As it appears most here don't feel I have ever had any legitimacy there's not a lot of damage done then is there?

As many of the responses I receive are a liturgy of innuendo and insult it's a bit rich when I, very occasionally, return some to a very well-deserving case.

I have yet to witness a legitimate question from you, let alone any facts or data. All you post is recycled misinformation and baseless assertions. Not that there's the slightest chance of you realising that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You should be so lucky!

For some reason I can't seem to picture you in a carry on movie or Benny Hill show.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I don't "brush them off" as conspiracy theories. They are conspiracy theories! Only a conspiracy theorist thinks they aren't. There is lots of information available to provide the answers to your "questions" and provide any necessary reassurance about side effects, but people like you either don't read them or won't accept them. You have an instinctive rejection of expert opinion.

What you see as insult I see as ridicule, which is what the spread of dangerous misinformation deserves.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Why? Is buying to let immoral?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You don't "brush things off" that you sincerely believe aren't true. Just because you think they have validity doesn't mean they have any. It's not just me who regards these ideas as conspiracy theories. It's a large number of well-informed observers many of whom are professionally qualified to make their judgments. I am unaware if you have any such qualifications. You seem to rely on a few outliers and pseudo-science to justify ideas that are not shared by most.

Experts are those whose work it is to study these things and make judgments based on knowledge and facts, and not on emotion or prejudice. Of course, they have to revise their advice, as knowledge increases. That's the same in any scientific field. When it appeared that the vaccines would stop infections, they said so. When variants started to circulate that managed to infect the vaccinated, whilst still having their impact curtailed by the vaccines, they revised their advice.

Science is not set in stone. It's always a working hypothesis that is capable of being replaced by a better one. It has to be better though. One that is tested, peer-reviewed and generally accepted by the scientific community involved. Not something pontificated about by someone with a theory.

You are allowed to go on being unvaccinated. That's your right. If it was down to me that right would carry many more obligations alongside it than are being applied, but I am not in government.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Relax, don't do it.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)