Holocaust revisionism will not prosper

[Kwashiorkor]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle including Covid-19 denial and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

[Lamprecht]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle

Is that supposed to be a new development? Are you insinuating that exterminationists have not been referring to revisionists as "conspiracy theorists" for decades?
Are you trolling? See:
Responding to the "Conspiracy theory" slander // Holocaust believers as the true "Conspiracy theorists"
viewtopic.php?t=12276

including Covid-19 denial

What are you talking about, can you elaborate? Germar Rudolf, last I checked, was pro-vax and complaining about the people denying Covid-19.

and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

That would actually be a good thing, because public opinion in the USA (and elsewhere as well) is becoming increasingly anti-"vaccine"[*] as these shots continually fail to deliver on their promises. So-called "anti-vaccinationist rhetoric" has widespread public support. According to VSAFE data (from over 10 million Americans that took the shots) over 7% had serious adverse reactions that required hospitalization.
Of course, "anti-vaccinationist rhetoric" is opposed by the US government and media, but "Holocaust denial" already was.

Remember: In the USA, most people dying "from Covid-19" in the official government statistics are "vaccinated" --despite a very sizeable "unvaccinated" population. Further, the "vaccinated" are more likely to be diagnosed with Covid-19, more likely to test positive, and tend to be sick with the virus for longer; these observations are consistent with recent findings on the negative impact of multiple mRNA shots on the immune system. See: https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/philadelphia-2023 and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/boost ... e-explains

[*] the experimental mRNA-based shots for SARS-CoV-2 are not actually "vaccines" by the traditional definition (the definition was recently changed for this purpose)

The mRNA shots don't appear to be very effective at preventing Covid-19 infection, death or spread.
Also they are also not safe, according to the CDC's own safety signal and a [rapidly] growing number of medical professionals.

So-called "anti-vaxxers" are offering pro-vax medical professionals large sums of money to have an open debate, but the pro-vax crowd is refusing. I wonder why?

[Hektor]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle including Covid-19 denial and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

So what?

One can believe the one thing without believing the other. Question is whether those are justified beliefs of course.


I for one don't believe the six million gassing genocide-swindle. But also not the COVID Fraud... Or that vaccinations are indeed scientific way to protect people's health. So I guess I'm ticking all the boxes here.

My question ist always the same: What is your evidence, what are your arguments and are those really valid.
There is no proof that even a single Jew was gassed in Auschwitz. There is no proof for a new virus SARSCOV2 making people sick. And vaccinations are merely pseudo-science without proven overall health benefits.

Funny how this all gets suppressed nowadays. And that's actually the common denominator. Not that people agree with me on all points.


But why shouldn't that prosper? I'm certainly more sane for not believing the Holocaust Narrative. More healthy for not believing in the magic virus or taking toxic injections. The views may not be popular, but support for it is growing with time. The Covid fraud was simply to clumsy, so people got suspicious.

[greatmystery]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle including Covid-19 denial and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

Did you really think this would demotivate people from doing revisionism, lol.

[hermod]

Happy Hanukkah, Kwashiorstein...

[Kwashiorkor]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle

Is that supposed to be a new development? Are you insinuating that exterminationists have not been referring to revisionists as "conspiracy theorists" for decades?
Are you trolling? See:
Responding to the "Conspiracy theory" slander // Holocaust believers as the true "Conspiracy theorists"
viewtopic.php?t=12276

including Covid-19 denial

What are you talking about, can you elaborate? Germar Rudolf, last I checked, was pro-vax and complaining about the people denying Covid-19.

and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

That would actually be a good thing, because public opinion in the USA (and elsewhere as well) is becoming increasingly anti-"vaccine"[*] as these shots continually fail to deliver on their promises. So-called "anti-vaccinationist rhetoric" has widespread public support. According to VSAFE data (from over 10 million Americans that took the shots) over 7% had serious adverse reactions that required hospitalization.
Of course, "anti-vaccinationist rhetoric" is opposed by the US government and media, but "Holocaust denial" already was.

Remember: In the USA, most people dying "from Covid-19" in the official government statistics are "vaccinated" --despite a very sizeable "unvaccinated" population. Further, the "vaccinated" are more likely to be diagnosed with Covid-19, more likely to test positive, and tend to be sick with the virus for longer; these observations are consistent with recent findings on the negative impact of multiple mRNA shots on the immune system. See: https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/philadelphia-2023 and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/boost ... e-explains

[*] the experimental mRNA-based shots for SARS-CoV-2 are not actually "vaccines" by the traditional definition (the definition was recently changed for this purpose)

The mRNA shots don't appear to be very effective at preventing Covid-19 infection, death or spread.
Also they are also not safe, according to the CDC's own safety signal and a [rapidly] growing number of medical professionals.

So-called "anti-vaxxers" are offering pro-vax medical professionals large sums of money to have an open debate, but the pro-vax crowd is refusing. I wonder why?

I could furnish you with reams and reams of peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of separately developed Covid-19 vaccines, mRNA or otherwise. Historical revisionism is discredited when it is aligned with pseudo science. Anecdotal and selective evidence is all anti-vaccinationists have at their disposal. What on Earth does a pandemic, a natural catastrophe have to do with the veracity of historical events anyway? Why are revisionists latching onto anti-intellectual vaccine hesitancy or refusal? Surely revisionism should exist in a vacuum from contemporary hysteria concerning vaccines to preserve its credibility or where do you stop? Perhaps this forum should now have a UFO section?

[Hektor]

....

I could furnish you with reams and reams of peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of separately developed Covid-19 vaccines, mRNA or otherwise. Historical revisionism is discredited when it is aligned with pseudo science. Anecdotal and selective evidence is all anti-vaccinationists have at their disposal. What on Earth does a pandemic, a natural catastrophe have to do with the veracity of historical events anyway? Why are revisionists latching onto anti-intellectual vaccine hesitancy or refusal? Surely revisionism should exist in a vacuum from contemporary hysteria concerning vaccines to preserve its credibility or where do you stop? Perhaps this forum should now have a UFO section?

Do you have any idea on what peer review means? And if it is actually a proof of validity of a thesis or not?

There are no "separately developed COVID vaccines"... They all base on shared information from BionTech, which was the first company that came out with an idea for a 'covid vaccine' early in 2020. Quite strange that this company was so willing to share their information. Especially in the light of them being in the read with 400.000.000 Euros at that time never having had a marketable product ever. Now since than it has drastically changed.

Before you can have a valid vaccine, you'd first have to demonstrate that the pathogen you hypothesis does actually exist in nature. So here is my challenge to you. Post a methodological sound experimental report or journal article that proves that
a) SARSCOV2 does exist.
b) SARSOV2 causes disease in humans.

The fun thing is that there never was such a report/article ever. Now there are plenty of journal articles claiming "Isolation of SARSCOV2", but if one reads and analyses the method parts one can actually quite easily notice that this doesn't comply with the scientific at all. The problem is that the vast majority of people, including those with academic careers have no clue what the scientific method actually is.
So you see, it's actually the virology that is 'pseudo science'. Generally Vaccinology isn't better. It's actually a mixture between homeopathy, alchemy and magical thinking clad into sciency, modernist language. It's lots of theory but rather stingy, when it comes to proof. Now I get there are many difficulties for this. But can you actually show us a long term study that proves that vaccinating has got overall net health benefits over non-vaccinating? I'm looking for something holistic here. Something that considers all healthy issues a person may have not singling out a disease that is diagnosed by most practitioners as disease XYZ. I'd also be interested in cancer, allergies, neurological issues, sudden death, handicaps, etc., etc. etc.

Also note. The "vaccine hesitant' are at average those that are more concerned and more knowledgeable than those people that swallow everything. They are more health conscious and perhaps that explains why there kids are generally more healthy and thriving as well.

And just to get a clear understanding here. You don't discredit thesis X by saying that some people that believe thesis X also believe in thesis Y which you don't like and which is attacked because people with a vested interest in dismissing thesis Y say that it it is wrong.

Both thesis X and thesis Y have to be considered and evaluated on their own merits. Guilty by association argumentoids may be useful to manipulate the dimwitted, but they are not something to be used in rational enquiry.

[Lamprecht]

I have no idea why this individual is so insistent upon grouping Holocaust revisionism with anything related to Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2, or the shots people are taking presumably in response to this disease/virus.
I am an individual and I have my own beliefs. There are people that agree with me on the Holocaust but not on this virus issue. There are people that agree with my positions on the virus, but not the Holocaust. There are people that agree with me on both, and also people that don't agree with with me on either.

Holocaust revisionism has been growing around the world, as I have documented. Disagreements with the mass media's positions regarding Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2 were around from the beginning, and opposition to the mRNA shots was present before they were ever rolled out to be used on the public. That opposition has only grown, although I suspect many people that have taken it are reluctant to admit that they made a mistake (in contrast to the "unvaccinated" - as we can go get the shots any time we want).

I could furnish you with reams and reams of peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of separately developed Covid-19 vaccines, mRNA or otherwise.

I can also provide peer reviewed studies (as well as official data from governments / establishments) to substantiate my positions. Let me know if any of the things I am claiming here you do not think has evidence to support it; I assure you, I'm not making it up.
As Hektor explained, the "peer review" system is highly flawed. There was a recent thread about it: viewtopic.php?t=12612
I have seen many "peer reviewed" studies published in journals on the topic of this virus that were absolute nonsense; I am not saying this as some sort of emotional response to the results, but rather as a response to the unscientific methodology.

The fact of the matter is that these "vaccines" (the mRNA shots are not actually vaccines) cause far more death and suffering than the virus does for young, healthy people. A young, healthy person needs only to exercise, get adequate sleep, eat healthy, and possibly supplement vitamin C + D + zinc to strengthen their immune system to be able to defeat this virus. Prior to any "vaccines" being released, back when more harmful strains were circulating, the death rate for young people was less than 1 in 30 thousand. What is the big deal here? If it could be conclusively proven that you are at higher risk of death by choking on food, would you buy a blender and liquefy all of your meals so you can drink them instead?

Vaccinating a population in the middle of a upper-respiratory viral pandemic, especially with a low-mortality virus, is completely absurd. It's not an effective strategy at all. And now we are 3 years after this virus was known by the public to be circulating, and it still has not disappeared, and excess death rates are way up in many highly-jabbed western countries, and it is not a factor of age .The risk of death from the virus is said to increase exponentially with age, although it's still likely exaggerated for the elderly, as the death rates (at least in the USA; most likely in other Anglophone countries as well) are a complete farce. In the USA, hospitals were paid for every "Covid-19 death" and were initially provided (by the government) with the most nonsensical and dangerous treatment strategy to follow. Many died because of this. If the doctors were allowed to treat patients based on their instinct and training, and then communicate with one another as the "pandemic" progressed, excess deaths would have been much lower. Instead they were censored, and useful + safe + effective + cheap treatments were actively suppressed and demonized. This was done because the mRNA shots would never have gotten emergency approval if there was any other treatment that was officially approved for use.



Instead, lockdowns were imposed, treatments were suppressed, open discussion was stifled. This resulted in the excess death rate of younger people to skyrocket, with most of these deaths being completely unrelated to the virus itself (largely drug OD or suicide). Many other vulnerable groups in the USA perished as well, which is why the excess deaths at the beginning of this "pandemic" do not seem to have any association with age, but with poverty.



Keep in mind that the virus was spreading around in various western countries for at least a month prior to December 2019. How exactly could there have been some sort of plague-like "pandemic" if apparently nobody realized it was happening until they were told that it was? Again: I do believe a novel viral pathogen was spreading; I do believe it killed some people; I do believe SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus, and that Covid-19 is a disease that can sometimes happen in people that are exposed to it (most exposed to the virus actually do not develop Covid-19, this has been known since pre-vax). I also accept the fact that the virus is man-made, so I am not one of those "it was just the flu" people -- although I do understand their position, and it's more sound than what the mass media and government have been peddling.

Vaccination - assuming it's a legitimate, safe, and effective vaccine even - is only useful for preventing upper respiratory viral infections. The strategy taken was extremely problematic, and I can only assume it was done with malice because of the rampant censorship. Injections into the arm are simply not a good way to help the body gain immunity against upper respiratory viruses. This has been known for decades:

"It is surprising that despite our current level of understanding of the common mucosal immune system, almost all current vaccines are given to humans by the parenteral route [i.e. by injection]. Systemic immunization is essentially ineffective for induction of mucosal immune responses. Since the majority of infectious microorganisms are encountered through mucosal surface areas, it is logical to consider the induction of protective antibodies and T cell responses in mucosal tissues."
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0264-410X(92)90021-B

And we see the miserable failure in real-time.
In the USA, the mRNA "vaccinated" are now the majority of "Covid-19 deaths."
They are more likely to get sick from the virus. When they do get sick, they tend to remain sick for longer periods. Often they show fewer symptoms despite being sick for longer, which leads them to be more likely to spread it.

The general assumption here for the coping vaxxed is to point to "fewer symptoms" as some sort of success for the shots. Note: I am only counting symptomatic infections here, as most are not symptomatic at all. 94% of the US population by now has been infected with the virus, it's usually asymptomatic (therefore, "not Covid-19" - just SARS-CoV-2 infection).

I assume, given your great interest in this topic, you have seen the new [peer-reviewed] study that was released about a week ago, showing the aberrant immune response to the cardiotoxic, deadly spike protein (remember: the spike protein is the cause of "Long Covid" - and the mRNA shots reprogram your cells to mass produce this protein). Yes? The study showing that the mRNA jabbed have absurdly high IgG4 levels in response to the spike protein, which has essentially [irreversibly] replaced the 50x more effective IgG3 antibody?

This is tantamount to immunotherapy, similar to what is done for those with serious allergies to pollen, dust mite particles, pet hair, and so on. Except these common allergens are not anywhere close to as caustic to the body as the spike protein, and unlike the virus they do not replicate in the body. Training the immune system to tolerate the virus as "not a big deal" (like a common allergen) -- rather than having a powerful immune response (which you want for such a virus) -- is a recipe for disaster. And it adequately explains why the mRNA jabbed are more likely to test positive and feel sick for longer.
They are extremely fortunate that the current strains (Omicron) are far less lethal than the previous ones!

But really, this mRNA "vaccination" campaign has been an unmitigated disaster. That is why so many people are turning against it. When you objectively assess the information, it is indefensible.

Historical revisionism is discredited when it is aligned with pseudo science.

Your position is pseudoscience. If Holocaust revisionism becomes associated with opposition to these mRNA shots, I say that's a good thing! There is widespread public opposition to these shots. The two most populous countries in the world outright rejected them. China refuses to allow its population to take these. India rejected them because Pfizer refused to permit them to do their own RCTs on the shots - very suspicious. But not a surprise, as the very few RCTs done already were truly "pseudoscience" and rife with fraud to boot! A whistleblower involved in a trial decided to sue Pfizer for fraud (something they have a long track record of) but the US government dropped the case. Why? Because they knew that the fraud was going on and didn't care!

Anecdotal and selective evidence is all anti-vaccinationists have at their disposal.

Elaborate please. You seem to only have ridiculous fallacies and pseudoscience at your disposal. The results speak for themselves. It's no surprise that so many people are turning against these shots on a weekly basis. If they truly worked, you would expect support for them to grow! But they do not. Of all the people that regret their decision, virtually all of them are individuals that took these shots.

What on Earth does a pandemic, a natural catastrophe have to do with the veracity of historical events anyway?

You're the one that brought it up out of nowhere. You appear to be upset for no reason at all.

Why are revisionists latching onto anti-intellectual vaccine hesitancy or refusal?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to take these so-called "vaccines."
A young, healthy person has effectively ZERO risk from this virus if they do the very basic health-conscious things that I mentioned previously. The risk of serious injury or death from these shots greatly outweighs the risk from the virus. Additionally, we don't have any long-term safety data on these shots. The data we have right now - despite massive efforts to censor and suppress - is horrendous. VSAFE data (from the CDC, which includes 10 million Americans; they only begrudgingly released it after court order) showed serious adverse event rates from these shots to be in the range of about 7-8%. And by "serious" I do not mean pain at the injection site or headache, but something that caused the individual to seek out medical attention. A recent Rasmussen poll of US adults reported a similar figure.

Surely revisionism should exist in a vacuum from contemporary hysteria concerning vaccines to preserve its credibility or where do you stop? Perhaps this forum should now have a UFO section?

There are plenty of UFO discussion websites. UFO discussion is not censored. As far as I'm aware, you can post about UFOs on any major social media website without getting banned. "Holocaust denial" is still against the rules on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and others. Musk has only recently allowed Twitter to host so-called "disinformation" regarding SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA shots, and has also released bombshell leaks showing massive suppression of positions that went against the media/government established narrative. Government agencies were actively involved in this suppression of speech.

Ultimately, what happened with this whole "novel coronavirus pandemic" response will go down in history as a massive affront to basic human rights. The orchestrators of this atrocity (or at least their major front-men) will be widely recognized as criminals. If the government and media literally did nothing, if there was no announcement of any "novel viral pathogen" and people just assumed that it was a slightly more pernicious flu season than usual, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved in the USA alone. Possibly, millions.

You're on the wrong side here. And your obsession with trying to associate Holocaust revisionism with the subject of SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 is, frankly, bizarre. Why exactly are you doing this?

[Revision]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle including Covid-19 denial and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

I agree with Kwashiorkor. Even someone like Germar Rudolf will be denounced by these wannabe "revisionists" (who are really just conspiracy theorists who very often can't even name the alleged extermination camps) when he attacks some conspiracy narratives.

Germar Rudolf: FlatEarthers, Evolution Deniers and Moon-Landing Deniers Are Like Holocaust Believers: www.bitchute.com/video/v0GgS09k9KOQ/

(Look likes vs dislikes, usually my revisionist videos get only likes)

[Hektor]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle including Covid-19 denial and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

I agree with Kwashiorkor. Even someone like Germar Rudolf will be denounced by these wannabe "revisionists" (who are really just conspiracy theorists who very often can't even name the alleged extermination camps) when he attacks some conspiracy narratives.

Germar Rudolf: FlatEarthers, Evolution Deniers and Moon-Landing Deniers Are Like Holocaust Believers: www.bitchute.com/video/v0GgS09k9KOQ/

(Look likes vs dislikes, usually my revisionist videos get only likes)

While one needs to keep focus. The whole thing is a flawed argument. People can hold several views, some can be popular others aren't. Some can be correct others aren't.

It's e.g. the pseudo-sceptics that group this together. I found it always funny how they only are skeptical of theories that aren't main-stream and never question anything that comes from 'main-stream'-science. That's different from challenging arguments based on their own merits. And yes, one can do that with all kinds of theories be it shape of the earth, origin of species (or organism types), moon-landing, Holocaust etc. In many cases you can't ultimately proof a theory of course (like somethings located in the distant past or that is too distant spatially). But one can consider what would be the best explanation.

My challenge to the Holocaust Allegations is that what was claimed would still have to leave sufficient traces of the events, but the Holocaustians never could show this, hence resort to innuendo.

[Lamprecht]

It's now conflated with conspiracy theory twaddle including Covid-19 denial and anti-vaccinationist rhetoric.

I agree with Kwashiorkor. Even someone like Germar Rudolf will be denounced by these wannabe "revisionists" (who are really just conspiracy theorists who very often can't even name the alleged extermination camps) when he attacks some conspiracy narratives.

Germar Rudolf: FlatEarthers, Evolution Deniers and Moon-Landing Deniers Are Like Holocaust Believers: www.bitchute.com/video/v0GgS09k9KOQ/

(Look likes vs dislikes, usually my revisionist videos get only likes)

The issue is grouping a bunch of unrelated things together. I don't know what "Covid-19 denial" even is exactly? "Covid-19" is just a classification, a list of symptoms, which more or less "when you get sick from SARS-CoV-2." There is massive overlap with other upper respiratory illnesses, which are most generally known as "common cold" and "the flu" but this includes coronaviruses as well.

Below is a figure from the 2019 study on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) website: "Virus–virus interactions impact the population dynamics of influenza and the common cold"

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911083116
The bottom graph from the study shows the variances in frequency for different viruses that were found to be causing "viral respiratory infections" in Glasgow (Scotland) from 2005-13. Coronaviruses are in light green (CoV) and ranged from 7-15% depending on the year. Given the dates, none of these Coronaviruses were SARS-CoV-2.
Others: RV = rhinoviruses (A–C); IAV = influenza A virus (H1N1 and H3N2); IBV = influenza B virus; RSV = respiratory syncytial virus; CoV = human coronaviruses (229E, NL63, HKU1); AdV = human adenoviruses; MPV = human metapneumovirus; PIV3 = parainfluenza 3 virus; PIV1 = parainfluenza 1 virus; PIV4 = parainfluenza 4 virus; PIV2 = parainfluenza 2 virus
The top graph exposes the reality of what is known as "flu season" - it's seasonal because people are more likely to get sick from a virus during the colder months of the year.

Personally, I do think "Covid-19" is a legitimate categorization, even if virtually all of the effects overlap with flu and/or common cold.

However, much like the term "Holocaust denial" I would like to know what "Covid-19 denial" actually even means. And I want to know why this poster came in out of nowhere asserting that:

1. Holocaust revisionism has just recently started to be associated with "conspiracy theories"
No. It has always been compared to absolute nonsense like flat earth or whatever. I pointed this out above. All so-called "conspiracy theories" are mixed in together as a way to dismiss ideas without addressing the arguments. This is not new, and anyone pretending as if it is new, to me, is suspicious

2. Holocaust revisionism is "now conflated with" so-called "Covid-19 denial"
By whom? Who is conflating the two? What is "Covid-19 denial" exactly and who is conflating the two and why? Provide sources please

2. Holocaust revisionism is "now conflated with" being against the so-called "vaccines" for Covid-19
Again, by whom? Who is conflating the two and why? Provide sources.
Also, check my most recent post. What exactly did I say that is wrong?

The CDC set up official safety signals to determine if a vaccine is unsafe for any adverse event. If you follow their exact directions, you will find that the Covid-19 shots satisfy all of the criteria for an adverse event. The adverse event is death. Do the calculations yourself, all of this data is publicly available for free! Go ahead, do it



Not to mention, it is a fact that these shots are experimental and have no long-term safety data. That's just not a fact that can be seriously disputed. Do we have any safety data on vaxxed cohorts 5 years after their shots? Well no, we don't, because they haven't even been around half that long.

And what exactly is the point of taking the risk with these shots (plural; to be "fully vaccinated" - there are actually 3 shots needed) when the virus itself was a very low risk for young, healthy people on the previous strains and today, with Omicron, it's even less dangerous?



The simple reality is that "Holocaust" revisionism is NOT conflated with Covid-19 "vaccine" skepticism by anyone except people peddling a censorship narrative. And these people are going to conflate virtually everything they do not like together as "hate speech" or "conspiracy theories."
This is not a new strategy. They have always done that.

Additionally, the C19 "anti-vaxxer" movement is growing far more rapidly, has far more public support, and is endorsed by multiple serious experts in the field, often of very high prestige. In the USA it is openly endorsed by:
- Members of Congress
- State Governors
- Nobel Prize winning virologist (died earlier this year)
- Large numbers of professors, doctors and other medical professionals
- The #1 most watched mainstream news anchor
- The [commonly understood as] richest man in the world, and owner of Twitter (Musk is against the shots but not trying to debate it himself; note that "Holocaust denial" is still against Twitter rules)

Recently, the former president of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) came out against these mRNA shots.
It is a position that is growing rapidly among professionals and the public. Much like Holocaust revisionism, they have science and the truth on their side. Sure, people often make mistakes, but the pro-vax side is simply untenable at this point. It is no surprise then that their primary response is to ignore debate, promote censorship, and use their power in the media and government to present only one side of the story.

I urge any of you to argue against my points convincingly. I don't think you can.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Holocaust revisionism was actually heavily conflated with anti-vax skepticism, that would be incredibly beneficial for us. But it generally isn't, although I admit there is a very large amount of overlap. These shots were never all that popular among people distrusting of the media. That is why they had to mandate them and threaten people's livelihoods if they didn't get them. And it turns out they don't even work. Is that really the side you guys are trying to defend here?

[Kwashiorkor]

That's very reassuring. I know that Germar like myself is a devotee of Karl Popper.

This insulting Jews is very adolescent as well.

I am not going to engage with anti-vaxxers but I would just ask is it just vaccines developed in response to the global pandemic they object too or all vaccines?

Previously I thought Holocaust revisionism was a minoritarian view but I did not relegate it to fringe subjects. Actually something so mundane as questioning the death toll in WWII concentration camps seemed to be well outside the remit of the mouth foaming conspiracy theorist with her wild theories of satanic vaccines harming "the precious children" among other absurdities.

Serious holocaust revisionists I respect such as Germar Rudolf, the late Robert Faurisson and even historians such as David Irving would be quick to distance themselves from such charlatans who peddle obviously fraudulent disinformation. If Holocaust revisionism is to become a staple of anti-intellectual conspiracy fodder then I for one have no interest in supporting it and I would enquire if this is being done deliberately to discredit this area of research.

[Lamprecht]

I am not going to engage with anti-vaxxers

Because you are dead wrong and you know it. Your position is nonsensical and your arguments are fraudulent. These mRNA "vaccines" are indefensible. They are not safe, not effective, and not even vaccines. I implore you to explain exactly what I said that is false. Quote me. You won't, because you know deep down my position is correct and you made the mistake of taking the shot (multiple times, I'm sure) and now you're coping with this fact.

but I would just ask is it just vaccines developed in response to the global pandemic they object too or all vaccines?

It's funny how you outright refuse to engage in any debate at all, ignore very simple challenges regarding what you have said, yet you're asking such silly questions and expect an answer.
A vaccine is not inherently bad. I am not against vaccines on principle. But only a fool supports anything merely because it is called a vaccine. The mRNA shots are not actually vaccines. You are afraid to debate this because you know it will make you look like an absolute fool. Your position is untenable and is losing popular support at a rapid pace.

Like I said, the approach to vaccinate people with intramuscular injections in the middle of a so-called "pandemic" (there's no clear definition of this term, and if the media never said there was one, nobody would be saying there was) of a low-risk, low-mortality, quickly-mutating upper respiratory virus is absolute nonsense. But I am not against vaccines on principle or in theory. I think every single vaccine should be analyzed independently. The efficacy of one or many vaccines is not a valid argument in favor of a new one.

Previously I thought Holocaust revisionism was a minoritarian view but I did not relegate it to fringe subjects. Actually something so mundane as questioning the death toll in WWII concentration seemed to be well outside the remit of the mouth foaming conspiracy theorist with her wild theories of satanic vaccines harming "the precious children" among other absurdities.

Holocaust revisionism is a minority view. Being against mRNA "vaccines" for SARS-CoV-2 is growing rapidly and most likely will not be a minority view in the coming years. It's far more popular than Holocaust revisionism, that's a fact.

Serious holocaust revisionists I respect such as Germar Rudolf, David Irving the late Robert Faurisson and even historians such as David Irving would be quick to distance themselves from such charlatans who peddle obviously fraudulent disinformation.

What do you mean by "obviously fraudulent disinformation"?
Please quote my alleged "obviously fraudulent disinformation" - you can't. Nothing I said regarding C19 or the mRNA shots is false. You're in denial. You are wrong, and I can easily prove it. that's why you're afraid of debate.
You also provide no evidentiary basis for your claim that these individuals would certainly believe every single thing that you would claim, no matter how preposterous, about these "safe + effective" mRNA shots.

If Holocaust revisionism is to become a staple of anti-intellectual conspiracy fodder

The fact of the matter is that you believe in the "Holocaust" narrative and you're a troll that is pretending not to.
Please quote the "anti-intellectual conspiracy fodder" in my posts. You can't. Nothing I said regarding C19 or the mRNA shots is false. You're in denial. You are wrong, and I can easily prove it. that's why you're afraid of debate.
And again you pretend as if it's a brand new phenomenon that revisionists are called "Conspiracy theorists" - that is not the case.

then I for one have no interest in supporting it

What relevance does your support have?
You are willfully ignorant and afraid to debate subjects when you claim other people are wrong.
You have no faith in your own beliefs.

I would enquire if this is being done deliberately

What exactly is being done? Be specific. Provide verifiable examples please
It appears as though you have literally just made it all up

to discredit this area of research.

First off, being critical of the mRNA shots is not associated with H revisionism at all. That's something that you, a believer in the fake + impossible "Holocaust" narrative, claimed yourself.
That's why you're afraid to debate.
If the mRNA shots are so "safe + effective" then make your case and I will agree with you. Prove me wrong. Why can't you do this? Because your position is indefensible pseudoscience.

Second off, criticism of the mRNA shots is extremely popular. It has widespread public support.
If "Holocaust denial" was somehow associated with it (again, it isn't) then that would only produce more "deniers"
You ignored this point. I stated it multiple times. You display so many of the exact same tactics as believers of the so-called "Holocaust" and so many other lies pushed by the controlled mass media that I don't see why anyone would take you seriously. Especially when you're afraid to make your case, and choose only to complain that people exist that disagree with you and are willing to debate the topic.

When you're on the side that refuses to debate the facts, and instead only calls people you disagree with names that must be motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth, then you only prove that you are a coward that is not motivated by the truth.

[Hektor]

....
I am not going to engage with anti-vaxxers but I would just ask is it just vaccines developed in response to the global pandemic they object too or all vaccines?
,,,,

You brought up the subject, you got to proof the points here. Proof that disease causing viruses exist and proof that vaccines actually work and aren't adverse to health.

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).
And again the average person opposing compulsory vaccination or this treatment for them personally is better informed on medical issues than the average person that believes that vaxxes saved man kind from extinction.

Anyway, there is good reason to challenge many of the main stream ideas peddled by 'reputable institutions', not only the Holocaust. One should especially be suspicious with postulates that are lucrative for influential people. What exactly gets challenged by people and what not isn't really that much of importance. But it seems some people are afraid of 'guilty by association' fallacies.

....
When you're on the side that refuses to debate the facts, and instead only calls people you disagree with names that must be motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth, then you only prove that you are a coward that is not motivated by the truth.

Indeed always a good indicator that one is dealing with a scam is when people resort to rhetorical or manipulative devices.
Exactly what was done with the COVID-story and the subsequent quackery to peddle dubious product at exorbitant prices.
By now it should actually be clear that COVID was a fraud right from the beginning. But a lot of people find it difficult to admit that they have been taken for a ride.

[Revision]

Lamprecht. We are not some "supporters" of the vaccines or Covid measures. For me at least the biggest problem is the grand conspiracy in which very many people even in "revisionist" circles seem to believe. Most of them seem to believe that the vaccines are used to deliberately genocide people.

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

"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/