows that a higher number of shots often results in higher Covid-19 rates.




Further, so-called "Covid-19 infection" is not the only important health event. A recent study of Nordic countries found a nearly 9x higher rate of myocarditis in young males following injection with a booster. Meanwhile, the virus itself poses very little risk to healthy people of this age group.



Simply put: the "unvaccinated" are only at risk from health impacts of the virus. The "vaccinated" are at risk from health impacts from both the virus and the shots. Additionally, they appear to be at an even higher risk from the virus if they do not continually take these "booster" shots, according to these very people you trust that have been recommending the shots. Even the extremely problematic, fraud-rife trials conducted by Pfizer in the USA showed that the "unvaccinated" group had fewer deaths. Based on their data, 22,000 people needed to get a shot in the arm to save 1 life "from Covid-19" yet 2 additional lives from allegedly unrelated causes would be lost in the meantime. That's not a very good risk/reward ratio.

Now we haven't drilled down into the specifics of which vaccines you think are evil but in the UK at least there was some concern that Vaxzevria (Oxford AstraZeneca) vaccine was responsible for a rare type of blood clot. This is far from confirmed and the vaccine has not been found to be the causative agent.

The spike protein itself is known to promote clotting. The mRNA shots re-program the body's cells to mass-produce a modified form of the spike protein that is designed to last longer in the body. Clots have been analyzed and found to have spike protein in them but no other part of the virus. That means it was from these shots. Spike protein has also been found in the brain of corpses; again, this must be from the shots, because no other part of the virus is present. The spike protein itself is responsible for "long Covid" which is why so many adverse events from the "vaccine" correspond to "long Covid" issues.



The other side effect of these mRNA shots is that it causes the body to be more tolerant of the spike protein, changing [irreversibly] the type of antibody produced in the body in response to it, even when the virus is present. This is not good at all, and would quite possibly be extremely dangerous if the virus itself was not so benign right now (Omicron appears to be far less deadly than previous variants).

I have been clear that I am focusing here on the mRNA shots. Why don't you read my posts?
Why not quote what I have said that you disagree with and explain why I am wrong?

I started this thread because I noticed other posts on this forum which hinted at a general distrust of vaccines and sceptical dismissal of an unprecedented crises in public health and your posts (Lamprecht) have only confirmed that this forum and Revisionism is such a hotbed of antiscience.

Anti-science?
You are the one that is against science. I have explained my position. I have asked you to quote what I have said that is wrong and explain what's incorrect about it. You have refused to do this, instead claiming that you are unqualified to say anything about this topic. Yet, you insist that the government is correct. This is anti-science.
If you were pro-science, you would be willing to debate. You do not respect science at all.

[nut butter]

Kwashiorkor said,

I've been reading this forum before and have come across plenty of anti-vaccinationist sentiment almost as if being opposed to life saving vaccines is somehow obligatory if one wants to become a historical revisionist.

Utter drivel pulled from one's bung hole ..provide proof


Quite what WWII revisionism has got to do with epidemiology, immunology and virology is a mystery to me.

you and me alike, you've joined the dots with that one, again provide proof

I've even read quite laughable comments on this very forum that Jews (always with the Jews) are implementing dysgenic policies and if this is supposed to be forum which adheres strictly to fact then I should want to see some evidence which backs up this incredible assertion. I abhor eugenics so would welcome dysgenic social engineering and I say more power to those devilish Jews.

which ones would that be?, i'll apply hitchen's razor to that "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"


Before I leave this conversation permanently I should just like to say I am not a Holocaust revisionist

WOW! something you said which actually does make sense, although not a surprise.


but was prepared to listen to their arguments but not if revisionism entails adopting a paranoid Manichean worldview. Ordinary men, women and children are corrupt not our public health officials and medical practitioners. The banality of evil as one philosopher put it.

of course you were prepared to listen, that's sarcasm by the way and as for the "ordinary men blah, blah medical health practitioners", again where do you get this from? try these names then tell me they were not corrupt

MARCEL PETIOT: Promised Victims Safe Refuge From The Nazis; Killed And Robbed Them Instead
KERMIT GOSNELL: Philadelphia Abortionist’s House Of Horrors
CHRISTOPHER DUNTSCH: Maniac Surgeon Purposely Maimed Patients
MICHAEL SWANGO: Poisoned Patients And Coworkers On Two Continents
HAROLD SHIPMAN: England’s Most Prolific Serial Killer over 200 victims
LOUAY OMAR MOHAMMED AL-TAEI: Iraq War Medic Who Killed Enemy Soldiers
Jane Toppan: the nurse who killed at least 31 patients with morphine
H.H. Holmes: America's first Serial Killer

medical practitioners leading the way i suppose?. Any more assumptions to make minus any proof?

[Lamprecht]

OP is just an upset person that has been "vaccinated" - this is rather obvious. Consider:

- OP claimed to not believe the "Holocaust" originally, then admitted to lying
- OP claims he came to learn about the "Holocaust" but decided it happened because I don't support mRNA shots
- OP posted the names of two revisionists that died before 2019 claiming, without evidence, that they would have supported the mRNA shots
- OP further claimed some living revisionists supported the mRNA shots. Again, no evidence provided
- OP stated that he knows "anti-vaxxers" are wrong. When asked to discuss the details, he claims to be unqualified to do so
- OP falsely claimed that revisionism being labelled a "conspiracy" is a brand new development that only happened after the "Covid-19 vaccines" were unleashed
- OP claims that if H revisionism is associated with opposition to the "Covid-19 vaccines" it will lose credibility, despite the latter having far more public support, and more rapidly growing support
- OP claims H revisionism is "conflated with" being against vaccines, despite providing no evidence
- OP never tried to discuss the Holocaust, instead complaining about the "unvaccinated" yet insists it is me, not him, that is "emotional"
- OP has been challenged multiple times to quote just one statement I have made that is false and debunk it. He can't
- OP complains about my posts allegedly being "antiscience" yet refuses to debate and continually defers to a fake/imaginary "consensus" to make up his mind

Yet OP expects us to believe he would have been willing to honestly discuss the "Holocaust" storyline

"I was actually going to stop believing in the Holocaust but then I noticed you're not all fully vaccinated, and I decided against it. If you're not willing to be injected with anything that is labelled a 'vaccine' then you hate science. Also, people I have never met, whose work I never read, that also don't believe the Holocaust would have taken the jabs! Please take your shots, if you do then people will stop believing the Holocaust! If you don't take the jabs everything bad will happen to you!

Note that if the shots actually worked, the people taking them wouldn't care about whether or not anyone else is taking them.
Imagine going on a diet to lose weight and then complaining about other people's eating habits when you end up getting heavier.
Imagine someone demanding you take their medication because "it doesn't work unless everybody else takes it."

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
― Galileo Galilei

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

[Hektor]

OP is just an upset person that has been "vaccinated" - this is rather obvious. Consider:

- OP claimed to not believe the "Holocaust" originally, then admitted to lying
- OP claims he came to learn about the "Holocaust" but decided it happened because I don't support mRNA shots
- OP posted the names of two revisionists that died before 2019 claiming, without evidence, that they would have supported the mRNA shots
- OP further claimed some living revisionists supported the mRNA shots. Again, no evidence provided
- OP stated that he knows "anti-vaxxers" are wrong. When asked to discuss the details, he claims to be unqualified to do so
- OP falsely claimed that revisionism being labelled a "conspiracy" is a brand new development that only happened after the "Covid-19 vaccines" were unleashed
- OP claims that if H revisionism is associated with opposition to the "Covid-19 vaccines" it will lose credibility, despite the latter having far more public support, and more rapidly growing support
- OP claims H revisionism is "conflated with" being against vaccines, despite providing no evidence
- OP never tried to discuss the Holocaust, instead complaining about the "unvaccinated" yet insists it is me, not him, that is "emotional"
- OP has been challenged multiple times to quote just one statement I have made that is false and debunk it. He can't
- OP complains about my posts allegedly being "antiscience" yet refuses to debate and continually defers to a fake/imaginary "consensus" to make up his mind

Yet OP expects us to believe he would have been willing to honestly discuss the "Holocaust" storyline

"I was actually going to stop believing in the Holocaust but then I noticed you're not all fully vaccinated, and I decided against it. If you're not willing to be injected with anything that is labelled a 'vaccine' then you hate science. Also, people I have never met, whose work I never read, that also don't believe the Holocaust would have taken the jabs! Please take your shots, if you do then people will stop believing the Holocaust! If you don't take the jabs everything bad will happen to you!

Holocaust and Vaccines are two pair of shoes. End of story.
One can apply the scientific method as well as plausibility standards to both topics of course. In both fields the thesis with the most social and financial power behind it prevails at the moment. It won't look to good for the Holocaust, if the scientific method gets applied there. Vaccine development isn't science neither and the field is dominated by consensus arguments. The problem with the efficacy of any medication is that psychological factors like placebo/nocebo effects play a major role in them. The field is also heavily compartmentalized, far heavier than historiography.

Note that if the shots actually worked, the people taking them wouldn't care about whether or not anyone else is taking them.
Imagine going on a diet to lose weight and then complaining about other people's eating habits when you end up getting heavier.
Imagine someone demanding you take their medication because "it doesn't work unless everybody else takes it."

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
― Galileo Galilei

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

Not sure, if that indeed stems from Galileo. It sounds far too modern. The position and movement of the Earth isn't strictly a science question neither, but in matters of objective reality, expert opinions aren't what is relevant, what is relevant is what actually is. One doesn't determine it through consensus or majority vote, one does determine it via observations.

Academia does however work like other endeavors of human societies. And that means status, reputation, opinions do actually matter more for what is taught then what actually is. Funny enough, it seems that facts and arguments counted more in Galileo's time than it does today. Today it is more of 'trust the science' meaning trust those that have positions of power in academia. This is however heavily subject to what people's interest are. Academics will tell you something that sounds plausible in some way, but it isn't necessarily proven or true neither.

[Lamprecht]

Academia does however work like other endeavors of human societies. And that means status, reputation, opinions do actually matter more for what is taught then what actually is. Funny enough, it seems that facts and arguments counted more in Galileo's time than it does today. Today it is more of 'trust the science' meaning trust those that have positions of power in academia. This is however heavily subject to what people's interest are. Academics will tell you something that sounds plausible in some way, but it isn't necessarily proven or true neither.

All I know is that somehow both of the following are true:
1. Democracy is the best system of government that exists because people can vote for who they decide is the ideal candidate. However, it doesn't work correctly unless misinformation/disinformation/conspiracy theories are censored

2. People should not research scientific topics and make intendent decisions. They should believe what they are told the expert consensus is. Researching scientific topics on your own and making decisions based on your interpretation is dangerous

[Hektor]

Academia does however work like other endeavors of human societies. And that means status, reputation, opinions do actually matter more for what is taught then what actually is. Funny enough, it seems that facts and arguments counted more in Galileo's time than it does today. Today it is more of 'trust the science' meaning trust those that have positions of power in academia. This is however heavily subject to what people's interest are. Academics will tell you something that sounds plausible in some way, but it isn't necessarily proven or true neither.

All I know is that somehow both of the following are true:
1. Democracy is the best system of government that exists because people can vote for who they decide is the ideal candidate. However, it doesn't work correctly unless misinformation/disinformation/conspiracy theories are censored

2. People should not research scientific topics and make intendent decisions. They should believe what they are told the expert consensus is. Researching scientific topics on your own and making decisions based on your interpretation is dangerous

It was interesting to see from which corner that sort of reasoning suddenly came.

'Conspiracy Theories' have been around for long. They weren't exactly of interest. People who like reading may have known about them. Most didn't. Now suddenly they are somehow dangerous? What has changed? Oh, it started looking as if the conspiracy theorists were 'up to something'.

Same with the "Don't do your own research". Major campaign against this. 'Trust the Science' Experts. Exactly which ones? Those that get promoted via media of course. The whole 'oppose the establishment' thing was apparently only something during the 60s and 70s. Now we can all 'trust the science'. In fact we have to. Can't recall they insisted on something like this ever.