RFK hearing

[Newbeeee™]

Ok last one to lighten the mood.
Influenza....Following on from the WW1 Spanish Flu army trials where nobody caught it. Despite spittle from an infected dying man was given to a healthy soldier, and the ill would cough and sneeze into soldiers open mouths to try and get transmitted, and nobody ever did....

And the link above where for 40 years, people used to go on holiday to the UK Chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, to be "infected" with a cold monitoring to try to catch and transit, and nobody ever did....

Well here's the Plandemic UK Dept. Chief Medical Officer doing some testing in 2020.
No need to guess how it went.... the fact that Bozo Johnson and his team were partying every night while the country was being told to fear for their life, and that everyone had to be muzzled up to save granny.... errrr...."No serious adverse events were recorded in volunteers who commenced the study."

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704&rev=2#sec002

[mowens]

Maybe you can clarify for me. Are you saying the Spanish flue was not contagious? Or, are you saying that people were intentionally infected?

[Newbeeee™]

Maybe you can clarify for me. Are you saying the Spanish flue was not contagious? Or, are you saying that people were intentionally infected?

There was a military unit that did full testing at a hospital. Which obviously is very rare because everyone "thinks they'll catch it", so no volunteers etc....
So there were no volunteers - they were instructed.
Soldiers dying on the beds - healthy soldiers made to lay next to them with mouth open and breathe in the dying soldiers coughs and breath.
Many healthy soldiers were put through this.
Zero caught anything.
Which is fascinating stuff (to me).

So of course, you're now thinking "well if this "transmission" wasn't the cause, what was"....

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Serious question Frenchie: Do you understand the Scientific Method?

At all?

[TylerBeer]

Really glad the chemo worked for her.
The chemo for Glio hasn't changed in 20+ years. Zero research done. Money diverted away from that. There's a UK parliamentary politician that looked into it - scandal.
So my Sister was always on the back foot.

I also haven't bad mouthed doctors.
Now, as for the half assed research and the pseudoscience accusations, you have zero clue of how many hours my wife and I threw into this.
And as for the pseudoscience - give me a break.
Iv'e just linked you a load of stuff.
I've linked here before the smoking paper which covers internet and paper research library of phillip morris etc stating how that kills the p53 and how the industry paid to divert and suppress the information.

You offered "You really want to get into cancer stuff with me?"

All you've done is name called and wished ill health.
But to repeat, I'm really happy for your wife. Hopefully she's happy with your mouth....

That wasn't an offer?

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Serious question Frenchie: Do you understand the Scientific Method?

At all?

Publish or perish. Not a great way to earn or keep trust in a system that is supposedly dedicated to finding objective truths.

The method never left, but the rigor of it's application leaves a lot to be desired. Can we agree on that at least? A cursory search for "scientific repeatability crisis" has a ton of evidence from a great many sources.

[Newbeeee™]

^^^^

Richard Smith, Editor (1991>2004) of the world's oldest medical journal, the BMJ:-
"the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported,"


Richard Horton (2015), then Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet:- "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue".
He attributed this to issues such as small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, describing science as having taken a turn towards darkness.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Richard Smith, Editor (1991>2004) of the world's oldest medical journal, the BMJ:-
"the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported,"


Richard Horton (2015), then Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet:- "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue".
He attributed this to issues such as small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, describing science as having taken a turn towards darkness.

Whoa whoa, buddy you're starting to sound like one of those Conspiracy guys...

[Newbeeee™]

Whoa whoa, buddy you're starting to sound like one of those Conspiracy guys...

The quote above - I'm just quoting the gatekeepers who would know far more than me

[TylerBeer]

https://youtu.be/QOMezvaWPjg?si=dEgUFXrs7Q8502Cx

[pmartin]

So this is the Spanish flu circa 1918? That was long before there were any vaccines anywhere.

[Newbeeee™]

So this is the Spanish flu circa 1918? That was long before there were any vaccines anywhere.

Q
ww1 spanish flu - what was the trial vaccine the usa soldiers had before leaving america


ChatGPT Answer
During World War I, U.S. soldiers were given a trial bacterial vaccine before deployment—but it was not for the Spanish flu.

The 1918 flu pandemic, often called the Spanish flu, was caused by a virus (H1N1 influenza). At the time, viruses had not yet been isolated or understood well, so there was no effective influenza vaccine available in 1918.

What vaccine did U.S. soldiers receive?

Many American troops were given experimental or newly developed bacterial vaccines, especially against:

Typhoid fever (widely administered and effective)

Paratyphoid A and B

Pneumonia-causing bacteria, particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae

In some cases, experimental mixed bacterial vaccines aimed at respiratory infections

One notable effort was by physicians such as William H. Park and others who developed bacterial vaccines targeting organisms believed at the time to cause influenza complications.

Why the confusion?

In 1918, many scientists believed influenza was caused by a bacterium called Haemophilus influenzae (then known as Pfeiffer's bacillus). So some experimental vaccines targeted that bacterium—but influenza is actually caused by a virus, which was not identified until the 1930s.

Important distinction

✅ U.S. soldiers did receive vaccines before deployment

❌ There was no true influenza (viral) vaccine in 1918

🦠 The first effective flu vaccines were developed in the 1940s

If you'd like, I can also explain how the military vaccination program affected death rates in WWI camps—or where the idea that soldiers were "given the flu by vaccine" comes from.

[Smit]

If you'd like, I can also explain how the military vaccination program affected death rates in WWI camps—or where the idea that soldiers were "given the flu by vaccine" comes from.

No thanks. 

[Newbeeee™]

No thanks. 

That was the full quote by ChatGPT.
My Q was at the top.
ChatGPT answered and this is the full answer.
Why it decided to prompt to debunk something that was clearly not asked, is obviously questionable though.
Except by someone like you of course

[neurosis]

"'We're not blaming God for this,' said 35-year-old Kristina Moran Lopez. 'Yes, it hurts, of course, it hurts. But God has chosen Ethan for a reason. God is doing something, and we're gonna glorify his name regardless. And we wouldn't change it any other way,' the mom continued. 'If I knew this could be the outcome, I still wouldn't have given my son the vaccine.'"