The COVID 'lab leak' theory debunked in two minutes.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Indictments still require evidence. 

Just worth noting that when trump was indicted on document issues this same guy insisted that the indictment itself was proof, and did so repetitively for pages

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Just worth noting that when trump was indicted on document issues this same guy insisted that the indictment itself was proof, and did so repetitively for pages

Its funny...in a tragic way.

Man, you'd have to physically beat or kill one of my family, for me to react with the loathing these sick-os display.  They have actually thrown reason and truth out the window, so they can express "their truth". Which, of course is, "ORANGEMANBAD!"

Think about it a sec...a bug spreads over the planet, nobody seems to know for sure where it came from, but there is a virology lab there doing gain of function virus experiments...funded by fckin' Fauchi...

But these absolutely insane people want people to believe it came from a wet market near the lab, in the same town. And let's not forget that the initial communications about this, by another virolagist, said it looked lab made. 

But no...bats and other exotics came together in a wet market...and gave the world a cold.

This is the mentality of Libbies.

Its insanity...

[User]

On 6/25/2026 at 6:27 PM, Legato said:

Of course this thread turns into the typical anti-vax BS. 

This is not even a published, peer-reviewed study.

Also, notice the tiny admission in the bottom right corner. LOL

"The study authors note that the findings show associations and do not prove causation."

[User]

On 6/25/2026 at 6:19 PM, Goddess said:

 

Estimated vaccine deaths is 17 million.

I see you are still pushing this BS statistic. 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by User

[Legato]

2 hours ago, User said:

Of course this thread turns into the typical anti-vax BS. 

This is not even a published, peer-reviewed study.

Also, notice the tiny admission in the bottom right corner. LOL

"The study authors note that the findings show associations and do not prove causation."

Here you go....

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf

[User]

16 minutes ago, Legato said:

Here you go....

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf

And?

I am aware of the existence of this document, posting a link to it doesn’t change anything I said and you didn’t address. 

[Legato]

29 minutes ago, User said:

And?

I am aware of the existence of this document, posting a link to it doesn’t change anything I said and you didn’t address. 

and...

It's published and peer reviewed. 

Nobody's trying to change anything.

It's a study. Read it, if you want, form an opinion, if you want. Whatever you want.

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Just worth noting that when trump was indicted on document issues this same guy insisted that the indictment itself was proof, and did so repetitively for pages

We saw the document folders at Mar-a-Lago and heard Trump discussing their classified content with a reporter on tape, even admitting that he wasn'e allowed to do that. There was even video of the boxes being loaded for the flight to FL

Sorry FOS LIES never told you about that. LMAO

Just like we heard Trump theatening Raffensperger  on tape with legal jeoapardy if he didn't change the vote count.

Where is YOUR EVIDENCE? LMAO

[User]

5 hours ago, Legato said:

and...

It's published and peer reviewed. 

Nobody's trying to change anything.

It's a study. Read it, if you want, form an opinion, if you want. Whatever you want.

Where is it published? 
 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

We saw the document folders at Mar-a-Lago and heard Trump discussing their classified content with a reporter on tape, even admitting that he wasn'e allowed to do that. There was even video of the boxes being loaded for the flight to FL

Sorry FOS LIES never told you about that. LMAO

Just like we heard Trump theatening Raffensperger  on tape with legal jeoapardy if he didn't change the vote count.

Where is YOUR EVIDENCE? LMAO

You are a pathological liar. 

[Legato]

6 hours ago, User said:

Where is it published? 
 

 

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7268563/

[User]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7268563/

You just gave me a link to a different study. 
 

So, did you do that on purpose to try to deceive me or was it ignorance? 

[Legato]

15 minutes ago, User said:

You just gave me a link to a different study. 
 

So, did you do that on purpose to try to deceive me or was it ignorance? 

Now you're trying to be obtuse it's the same study.

"Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study"

You said you was aware of the study, now your playing games.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

Now you're trying to be obtuse it's the same study.

"Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study"

You said you was aware of the study, now your playing games.

Sigh… so… dishonesty or ignorance? 

”Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders

 

Brian S Hooker ^1,✉, Neil Z Miller ^2“

is not:

”Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children:

A Birth Cohort Study

Lois Lamerato, PhD1

, Abigail Chatfield, MS1, Amy Tang, PhD1

, Marcus Zervos, MD2,3”

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

We saw the document folders at Mar-a-Lago and heard Trump discussing their classified content with a reporter on tape, even admitting that he wasn'e allowed to do that. There was even video of the boxes being loaded for the flight to FL

You didn't see any of those things. You were told by others that this was the case but you didn't see squat

And you insisted that it must be true because it was in The indictment

Well now there's evidence in this indictment. Yes strangely that hasn't been proven in court yet

You're a liar and a hypocrite

[Legato]

1 hour ago, User said:

Sigh… so… dishonesty or ignorance? 

”Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders

 

Brian S Hooker ^1,✉, Neil Z Miller ^2“

is not:

”Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children:

A Birth Cohort Study

Lois Lamerato, PhD1

, Abigail Chatfield, MS1, Amy Tang, PhD1

, Marcus Zervos, MD2,3”

Made a mistake with the second link. should have been..

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Health-Lamerato-Chatfield/0f10638ced368ffb3440b9d512b8617a54168461

My apologies.

The first link was correct.

If you were aware of the paper, why ask for links?

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

If you were aware of the paper, why ask for links?

He wasn't aware of the paper and he's not going to read it either.

All he's going to do is quickly plug the paper title into Google and click on the first rebuttal.

He won't understand either the paper or the rebuttal.

[User]

20 minutes ago, Legato said:

My apologies.

The first link was correct.

If you were aware of the paper, why ask for links?

I did not ask you for a link. 
 

I informed you this was not published or peer reviewed. 
 

You claimed it was.

I asked you to show where it was published.

Do you not understand the concept of “published?”

That means it has been placed in a scientific journal and was peer reviewed. Providing a link to where this was submitted to a Senate hearing is not “published” nor peer reviewed. 

21 minutes ago, Goddess said:

He wasn't aware of the paper and he's not going to read it either.

All he's going to do is quickly plug the paper title into Google and click on the first rebuttal.

He won't understand either the paper or the rebuttal.

Even is this were true, which it is not, it still doesn’t mean the rebuttal is wrong.

 

[Legato]

7 minutes ago, User said:

I did not ask you for a link. 
 

I informed you this was not published or peer reviewed. 
 

You claimed it was.

I asked you to show where it was published.

Do you not understand the concept of “published?”

That means it has been placed in a scientific journal and was peer reviewed. Providing a link to where this was submitted to a Senate hearing is not “published” nor peer reviewed. 

Okay, so not being officially peer reviewed does not negate the information in the document. 

[User]

11 minutes ago, Legato said:

Okay, so not being officially peer reviewed does not negate the information in the document. 

So… you did or did not understand the concept of published? 

No one said an unpublished study means the information inside is negated.

The point is that anyone can write a paper.

That's why peer review exists in the first place. It's a quality-control process where independent experts try to poke holes in the methodology, statistics, and conclusions before the broader scientific community accepts it.

Published doesn't automatically mean true.

Unpublished certainly doesn't automatically mean false.

But you taking an unpublished manuscript, posting a fancy chart like you did, trying to show it proves vaccines broadly cause chronic disease is absurdity. 

Extraordinary claims deserve more than, "Here's a PDF."

 

[Legato]

17 minutes ago, User said:

So… you did or did not understand the concept of published? 

No one said an unpublished study means the information inside is negated.

The point is that anyone can write a paper.

That's why peer review exists in the first place. It's a quality-control process where independent experts try to poke holes in the methodology, statistics, and conclusions before the broader scientific community accepts it.

Published doesn't automatically mean true.

Unpublished certainly doesn't automatically mean false.

But you taking an unpublished manuscript, posting a fancy chart like you did, trying to show it proves vaccines broadly cause chronic disease is absurdity. 

Extraordinary claims deserve more than, "Here's a PDF."

 

Sure anyone can write a paper, this was a study done by Lois Lamerato, PhD1 , Abigail Chatfield, MS1 , Amy Tang, PhD1 , Marcus Zervos, MD2,3, involving 18,468 children.

The absurdity is your attempt tp pass it off as some flim flam piece.

Take it as it is, or not, that's  your choice.

[User]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

Sure anyone can write a paper, this was a study done by Lois Lamerato, PhD1 , Abigail Chatfield, MS1 , Amy Tang, PhD1 , Marcus Zervos, MD2,3, involving 18,468 children.

The absurdity is your attempt tp pass it off as some flim flam piece.

Take it as it is, or not, that's  your choice.

I merely pointed out the facts about your source, then you decided you had to make a false claim about it being published and peer reviewed and keep pushing that point.

I also pointed out the limits of this study as cited by the authors themselves.

 

 

[Legato]

1 minute ago, User said:

I merely pointed out the facts about your source, then you decided you had to make a false claim about it being published and peer reviewed and keep pushing that point.

I also pointed out the limits of this study as cited by the authors themselves.

 

 

I admitted the mistake.

 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, User said:

it still doesn’t mean the rebuttal is wrong.

It doesn't mean it's right, either.  You just assume it's right because it says what you want it to say.  You don't have enough knowledge to know the difference or evaluate each study on its merits and methodology.  Amongst other criteria.

[User]

40 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It doesn't mean it's right, either.  You just assume it's right because it says what you want it to say.  You don't have enough knowledge to know the difference or evaluate each study on its merits and methodology.  Amongst other criteria.

Then focus on the merits of the argument instead of attacking me.