Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s a mystery…until you realise ‘do your own research’ mostly means ‘read something that is slanted towards what I want to hear and sounds like I should agree with it’. Anyone advising people to do their own research doesn’t understand what research is." Indeed. "Locate my motivated reasoning and agree with it". Well, no thanks, I've come to my own conclusions based on the best I can figure out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! "Lol - I hope you are being sarcastic…  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" Why would we stop trusting the professionals mentioned above when their opinions are different ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?"" Indeed - are we gullible for listening to the scientists and the News at Ten, or are the Covidiots gullible for getting all their information from YouTube and Facebook…  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" Best thing I've ever seen as a rebuttle to "I did my own research" Please stop saying you “researched it”. You didn’t research anything and its highly probable you don’t even know how to do so. Did you complete a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No, no you didn’t. Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source, (that’s would be the author, publisher and funder) then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? No, no you didn’t. Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of refences and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No, no you didn’t. No to all? Then you didn’t research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that aligned with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subsequently applied your emotional filters and called it proof. Scary. "When you say research, I assume research. When others say research I assume Facebook" "Switching from Pornhub to Google does not constitute research" Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!!
Lol - I hope you are being sarcastic… "Me?? Sarcastic?! Never... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?" Indeed - are we gullible for listening to the scientists and the News at Ten, or are the Covidiots gullible for getting all their information from YouTube and Facebook… "Don’t forget Joe Rogan, they gulp down his nonsense by the bucketful.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" The professions you mention above… have they been accurate in their conclusions since March 20? If they weren’t accurate then are they accurate now? Or is it ok to always be learning? More in answer to your question I’m Happy to discuss my thoughts when I feel it’s important, happy to make decisions based on my thoughts and happy to undertake some amount of research where I feel necessary. I understand some things, not all. I rarely blindly follow if my thoughts are at odds with the leader! I’m not a baker but I can make a lovely scone! I’m not a mechanic but I can fix a car! I’m not a doctor but I can make simple diagnoses. In my profession I constantly learn from others not qualified in my field. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? The professions you mention above… have they been accurate in their conclusions since March 20? If they weren’t accurate then are they accurate now? Or is it ok to always be learning? More in answer to your question I’m Happy to discuss my thoughts when I feel it’s important, happy to make decisions based on my thoughts and happy to undertake some amount of research where I feel necessary. I understand some things, not all. I rarely blindly follow if my thoughts are at odds with the leader! I’m not a baker but I can make a lovely scone! I’m not a mechanic but I can fix a car! I’m not a doctor but I can make simple diagnoses. In my profession I constantly learn from others not qualified in my field. " Jack of all trades, say no more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? The professions you mention above… have they been accurate in their conclusions since March 20? If they weren’t accurate then are they accurate now? Or is it ok to always be learning? More in answer to your question I’m Happy to discuss my thoughts when I feel it’s important, happy to make decisions based on my thoughts and happy to undertake some amount of research where I feel necessary. I understand some things, not all. I rarely blindly follow if my thoughts are at odds with the leader! I’m not a baker but I can make a lovely scone! I’m not a mechanic but I can fix a car! I’m not a doctor but I can make simple diagnoses. In my profession I constantly learn from others not qualified in my field. Jack of all trades, say no more"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Why would we stop trusting the professionals mentioned above when their opinions are different ? " Exactly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!!
Lol - I hope you are being sarcastic…
Me?? Sarcastic?! Never... "Lol…well you never can quite tell these days…  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" Because there have been wrong all the time in some people eyes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s a mystery…until you realise ‘do your own research’ mostly means ‘read something that is slanted towards what I want to hear and sounds like I should agree with it’. Anyone advising people to do their own research doesn’t understand what research is." *Like* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" I thinks it's because people read on social media that they shouldn't trust the media so they turn to google for the truth ... Seriously ... Some people actually think google is the real world and it's never wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I seem to remember not to distantly an experienced Dr on the frontline throughout the bs have his professional opinion slapped away like an irrelevance by someone making the rules without one single medical qualification to his name a former banker i might add. Why am i going to follow that, why am i going to follow these health scientists who are being hailed as the modern day priests and just like a priest are full of shit to date they have not got one single thing correct in two years not even one more jab to freedom. speculation and guessing is not science for me. The plot thickens now cardinal JVT has decided to do one. Follow the money is my strategy and as the mountain of crap grows the less people like myself are surprised. I reckon every spouse in the house has shares and with no liability kerrrrching have another NOW" One day I'll understand what you write, I promise I'll keep trying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else " That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Best thing I've ever seen as a rebuttle to "I did my own research" Please stop saying you “researched it”. You didn’t research anything and its highly probable you don’t even know how to do so. Did you complete a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No, no you didn’t. Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source, (that’s would be the author, publisher and funder) then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? No, no you didn’t. Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of refences and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No, no you didn’t. No to all? Then you didn’t research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that aligned with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subsequently applied your emotional filters and called it proof. Scary. "When you say research, I assume research. When others say research I assume Facebook" "Switching from Pornhub to Google does not constitute research" Winston" That's quite hypocritical, the same can be said for people believing everything the BBC, government and pharmaceutical industry say without due diligence. What's difficult to understand about the vaccines have not completed clinical trials and won't until 2023, that they are only authorised under emergency use and are brand new medical treatments that have no long term safety data. What's difficult to understand about the risk for children taking the vaccine far far outweighs any risk to covid 19 yet it's still pushed on children. It's not rocket science. Those that oppose the tyranous unlawful coercion and mass rollout of unknown safety risk are the the ones brainwashed. Yet the TV, radio, newspapers, bill boards, colleagues are constantly pushing vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate, and we're the brainwashed ones age? Lol baaaaaaa There is no consensus in science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Best thing I've ever seen as a rebuttle to "I did my own research" Please stop saying you “researched it”. You didn’t research anything and its highly probable you don’t even know how to do so. Did you complete a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No, no you didn’t. Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source, (that’s would be the author, publisher and funder) then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? No, no you didn’t. Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of refences and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No, no you didn’t. No to all? Then you didn’t research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that aligned with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subsequently applied your emotional filters and called it proof. Scary. "When you say research, I assume research. When others say research I assume Facebook" "Switching from Pornhub to Google does not constitute research" Winston That's quite hypocritical, the same can be said for people believing everything the BBC, government and pharmaceutical industry say without due diligence. What's difficult to understand about the vaccines have not completed clinical trials and won't until 2023, that they are only authorised under emergency use and are brand new medical treatments that have no long term safety data. What's difficult to understand about the risk for children taking the vaccine far far outweighs any risk to covid 19 yet it's still pushed on children. It's not rocket science. Those that oppose the tyranous unlawful coercion and mass rollout of unknown safety risk are the the ones brainwashed. Yet the TV, radio, newspapers, bill boards, colleagues are constantly pushing vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate, and we're the brainwashed ones age? Lol baaaaaaa There is no consensus in science." There are no facts here, sorry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value." Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Best thing I've ever seen as a rebuttle to "I did my own research" Please stop saying you “researched it”. You didn’t research anything and its highly probable you don’t even know how to do so. Did you complete a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No, no you didn’t. Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source, (that’s would be the author, publisher and funder) then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? No, no you didn’t. Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of refences and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No, no you didn’t. No to all? Then you didn’t research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that aligned with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subsequently applied your emotional filters and called it proof. Scary. "When you say research, I assume research. When others say research I assume Facebook" "Switching from Pornhub to Google does not constitute research" Winston That's quite hypocritical, the same can be said for people believing everything the BBC, government and pharmaceutical industry say without due diligence. What's difficult to understand about the vaccines have not completed clinical trials and won't until 2023, that they are only authorised under emergency use and are brand new medical treatments that have no long term safety data. What's difficult to understand about the risk for children taking the vaccine far far outweighs any risk to covid 19 yet it's still pushed on children. It's not rocket science. Those that oppose the tyranous unlawful coercion and mass rollout of unknown safety risk are the the ones brainwashed. Yet the TV, radio, newspapers, bill boards, colleagues are constantly pushing vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate, and we're the brainwashed ones age? Lol baaaaaaa There is no consensus in science. There are no facts here, sorry." Oh sorry 2024 not 2023 my mistake https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/conditions-of-authorisation-for-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca--2 Baaaa | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist." What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Best thing I've ever seen as a rebuttle to "I did my own research" Please stop saying you “researched it”. You didn’t research anything and its highly probable you don’t even know how to do so. Did you complete a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No, no you didn’t. Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source, (that’s would be the author, publisher and funder) then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? No, no you didn’t. Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of refences and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No, no you didn’t. No to all? Then you didn’t research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that aligned with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subsequently applied your emotional filters and called it proof. Scary. "When you say research, I assume research. When others say research I assume Facebook" "Switching from Pornhub to Google does not constitute research" Winston That's quite hypocritical, the same can be said for people believing everything the BBC, government and pharmaceutical industry say without due diligence. What's difficult to understand about the vaccines have not completed clinical trials and won't until 2023, that they are only authorised under emergency use and are brand new medical treatments that have no long term safety data. What's difficult to understand about the risk for children taking the vaccine far far outweighs any risk to covid 19 yet it's still pushed on children. It's not rocket science. Those that oppose the tyranous unlawful coercion and mass rollout of unknown safety risk are the the ones brainwashed. Yet the TV, radio, newspapers, bill boards, colleagues are constantly pushing vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate, and we're the brainwashed ones age? Lol baaaaaaa There is no consensus in science. There are no facts here, sorry. Oh sorry 2024 not 2023 my mistake https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/conditions-of-authorisation-for-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca--2 Baaaa " Pfizer was 2023 though. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746 If you've taken the vaccine without any informed consent then that is against the Nuremberg code. Go get your money back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist." Was the 10000 eminent scientist from that list floating around a while back which was signed by great doctors such as Dr Jekyll and Dr Dolittle ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Best thing I've ever seen as a rebuttle to "I did my own research" Please stop saying you “researched it”. You didn’t research anything and its highly probable you don’t even know how to do so. Did you complete a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No, no you didn’t. Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source, (that’s would be the author, publisher and funder) then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? No, no you didn’t. Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of refences and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No, no you didn’t. No to all? Then you didn’t research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that aligned with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subsequently applied your emotional filters and called it proof. Scary. "When you say research, I assume research. When others say research I assume Facebook" "Switching from Pornhub to Google does not constitute research" Winston That's quite hypocritical, the same can be said for people believing everything the BBC, government and pharmaceutical industry say without due diligence. What's difficult to understand about the vaccines have not completed clinical trials and won't until 2023, that they are only authorised under emergency use and are brand new medical treatments that have no long term safety data. What's difficult to understand about the risk for children taking the vaccine far far outweighs any risk to covid 19 yet it's still pushed on children. It's not rocket science. Those that oppose the tyranous unlawful coercion and mass rollout of unknown safety risk are the the ones brainwashed. Yet the TV, radio, newspapers, bill boards, colleagues are constantly pushing vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate, and we're the brainwashed ones age? Lol baaaaaaa There is no consensus in science." I belive here i will shockingly have to agree with our bumbling boris as much as it saddens me and lable this comment as "mumbo jumbo " in all its glory. Surely you are aware of the real facts regarding the vaccines status and that it is no longer in its trial stages due to it having passed all the same safety checks and trial stages that any and all vaccines in the past have, and understand that this was managed in such a timely manner due to worldwide scientific collaboration and an almost limitless amount of funding provided by the governments of the world so that we could reduce the death toll of the current worldwide pandemic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there." I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Best thing I've ever seen as a rebuttle to "I did my own research" Please stop saying you “researched it”. You didn’t research anything and its highly probable you don’t even know how to do so. Did you complete a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No, no you didn’t. Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source, (that’s would be the author, publisher and funder) then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? No, no you didn’t. Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of refences and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No, no you didn’t. No to all? Then you didn’t research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that aligned with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subsequently applied your emotional filters and called it proof. Scary. "When you say research, I assume research. When others say research I assume Facebook" "Switching from Pornhub to Google does not constitute research" Winston That's quite hypocritical, the same can be said for people believing everything the BBC, government and pharmaceutical industry say without due diligence. What's difficult to understand about the vaccines have not completed clinical trials and won't until 2023, that they are only authorised under emergency use and are brand new medical treatments that have no long term safety data. What's difficult to understand about the risk for children taking the vaccine far far outweighs any risk to covid 19 yet it's still pushed on children. It's not rocket science. Those that oppose the tyranous unlawful coercion and mass rollout of unknown safety risk are the the ones brainwashed. Yet the TV, radio, newspapers, bill boards, colleagues are constantly pushing vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate, and we're the brainwashed ones age? Lol baaaaaaa There is no consensus in science. I belive here i will shockingly have to agree with our bumbling boris as much as it saddens me and lable this comment as "mumbo jumbo " in all its glory. Surely you are aware of the real facts regarding the vaccines status and that it is no longer in its trial stages due to it having passed all the same safety checks and trial stages that any and all vaccines in the past have, and understand that this was managed in such a timely manner due to worldwide scientific collaboration and an almost limitless amount of funding provided by the governments of the world so that we could reduce the death toll of the current worldwide pandemic "See above or below, I think you've been spun a yarn my friend. The vaccines are authorised for emergency use. They are not fully approved until 2023 and 2024. They are only legally allowed to be marketed and used whilst an emergency exists. Which means the pandemic will not be ending any time soon and why alternative low cost treatments have not been approved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. Was the 10000 eminent scientist from that list floating around a while back which was signed by great doctors such as Dr Jekyll and Dr Dolittle ?" Great argument Belly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. " I thought they done the animal trials as the rumour that went round was that all the animals that it was given to died when actually they were euthanized as per normal after being used for testing  So now they skipped the testing on animals, surely it can only be one or the other as it couldn't have killed all the animals that it wasnt tested on? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. I thought they done the animal trials as the rumour that went round was that all the animals that it was given to died when actually they were euthanized as per normal after being used for testing So now they skipped the testing on animals, surely it can only be one or the other as it couldn't have killed all the animals that it wasnt tested on?"Yeah, I remember that whopper, too. Which is it? I suppose it doesn't matter, if research is just about confirming your own biases  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. I thought they done the animal trials as the rumour that went round was that all the animals that it was given to died when actually they were euthanized as per normal after being used for testing So now they skipped the testing on animals, surely it can only be one or the other as it couldn't have killed all the animals that it wasnt tested on?"They skipped animal studies for the human vaccine trials. They also tried this mRNA vaccine technology targeting spike protein of sars-cov1 several years before for vaccine trial for cows. But that particular one was unsafe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've done my research. I had it. I didn't feel that ill. I didn't die. I didn't need hospitalisation. I conclude I don't need the vaccine. Just like I did with the flu. Just like I do with pretty much everything in my life. I don't see how anyone can tell me I was wrong to pick that option for myself. Literally nothing happened. " . Likewise | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?"" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. " And you can’t spell ‘studies’? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. I thought they done the animal trials as the rumour that went round was that all the animals that it was given to died when actually they were euthanized as per normal after being used for testing So now they skipped the testing on animals, surely it can only be one or the other as it couldn't have killed all the animals that it wasnt tested on?
They skipped animal studies for the human vaccine trials. They also tried this mRNA vaccine technology targeting spike protein of sars-cov1 several years before for vaccine trial for cows. But that particular one was unsafe. ". They only have to look at Mike yeadon former Vice President of Pfizer , it’s like banging your head against a wall mate haha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. I thought they done the animal trials as the rumour that went round was that all the animals that it was given to died when actually they were euthanized as per normal after being used for testing So now they skipped the testing on animals, surely it can only be one or the other as it couldn't have killed all the animals that it wasnt tested on?
They skipped animal studies for the human vaccine trials. They also tried this mRNA vaccine technology targeting spike protein of sars-cov1 several years before for vaccine trial for cows. But that particular one was unsafe. .
They only have to look at Mike yeadon former Vice President of Pfizer , it’s like banging your head against a wall mate haha " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. And you can’t spell ‘studies’? "Your pussy would love my fat fingers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. " Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Dr. Kary Mullis - died before the pandemic, so bang! And the dirt is gone " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" Simply because people distrust governments and pharmaceutical companies who tend to be more interested in profit than anything else You can scoff at their choices like they scoff at yours You think you're right and they think they're right None of it matters and only goose stepping scum try to force people into thing's so don't worry about it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
. Alternative truth | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s a mystery…until you realise ‘do your own research’ mostly means ‘read something that is slanted towards what I want to hear " Is that called 'confirmation bias'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. I thought they done the animal trials as the rumour that went round was that all the animals that it was given to died when actually they were euthanized as per normal after being used for testing So now they skipped the testing on animals, surely it can only be one or the other as it couldn't have killed all the animals that it wasnt tested on?
They skipped animal studies for the human vaccine trials. They also tried this mRNA vaccine technology targeting spike protein of sars-cov1 several years before for vaccine trial for cows. But that particular one was unsafe. .
They only have to look at Mike yeadon former Vice President of Pfizer , it’s like banging your head against a wall mate haha "Yes please do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. I thought they done the animal trials as the rumour that went round was that all the animals that it was given to died when actually they were euthanized as per normal after being used for testing So now they skipped the testing on animals, surely it can only be one or the other as it couldn't have killed all the animals that it wasnt tested on?
They skipped animal studies for the human vaccine trials. They also tried this mRNA vaccine technology targeting spike protein of sars-cov1 several years before for vaccine trial for cows. But that particular one was unsafe. "It would seem your information regarding the animal testing is wrong Here are links that confirm that animal trials were infact conducted Pfizer https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-data-preclinical-studies-mrna AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials Moderna https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-moderna/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-appears-to-clear-safety-hurdle-in-mouse-study-idUSKBN23J2S4 Johnson and Johnson https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-announces-that-janssens-covid-19-investigational-vaccine-candidate-prevents-severe-clinical-disease-in-pre-clinical-studies These links would seem to indicate that the animal trials where infact conducted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. And you can’t spell ‘studies’?
Your pussy would love my fat fingers"A true scientific genius!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regards the long list of Drs above. You rather undermine any credibility by including names of people who died before the pandemic started . Alternative truth "I’m guessing your referring to the inventor of the pcr test ? Who said it should never be used for diagnosing illness ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regards the long list of Drs above. You rather undermine any credibility by including names of people who died before the pandemic started . Alternative truth
I’m guessing your referring to the inventor of the pcr test ? Who said it should never be used for diagnosing illness ? "No He Did Not! Jeez. It's nonsense bingo again. He said PCR (at the time - this was early 1990s) that PCR could not be used to quantify the levels of HIV infection. It could only say "positive" or "negative". Bizarrely, technology has improved in the past 30yrs and nowadays PCR related techniques CAN be quantitative as well as qualitative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. " That’s not research, that means you took a gamble on your own health and so far you haven’t lost. You’ve been lucky, so far. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have said and will say exactly the same as you, except instead of being lucky they died or will die of Covid. They were, and will not be, as lucky as you’ve been so far. Which is what happens with a gamble. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regards the long list of Drs above. You rather undermine any credibility by including names of people who died before the pandemic started . Alternative truth
I’m guessing your referring to the inventor of the pcr test ? Who said it should never be used for diagnosing illness ?
No
He
Did
Not!
Jeez. It's nonsense bingo again.
He said PCR (at the time - this was early 1990s) that PCR could not be used to quantify the levels of HIV infection. It could only say "positive" or "negative".
Bizarrely, technology has improved in the past 30yrs and nowadays PCR related techniques CAN be quantitative as well as qualitative. "It’s common knowledge the pcr test cant differentiate between COVID and the common cold , they are running the tests between 35 and 45 cycles which is far to much , come on have you not seen people using water and getting positive results ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else That’s a good point, and there are many areas that don’t receive the full attention of science. However, in the case of Covid vaccinations pretty much the entirety of the world’s available scientific resources have been and are still being targeted at this virus, so there isn’t any chance a layperson will come up with any alternative perspective on therapies of any real value. Says the layperson. Just because you've not a clue doesn't mean the people with an opposing view don't. There's over 10,000 eminent scientists, doctors which include Nobel prize winners whjo oppose so much of the policies and the ignorance to the risks of worldwide mass rollout of medical treatments that quite frankly aren't required for the majority of people. For the under 70's influenza has a higher case fatality rate than Covid 19. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. What are your qualifications to judge their ‘eminence’? By the way, you haven’t written any facts there. I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry so I'm not a mug. Not that i know everything but I know more than a laye person and enough to know what a clinical studys end points should measure. Skipping animal trials for instance is a massive no no. And you can’t spell ‘studies’?
Your pussy would love my fat fingers
A true scientific genius! "Don't need to nve scientific with these bad boys pussy lips | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms such as Duck Duck Go, Telegram, Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagne´ Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Herve´ Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Prof. Retsif Levi Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Ariyana Love, Sherri Tenpenny, Geert Vanden Bossche... Damn, some of these names are 100% pure showbiz and wasted on science... " Where’s Dr Bobson Dugnutt, Dr Dwigt Rortugal and Dr Todd Bonzalez? Pretty sure they’re all fighting to get the truth out there too! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. That’s not research, that means you took a gamble on your own health and so far you haven’t lost. You’ve been lucky, so far. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have said and will say exactly the same as you, except instead of being lucky they died or will die of Covid. They were, and will not be, as lucky as you’ve been so far. Which is what happens with a gamble. There are also football players and sports stars dropping like flys after being part of an experimental treatment , anything with side effects of death should be personal choice " This is also nonsense, sorry! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. That’s not research, that means you took a gamble on your own health and so far you haven’t lost. You’ve been lucky, so far. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have said and will say exactly the same as you, except instead of being lucky they died or will die of Covid. They were, and will not be, as lucky as you’ve been so far. Which is what happens with a gamble." I don't know of anyone who died from covid. I don't know anyone who has been that ill. You think I'm lucky based on your own experiences. I think I made the right decision based on my experiences. I'm not belittling anyone or trying to change anyone's opinions. I really object to people trying this with me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the CDC’s benchmark COVID diagnostic testing system, will be withdrawn for Emergency Use by the end of 2021 due to an inordinate frequency of false-positive and negative results. “The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” the FDA stated on its website. It was never suitable and should have never been used. " The same PCR test that conspiracy theorists have been hanging on about as being not fit for purpose since summer 2020? The one that was used as the basis for diagnosing Covid 19 deaths (within 28 days) and the same test that was the basis for locking us down and the public health policies? That PCR test? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the CDC’s benchmark COVID diagnostic testing system, will be withdrawn for Emergency Use by the end of 2021 due to an inordinate frequency of false-positive and negative results. “The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” the FDA stated on its website. It was never suitable and should have never been used. " I’ve seen this on their website | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the CDC’s benchmark COVID diagnostic testing system, will be withdrawn for Emergency Use by the end of 2021 due to an inordinate frequency of false-positive and negative results. “The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” the FDA stated on its website. It was never suitable and should have never been used. " You are conflating a rapid antigen test (an LFT to the UK based folks) from one manufacturer with the news that the USA is moving to a multiplex methodology to not only detect SARS-COV-2 but also other respiratory pathogens, in the same sample (but via PCR). At least get your misinformation the right way around. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the CDC’s benchmark COVID diagnostic testing system, will be withdrawn for Emergency Use by the end of 2021 due to an inordinate frequency of false-positive and negative results. “The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” the FDA stated on its website. It was never suitable and should have never been used. The same PCR test that conspiracy theorists have been hanging on about as being not fit for purpose since summer 2020? The one that was used as the basis for diagnosing Covid 19 deaths (within 28 days) and the same test that was the basis for locking us down and the public health policies? That PCR test?" Incorrect. Rapid antigen tests are known as LFTs in the UK and it refers to one manufacturer that has never been used in the UK (because their kit did not pass testing). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. That’s not research, that means you took a gamble on your own health and so far you haven’t lost. You’ve been lucky, so far. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have said and will say exactly the same as you, except instead of being lucky they died or will die of Covid. They were, and will not be, as lucky as you’ve been so far. Which is what happens with a gamble. I don't know of anyone who died from covid. I don't know anyone who has been that ill. You think I'm lucky based on your own experiences. I think I made the right decision based on my experiences. I'm not belittling anyone or trying to change anyone's opinions. I really object to people trying this with me. " Sorry Scarlett thought you were talking about the Vax. Everyone in my office is off at the moment with Covid, all boosted. Guess who's not off with Covid? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the CDC’s benchmark COVID diagnostic testing system, will be withdrawn for Emergency Use by the end of 2021 due to an inordinate frequency of false-positive and negative results. “The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” the FDA stated on its website. It was never suitable and should have never been used. The same PCR test that conspiracy theorists have been hanging on about as being not fit for purpose since summer 2020? The one that was used as the basis for diagnosing Covid 19 deaths (within 28 days) and the same test that was the basis for locking us down and the public health policies? That PCR test? Incorrect. Rapid antigen tests are known as LFTs in the UK and it refers to one manufacturer that has never been used in the UK (because their kit did not pass testing). " No it refers to PCR testing. Sorry but you're wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. That’s not research, that means you took a gamble on your own health and so far you haven’t lost. You’ve been lucky, so far. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have said and will say exactly the same as you, except instead of being lucky they died or will die of Covid. They were, and will not be, as lucky as you’ve been so far. Which is what happens with a gamble. I don't know of anyone who died from covid. I don't know anyone who has been that ill. You think I'm lucky based on your own experiences. I think I made the right decision based on my experiences. I'm not belittling anyone or trying to change anyone's opinions. I really object to people trying this with me. Sorry Scarlett thought you were talking about the Vax. Everyone in my office is off at the moment with Covid, all boosted. Guess who's not off with Covid? "Likewise all jabbed friends been ill all year | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms such as Duck Duck Go, Telegram, Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagne´ Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Herve´ Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Prof. Retsif Levi Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi " Just as an example of my own research from Fullfact: Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) 'WHAT WAS CLAIMED Kary B Mullis said that his PCR test was not made to detect any type of infectious disease. It’s designed to pick up a signature of DNA and RNA of the person being tested. OUR VERDICT He never said this. This is a misunderstanding of a quote from him about the limitations of PCR testing in general, to find out about the exact levels of a virus in a sample, not whether or not the sample contained the virus.' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. That’s not research, that means you took a gamble on your own health and so far you haven’t lost. You’ve been lucky, so far. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have said and will say exactly the same as you, except instead of being lucky they died or will die of Covid. They were, and will not be, as lucky as you’ve been so far. Which is what happens with a gamble. I don't know of anyone who died from covid. I don't know anyone who has been that ill. You think I'm lucky based on your own experiences. I think I made the right decision based on my experiences. I'm not belittling anyone or trying to change anyone's opinions. I really object to people trying this with me. " Observing you’ve been lucky isn’t an encouragement for you to get vaccinated, by the way. It’s your choice. Sincerely hope you and those around you remain well, and you continue to get through this without loss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the CDC’s benchmark COVID diagnostic testing system, will be withdrawn for Emergency Use by the end of 2021 due to an inordinate frequency of false-positive and negative results. “The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” the FDA stated on its website. It was never suitable and should have never been used. The same PCR test that conspiracy theorists have been hanging on about as being not fit for purpose since summer 2020? The one that was used as the basis for diagnosing Covid 19 deaths (within 28 days) and the same test that was the basis for locking us down and the public health policies? That PCR test? Incorrect. Rapid antigen tests are known as LFTs in the UK and it refers to one manufacturer that has never been used in the UK (because their kit did not pass testing). No it refers to PCR testing. Sorry but you're wrong. " No, I'm not wrong. It is a lateral flow test kit. Here is a written description of the kit, which describes a self testing kit where a nasal swab is taken and then drops of solution places on a rapid test strip. A lateral flow test. Most of the rest of the world call them rapid antigen tests. Device Description: The Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test claimed to determine if a person had an active COVID-19 infection. The test uses a nasal swab sample and test strip to detect specific proteins, called antigens, from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If the nasal sample had SARS-CoV-2 antigens, a colored test line should have appeared on the test strip indicating a person may have COVID-19. If the nasal sample did not have SARS-CoV-2 antigens, a colored line should not have appeared on the test strip. The test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for distribution or use in the United States, and it has been recalled by Innova Medical Group, Inc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms such as Duck Duck Go, Telegram, Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagne´ Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Herve´ Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Prof. Retsif Levi Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Just as an example of my own research from Fullfact: Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) 'WHAT WAS CLAIMED Kary B Mullis said that his PCR test was not made to detect any type of infectious disease. It’s designed to pick up a signature of DNA and RNA of the person being tested. OUR VERDICT He never said this. This is a misunderstanding of a quote from him about the limitations of PCR testing in general, to find out about the exact levels of a virus in a sample, not whether or not the sample contained the virus.'" Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing own research usually just involves watching videos on YouTube. Nah it involved experiencing it. I don't do you tube or Facebook or anything else. I just didn't get that ill. That’s not research, that means you took a gamble on your own health and so far you haven’t lost. You’ve been lucky, so far. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have said and will say exactly the same as you, except instead of being lucky they died or will die of Covid. They were, and will not be, as lucky as you’ve been so far. Which is what happens with a gamble. I don't know of anyone who died from covid. I don't know anyone who has been that ill. You think I'm lucky based on your own experiences. I think I made the right decision based on my experiences. I'm not belittling anyone or trying to change anyone's opinions. I really object to people trying this with me. Observing you’ve been lucky isn’t an encouragement for you to get vaccinated, by the way. It’s your choice. Sincerely hope you and those around you remain well, and you continue to get through this without loss." 2 years in and pretty much most I know have had it and I'm pretty certain it will remain that way. Thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not misinformation it’s facts both the Lateral flow test and the pcr tests are questionable, unreliable and are not fit for purpose and the pcr test is used to manipulate case numbers with a threshold that is set way to high but people like you have faith in those tests and use them regularly?" This . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19." And? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"scientific consensus states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it produces enormous amounts of false positives.A CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100% confirmed real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. At 33 cycles, the false positive rate is 80%. Beyond 34 cycles, the false positive rate reaches 100% so are they setting the CT above 35 cycles? They know full well it is going to produce high percentage of false positives. It’s a scam!" Scamdemic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19. And?" It's a lateral flow test. You told me I was wrong and that it's a type of PCR test. My initial reply about Innova was to a poster who managed to conflate two different pieces of misinformation that have been spread around the interweb. If one is going to spread misinformation, at least make it plausible by getting the type of medical diagnostic kit correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"scientific consensus states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it produces enormous amounts of false positives.A CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100% confirmed real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. At 33 cycles, the false positive rate is 80%. Beyond 34 cycles, the false positive rate reaches 100% so are they setting the CT above 35 cycles? They know full well it is going to produce high percentage of false positives. It’s a scam!" But you don’t really know what any of that means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa" A very vast array of noises you're making. Have you considered a career as a human trumpet? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19. And?" That particular test has been withdrawn, but so hgas the PCR test. Are you denying the PCR test has been withdrawn from use? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa A very vast array of noises you're making. Have you considered a career as a human trumpet? " Could play a lovely tune on that minge | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa A very vast array of noises you're making. Have you considered a career as a human trumpet? Could play a lovely tune on that minge" What minge? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms such as Duck Duck Go, Telegram, Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagne´ Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Herve´ Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Prof. Retsif Levi Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Just as an example of my own research from Fullfact: Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) 'WHAT WAS CLAIMED Kary B Mullis said that his PCR test was not made to detect any type of infectious disease. It’s designed to pick up a signature of DNA and RNA of the person being tested. OUR VERDICT He never said this. This is a misunderstanding of a quote from him about the limitations of PCR testing in general, to find out about the exact levels of a virus in a sample, not whether or not the sample contained the virus.' Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa" It did. Yes. Then I checked the source and read the original quote in its entirety. Where did your list come from? Who compiled it? Why do you trust it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong?" Very presumptuous comment | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not misinformation it’s facts both the Lateral flow test and the pcr tests are questionable, unreliable and are not fit for purpose and the pcr test is used to manipulate case numbers with a threshold that is set way to high but people like you have faith in those tests and use them regularly?This ."This is all nonsense, of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms such as Duck Duck Go, Telegram, Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagne´ Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Herve´ Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Prof. Retsif Levi Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Just as an example of my own research from Fullfact: Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) 'WHAT WAS CLAIMED Kary B Mullis said that his PCR test was not made to detect any type of infectious disease. It’s designed to pick up a signature of DNA and RNA of the person being tested. OUR VERDICT He never said this. This is a misunderstanding of a quote from him about the limitations of PCR testing in general, to find out about the exact levels of a virus in a sample, not whether or not the sample contained the virus.' Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa It did. Yes. Then I checked the source and read the original quote in its entirety. Where did your list come from? Who compiled it? Why do you trust it?" What list? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong?" Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong?" The data is all out there , like how the vaccinated are clogging the hospitals , people dying after being jabbed? I’d say it’s personal choice and trying to force medicate people is wrong on so many levels , sacking doctors who looked after your family’s ? Healthy people wasting nhs time when kids our missing cancer treatments because you tested positive which no symptoms ? The whole thing is a farce | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not misinformation it’s facts both the Lateral flow test and the pcr tests are questionable, unreliable and are not fit for purpose and the pcr test is used to manipulate case numbers with a threshold that is set way to high but people like you have faith in those tests and use them regularly?This .
This is all nonsense, of course."Of course | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19. And? That particular test has been withdrawn, but so hgas the PCR test. Are you denying the PCR test has been withdrawn from use?" They're using a multiplex PCR in the US that can test for a variety of pathogens. If you think that's a slam dunk, you might want to think again. Or re-evaluate the research skills you were taught in your considerable education. Because this is a bit of an embarrassing whoopsie | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19. And? That particular test has been withdrawn, but so hgas the PCR test. Are you denying the PCR test has been withdrawn from use?" See my earlier comment. The CDC has moved to a different type of PCR methodology. The new multiplex methodology enables more than one pathogen to be identified, so it can differentiate in one process whether a sample contains Covid, flu or both, for example. The now discontinued methodology can only do one thing at once, so to decide if a sample contains Covid, flu or both, you have to repeat the test with two different sets of primers. But of course, I'm sure you are intimately acquainted with PCR methodology so you know exactly what I'm on about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials " The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa A very vast array of noises you're making. Have you considered a career as a human trumpet? Could play a lovely tune on that minge" Why resort to this kind of comment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial?" Rhesus macaques are expensive. That's a fairly normal number for that kind of animal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19. And? That particular test has been withdrawn, but so hgas the PCR test. Are you denying the PCR test has been withdrawn from use? See my earlier comment. The CDC has moved to a different type of PCR methodology. The new multiplex methodology enables more than one pathogen to be identified, so it can differentiate in one process whether a sample contains Covid, flu or both, for example. The now discontinued methodology can only do one thing at once, so to decide if a sample contains Covid, flu or both, you have to repeat the test with two different sets of primers. But of course, I'm sure you are intimately acquainted with PCR methodology so you know exactly what I'm on about. " So they dropped the single parameter. PCR test as we said because 1. It can't differentiate between viable and non viable mRNA 2. As you say it cannot differentiate cold, flu and Corona virus Thanks for clarifying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19. And? That particular test has been withdrawn, but so hgas the PCR test. Are you denying the PCR test has been withdrawn from use? See my earlier comment. The CDC has moved to a different type of PCR methodology. The new multiplex methodology enables more than one pathogen to be identified, so it can differentiate in one process whether a sample contains Covid, flu or both, for example. The now discontinued methodology can only do one thing at once, so to decide if a sample contains Covid, flu or both, you have to repeat the test with two different sets of primers. But of course, I'm sure you are intimately acquainted with PCR methodology so you know exactly what I'm on about. So they dropped the single parameter. PCR test as we said because 1. It can't differentiate between viable and non viable mRNA 2. As you say it cannot differentiate cold, flu and Corona virus Thanks for clarifying. " I fear you've misunderstood some quite vital things along the way. Your supervisors might have missed a few lessons on this stuff... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered " Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial? Rhesus macaques are expensive. That's a fairly normal number for that kind of animal." I personally don't give much credit to peer review for many journals bve abuse it's like an inner circle of peers there's often no rigourous critique and a lot of back slapping. Not always bnut it is known. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa A very vast array of noises you're making. Have you considered a career as a human trumpet? Could play a lovely tune on that minge Why resort to this kind of comment? " It's fine I only let sheeple near my minge anyway | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial?" Do you trust an answer on the normal numbers of monkeys used on a test from someone on this site? Why not accept that it is correct from the knowledgeable and qualified people who did the work? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death. "Oh you think I'm a thick fuck? No I'm just aware that the data is fucked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fullfact waaaaaaaaaa Let me guess, that came at the top of a Google search? Baaaaaaaaa A very vast array of noises you're making. Have you considered a career as a human trumpet? Could play a lovely tune on that minge Why resort to this kind of comment? It's fine I only let sheeple near my minge anyway " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s a scam to keep the cases as high as possible to support their agenda thats why they set the threshold to high" can I ask what is their agenda? And what do they hope to achieve by following the aforementioned agenda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial?" The fact is that contrary to the other users statement animal testing was not skipped and it did infact take place so the statement made was factually incorrect I belive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From Innova's own website: The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the detection of extracted nucleocapsid protein antigens specific to SARS-CoV-2 in swab specimens directly collected from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19. And? That particular test has been withdrawn, but so hgas the PCR test. Are you denying the PCR test has been withdrawn from use? See my earlier comment. The CDC has moved to a different type of PCR methodology. The new multiplex methodology enables more than one pathogen to be identified, so it can differentiate in one process whether a sample contains Covid, flu or both, for example. The now discontinued methodology can only do one thing at once, so to decide if a sample contains Covid, flu or both, you have to repeat the test with two different sets of primers. But of course, I'm sure you are intimately acquainted with PCR methodology so you know exactly what I'm on about. So they dropped the single parameter. PCR test as we said because 1. It can't differentiate between viable and non viable mRNA 2. As you say it cannot differentiate cold, flu and Corona virus Thanks for clarifying. " PCR is a technique for amplifying genetic material. You have to add primers that are specific for the type of genetic material you are searching for. Most PCR tests are carried out with one set of primers, ergo can detect one pathogen in that test. Then, they would need to repeat the same methodology but with different primers if looking for flu or anything else. One set of primers, one pathogen type detected. The multiplex method allows multiple primers and therefore types of genetic material to be amplified so you do the procedure once, rather than two or three times. PCR is highly specific because the primers detect specific RNA or DNA sequences identified in the target pathogen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked"Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? The data is all out there , like how the vaccinated are clogging the hospitals , people dying after being jabbed? I’d say it’s personal choice and trying to force medicate people is wrong on so many levels , sacking doctors who looked after your family’s ? Healthy people wasting nhs time when kids our missing cancer treatments because you tested positive which no symptoms ? The whole thing is a farce " data like this taken from the british medical journal. care to share your data proving the opposite? The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), which has been monitoring activity throughout the pandemic, provides information on admissions to intensive care.3 Its latest report, published on 31 December, showed that the proportion of patients admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed covid-19 who were unvaccinated was 61%. This proportion had previously fallen from 75% in May 2021 to 47% in October 2021—consistent with the decreasing proportion of the general population who were unvaccinated—before rising again in December 2021. The proportion of unvaccinated patients in intensive care varied by English region, with the highest rates recorded in London (66%), the south west, and the north west. Being unvaccinated was classed as a person having no record of receiving any vaccination or having had a first dose administered within 14 days of receiving a positive covid test, and only 1.9% of the “unvaccinated” group had received a first dose within that period. The 61% figure is lower than the 80-90% reported at some hospitals. But the latest ICNARC data span only to 15 December, and the proportion of patients in intensive care who are unvaccinated may have increased as the omicron variant spread in December. Some hospitals will also have been more badly affected than others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? The data is all out there , like how the vaccinated are clogging the hospitals , people dying after being jabbed? I’d say it’s personal choice and trying to force medicate people is wrong on so many levels , sacking doctors who looked after your family’s ? Healthy people wasting nhs time when kids our missing cancer treatments because you tested positive which no symptoms ? The whole thing is a farce data like this taken from the british medical journal. care to share your data proving the opposite? The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), which has been monitoring activity throughout the pandemic, provides information on admissions to intensive care.3 Its latest report, published on 31 December, showed that the proportion of patients admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed covid-19 who were unvaccinated was 61%. This proportion had previously fallen from 75% in May 2021 to 47% in October 2021—consistent with the decreasing proportion of the general population who were unvaccinated—before rising again in December 2021. The proportion of unvaccinated patients in intensive care varied by English region, with the highest rates recorded in London (66%), the south west, and the north west. Being unvaccinated was classed as a person having no record of receiving any vaccination or having had a first dose administered within 14 days of receiving a positive covid test, and only 1.9% of the “unvaccinated” group had received a first dose within that period. The 61% figure is lower than the 80-90% reported at some hospitals. But the latest ICNARC data span only to 15 December, and the proportion of patients in intensive care who are unvaccinated may have increased as the omicron variant spread in December. Some hospitals will also have been more badly affected than others. " Don’t bring facts into this! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked
Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest?"Eurgh. My opinion. Not trying to make you see it. You believe what you believe. I'm not questioning it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial? Do you trust an answer on the normal numbers of monkeys used on a test from someone on this site? Why not accept that it is correct from the knowledgeable and qualified people who did the work?" Because they need to grasp at straws after being shown that the FACTs they were spouting were infact nonsense and animal testing did infact take place on all of the vaccines but hey who are we to provide evidence based on fact rather than fiction | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked
Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest?
Eurgh. My opinion. Not trying to make you see it. You believe what you believe. I'm not questioning it. "But you said you’d done your own research…presumably that’s what’s informed your opinion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked
Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest?
Eurgh. My opinion. Not trying to make you see it. You believe what you believe. I'm not questioning it.
But you said you’d done your own research…presumably that’s what’s informed your opinion?"Yes. Absolutely. I don't give a fuck what you believe. As I assume you've done yours and we won't agree. That's where we differ. I'm not looking for a fight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered " Interesting that you did not, actually, address either this question or the original OP. Why is the "with" figure used? Do you know and understand the explanation? Why is it important if "of" is not used? To minimise any confusion another measure is to use excess deaths. The death rate above what would be expected in a normal year. What does that tell you and why do you not accept it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial? The fact is that contrary to the other users statement animal testing was not skipped and it did infact take place so the statement made was factually incorrect I belive." What? You posted some links. I looked at the AZ link. I asked some questions about the information I read in the NIAID press release (link in the AZ webpage). Is there a problem with asking questions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s a scam to keep the cases as high as possible to support their agenda thats why they set the threshold to high can I ask what is their agenda? And what do they hope to achieve by following the aforementioned agenda? Just look up some of Davos videos , the great reset as they call it , the world economic forums brilliant idea can you just explain it how you view their agenda after watching the videos, you also have read and investigated it more than just a couple of videos. So I’d it would be good to hear your learned view!" You need to look at history to see we’re this is going , but my personal view is it’s a massive power grab by global corporations who are pretty much running things right now they literally have a written plan if you want me to send you a link to the wef website , they are trying to get rid of cash and bring in digital currency , Chinese style credit systems the list is endless , you may laugh as I did at first but it’s all there on their websites and the uk gov website human augmentation all sorts , sounds crazy I know haha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Interesting that you did not, actually, address either this question or the original OP. Why is the "with" figure used? Do you know and understand the explanation? Why is it important if "of" is not used? To minimise any confusion another measure is to use excess deaths. The death rate above what would be expected in a normal year. What does that tell you and why do you not accept it?" So no then. Thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked
Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest?
Eurgh. My opinion. Not trying to make you see it. You believe what you believe. I'm not questioning it.
But you said you’d done your own research…presumably that’s what’s informed your opinion?
Yes. Absolutely. I don't give a fuck what you believe. As I assume you've done yours and we won't agree. That's where we differ. I'm not looking for a fight."There’s no fight here, and not really any need to be rude either…it’s just that you’ve just stated you are ‘aware the data is fucked’, and all that is happening is an attempt to understand how you have come to this awareness. About the ‘data’. Being ‘fucked’. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Very presumptuous comment " It is. That is the point of the thread. My "presumption" is that someone in possession of the entire data set and the knowledge to interrogate and analyse it is better able to make an informed decision than someone with a tiny amount of information and little specialist knowledge. How would you judge the two different situations? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s a scam to keep the cases as high as possible to support their agenda thats why they set the threshold to high can I ask what is their agenda? And what do they hope to achieve by following the aforementioned agenda? Just look up some of Davos videos , the great reset as they call it , the world economic forums brilliant idea can you just explain it how you view their agenda after watching the videos, you also have read and investigated it more than just a couple of videos. So I’d it would be good to hear your learned view! You need to look at history to see we’re this is going , but my personal view is it’s a massive power grab by global corporations who are pretty much running things right now they literally have a written plan if you want me to send you a link to the wef website , they are trying to get rid of cash and bring in digital currency , Chinese style credit systems the list is endless , you may laugh as I did at first but it’s all there on their websites and the uk gov website human augmentation all sorts , sounds crazy I know haha " Yes, you're correct, it does sound crazy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked
Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest?
Eurgh. My opinion. Not trying to make you see it. You believe what you believe. I'm not questioning it.
But you said you’d done your own research…presumably that’s what’s informed your opinion?
Yes. Absolutely. I don't give a fuck what you believe. As I assume you've done yours and we won't agree. That's where we differ. I'm not looking for a fight.
There’s no fight here, and not really any need to be rude either…it’s just that you’ve just stated you are ‘aware the data is fucked’, and all that is happening is an attempt to understand how you have come to this awareness. About the ‘data’. Being ‘fucked’."I wasn't being rude. But you obviously took it that way. You think the data we are being presented with isn't biased or skewed in any way? All data is presented in a way to back up whatever those presenting it want to prove. Your fight isn't with me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s a scam to keep the cases as high as possible to support their agenda thats why they set the threshold to high can I ask what is their agenda? And what do they hope to achieve by following the aforementioned agenda? Just look up some of Davos videos , the great reset as they call it , the world economic forums brilliant idea can you just explain it how you view their agenda after watching the videos, you also have read and investigated it more than just a couple of videos. So I’d it would be good to hear your learned view! You need to look at history to see we’re this is going , but my personal view is it’s a massive power grab by global corporations who are pretty much running things right now they literally have a written plan if you want me to send you a link to the wef website , they are trying to get rid of cash and bring in digital currency , Chinese style credit systems the list is endless , you may laugh as I did at first but it’s all there on their websites and the uk gov website human augmentation all sorts , sounds crazy I know haha " thanks but no need to send the link. I think you can just as easily find the wrong answer on the internet as the right one. One observation I have made with the views of some people who are sure there is an agenda to control and contain the populous. No one person has ever said “I hope I’m wrong” I find that a bit strange | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked
Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest?
Eurgh. My opinion. Not trying to make you see it. You believe what you believe. I'm not questioning it.
But you said you’d done your own research…presumably that’s what’s informed your opinion?
Yes. Absolutely. I don't give a fuck what you believe. As I assume you've done yours and we won't agree. That's where we differ. I'm not looking for a fight.
There’s no fight here, and not really any need to be rude either…it’s just that you’ve just stated you are ‘aware the data is fucked’, and all that is happening is an attempt to understand how you have come to this awareness. About the ‘data’. Being ‘fucked’.
I wasn't being rude. But you obviously took it that way. You think the data we are being presented with isn't biased or skewed in any way? All data is presented in a way to back up whatever those presenting it want to prove. Your fight isn't with me. "You seem obsessed with the idea people are fighting you. This isn’t a fight. If, as you say, all the data you have access to is biased or flawed…how have you been able to do any research with it and produce results you can trust? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial? The fact is that contrary to the other users statement animal testing was not skipped and it did infact take place so the statement made was factually incorrect I belive. What? You posted some links. I looked at the AZ link. I asked some questions about the information I read in the NIAID press release (link in the AZ webpage). Is there a problem with asking questions?" Nope no problem at all with asking questions, the links I posted were in response to a comment from another user as I stated, and proved that persons statement to be factually incorrect I had not delved any deeper into how many animals were used or weither or not peer review was important in this case as I had provided the evidence that had been required to prove the other users statement to be incorrect. As for the answer you are seeking to the questions asked I would have to conduct further research into that to provide you with the correct information or of you would like a faster response you would have to seek answers from someone with more knowledge of that particular subject than myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Interesting that you did not, actually, address either this question or the original OP. Why is the "with" figure used? Do you know and understand the explanation? Why is it important if "of" is not used? To minimise any confusion another measure is to use excess deaths. The death rate above what would be expected in a normal year. What does that tell you and why do you not accept it? So no then. Thank you. " You think that's a "gotcha"? Are you unable to answer my previous questions? It's quite easy to find from the ONS. They even give a definition. Where are you getting your data from which you believe over this? 'We use the term "due to COVID-19" when referring only to deaths with an underlying cause of death of COVID-19. When taking into account all of the deaths that had COVID-19 mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not, we use the term "involving COVID-19".' 'Of the 48,180 deaths registered in November 2021 in England, 6.6% (3,185 deaths) were due to COVID-19, a larger proportion than in October 2021 (5.6%). Including all deaths involving COVID-19 (3,752 deaths), this percentage increases to 7.8% of all deaths in England in November 2021. In Wales, 9.0% of the 3,344 deaths registered in November 2021 were due to COVID-19 (302 deaths), a smaller proportion than in October 2021 (9.5%). Including all deaths involving COVID-19 (360 deaths), this percentage increases to 10.8% of all deaths in Wales.' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Presumably you think if you die in a car crash when you have Covid they put Covid down on your death certificate as the cause of death.
Oh you think I'm a thick fuck?
No I'm just aware that the data is fucked
Wouldn’t presume to comment. What is your qualification for being ‘aware the data is fucked’, out of interest?
Eurgh. My opinion. Not trying to make you see it. You believe what you believe. I'm not questioning it.
But you said you’d done your own research…presumably that’s what’s informed your opinion?
Yes. Absolutely. I don't give a fuck what you believe. As I assume you've done yours and we won't agree. That's where we differ. I'm not looking for a fight.
There’s no fight here, and not really any need to be rude either…it’s just that you’ve just stated you are ‘aware the data is fucked’, and all that is happening is an attempt to understand how you have come to this awareness. About the ‘data’. Being ‘fucked’.
I wasn't being rude. But you obviously took it that way. You think the data we are being presented with isn't biased or skewed in any way? All data is presented in a way to back up whatever those presenting it want to prove. Your fight isn't with me.
You seem obsessed with the idea people are fighting you. This isn’t a fight.
If, as you say, all the data you have access to is biased or flawed…how have you been able to do any research with it and produce results you can trust?
Lol you're mental. I never said I have access to data. I'm answering the OP. I feel like I'm in a fight because you're leaping on everything I say. What is wrong with you??"I think anyone would recognise you calling someone ‘mental’ as both an insult and an ableist comment. Is there really any need? And by the way, responding to you where you have directly quoted what I’ve written is not ‘leaping on everything’ you say, it’s just replying to you. Which is what you are doing yourself. But it’s better if we leave it there I think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Interesting that you did not, actually, address either this question or the original OP. Why is the "with" figure used? Do you know and understand the explanation? Why is it important if "of" is not used? To minimise any confusion another measure is to use excess deaths. The death rate above what would be expected in a normal year. What does that tell you and why do you not accept it? So no then. Thank you. You think that's a "gotcha"? Are you unable to answer my previous questions? It's quite easy to find from the ONS. They even give a definition. Where are you getting your data from which you believe over this? 'We use the term "due to COVID-19" when referring only to deaths with an underlying cause of death of COVID-19. When taking into account all of the deaths that had COVID-19 mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not, we use the term "involving COVID-19".' 'Of the 48,180 deaths registered in November 2021 in England, 6.6% (3,185 deaths) were due to COVID-19, a larger proportion than in October 2021 (5.6%). Including all deaths involving COVID-19 (3,752 deaths), this percentage increases to 7.8% of all deaths in England in November 2021. In Wales, 9.0% of the 3,344 deaths registered in November 2021 were due to COVID-19 (302 deaths), a smaller proportion than in October 2021 (9.5%). Including all deaths involving COVID-19 (360 deaths), this percentage increases to 10.8% of all deaths in Wales.'" You mistake me for someone that cares to answer your questions you can shout figures all you like. I didn't vaccinate because I didn't see it was a risk to my health and didn't see that it stopped it spreading to others I was right. My. Own. Research. for my situation. 100% accurate. Much better than whatever you're spouting if you understand it, that is. Quotes are really useful in those situations | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?"" Hopefully you will wake up before it’s too late! The global economy is about to collapse… are you ready for it, did you know it was even coming ?? Please learn how to have open debate with all sides of all stories… this is key to survival in life… most people who mention comments like this are really only trying to help you see the world for what it has become today… thank you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? The professions you mention above… have they been accurate in their conclusions since March 20? If they weren’t accurate then are they accurate now? Or is it ok to always be learning? More in answer to your question I’m Happy to discuss my thoughts when I feel it’s important, happy to make decisions based on my thoughts and happy to undertake some amount of research where I feel necessary. I understand some things, not all. I rarely blindly follow if my thoughts are at odds with the leader! I’m not a baker but I can make a lovely scone! I’m not a mechanic but I can fix a car! I’m not a doctor but I can make simple diagnoses. In my profession I constantly learn from others not qualified in my field. " What do you think? There was a very high infection and death rate. The countries which followed the recommendations suffered the lowest death rates. Those that followed strict lockdown and social distancing protocols reduced these rates the most. Vaccine introductions significantly brought down the rate of serious illness. The opposite outcome has occured with the opposite actions. The global population of these professionals know more than me about the subject of global pandemics so I will trust them. I would have to work really, really hard to construct a counter narrative. Everyone can make basic diagnoses of things that they have experience of. You cannot diagnose something that you do not have experience of. So, again, why might you feel that you know better? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?" Hopefully you will wake up before it’s too late! The global economy is about to collapse… are you ready for it, did you know it was even coming ?? Please learn how to have open debate with all sides of all stories… this is key to survival in life… most people who mention comments like this are really only trying to help you see the world for what it has become today… thank you " I asked why you think that you know better than the global population of people who are the most knowledgeable and experienced in this field or any other. Are you able to address this question at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" AstraZeneca You have to read down a bit to get to it on this one https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials The AstraZeneca animal testing in the link above was carried out on six rhesus macaques (plus three control animals that did not receive the vaccine) and the findings were not peer-reviewed before the vaccine was used in a Phase 1 trial. Is this number of animals low, high or normal? Is a peer-review an essential part of a trial? The fact is that contrary to the other users statement animal testing was not skipped and it did infact take place so the statement made was factually incorrect I belive. What? You posted some links. I looked at the AZ link. I asked some questions about the information I read in the NIAID press release (link in the AZ webpage). Is there a problem with asking questions? Nope no problem at all with asking questions, the links I posted were in response to a comment from another user as I stated, and proved that persons statement to be factually incorrect I had not delved any deeper into how many animals were used or weither or not peer review was important in this case as I had provided the evidence that had been required to prove the other users statement to be incorrect. As for the answer you are seeking to the questions asked I would have to conduct further research into that to provide you with the correct information or of you would like a faster response you would have to seek answers from someone with more knowledge of that particular subject than myself." You obviously have a problem with asking questions because you responded to the OP's reply to my post as follows; "Because they need to grasp at straws after being shown that the FACTs they were spouting were infact nonsense and animal testing did infact take place on all of the vaccines but hey who are we to provide evidence based on fact rather than fiction" Did I say animal testing did not take place? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?" Hopefully you will wake up before it’s too late! The global economy is about to collapse… are you ready for it, did you know it was even coming ?? Please learn how to have open debate with all sides of all stories… this is key to survival in life… most people who mention comments like this are really only trying to help you see the world for what it has become today… thank you " Thank you for sharing your beliefs, I shall seek compelling evidence to inform my decisions on how to act. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Interesting that you did not, actually, address either this question or the original OP. Why is the "with" figure used? Do you know and understand the explanation? Why is it important if "of" is not used? To minimise any confusion another measure is to use excess deaths. The death rate above what would be expected in a normal year. What does that tell you and why do you not accept it? So no then. Thank you. You think that's a "gotcha"? Are you unable to answer my previous questions? It's quite easy to find from the ONS. They even give a definition. Where are you getting your data from which you believe over this? 'We use the term "due to COVID-19" when referring only to deaths with an underlying cause of death of COVID-19. When taking into account all of the deaths that had COVID-19 mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not, we use the term "involving COVID-19".' 'Of the 48,180 deaths registered in November 2021 in England, 6.6% (3,185 deaths) were due to COVID-19, a larger proportion than in October 2021 (5.6%). Including all deaths involving COVID-19 (3,752 deaths), this percentage increases to 7.8% of all deaths in England in November 2021. In Wales, 9.0% of the 3,344 deaths registered in November 2021 were due to COVID-19 (302 deaths), a smaller proportion than in October 2021 (9.5%). Including all deaths involving COVID-19 (360 deaths), this percentage increases to 10.8% of all deaths in Wales.' You mistake me for someone that cares to answer your questions you can shout figures all you like. I didn't vaccinate because I didn't see it was a risk to my health and didn't see that it stopped it spreading to others I was right. My. Own. Research. for my situation. 100% accurate. Much better than whatever you're spouting if you understand it, that is. Quotes are really useful in those situations "Strange. You asked the question. I provided you both with the definition and the figures which you asked for. If I understand your answer correctly, you believe that you understand the data better than people who work in the field "because you know"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look long enough with belief you will see what nobody else can see. " Does believing something make it true? My child believes in Father Christmas... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Interesting that you did not, actually, address either this question or the original OP. Why is the "with" figure used? Do you know and understand the explanation? Why is it important if "of" is not used? To minimise any confusion another measure is to use excess deaths. The death rate above what would be expected in a normal year. What does that tell you and why do you not accept it?" When the Global economy is collapsed shortly you will not be worried about numbers, you will be worrying about how to grow your own food & source fresh water in order to stay alive… now there’s a head start… good luck, stay strong… please know that these are genuine warnings… thank you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?" Hopefully you will wake up before it’s too late! The global economy is about to collapse… are you ready for it, did you know it was even coming ?? Please learn how to have open debate with all sides of all stories… this is key to survival in life… most people who mention comments like this are really only trying to help you see the world for what it has become today… thank you I asked why you think that you know better than the global population of people who are the most knowledgeable and experienced in this field or any other. Are you able to address this question at all?" The irony. You expect/demand answers to your questions, yet dismiss any questions other people have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms such as Duck Duck Go, Telegram, Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagne´ Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Herve´ Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Prof. Retsif Levi Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Ariyana Love, Sherri Tenpenny, Geert Vanden Bossche... Damn, some of these names are 100% pure showbiz and wasted on science... " Time will decide and the truth will always set you free… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people feel that their unqualified and unpractised interpretation of data of any description is more insightful than those who's job it is and have spent their careers understanding it? Why would you trust a journalist or politician or random person on the internet more than an: immunologist, epidemiologist, statistician or public health professional? If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"? Why would we stop trusting the professionals mentioned above when their opinions are different ? " I don't understand what this means. Opinions different to what? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong in looking for other solutions or opinions, even with doctors second opinions are often helpful. From a personal experience I have had 2 years of protracted investigations to a recent onset of a skin condition. They have done some tests but really can only tell me to use steroids and have put it down to a dust allergy, which it's not. They refuse to acknowledge that it's something to do with my hormones due to the way my body reacts in my monthly cycle or do anything to investigate that further. Cue going and getting a different perspective from 'alternative' therapies, believe me I've tried a lot. And finally I have been getting results from a herbalist. We should never be afraid to look outside the box whether that's science or anything else " If you suffer from a very rare condition with very little work conducted on the matter then you may well not get an answer because none has been found. Did the medical staff that you saw say anything other than that they could try things but didn't know for sure? In this particular instance you are correct. You had little choice and a second or third opinion is always sensible. You would seek a qualified second or third opinion before seeking alternatives I assume. If they agreed you would probably accept it I assume. Is that the same in the case of Covid-19? There are thousands of qualified opinions that agree and very few that disagree. Why would you favour the tiny minority opinion over the majority one? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?" Hopefully you will wake up before it’s too late! The global economy is about to collapse… are you ready for it, did you know it was even coming ?? Please learn how to have open debate with all sides of all stories… this is key to survival in life… most people who mention comments like this are really only trying to help you see the world for what it has become today… thank you I asked why you think that you know better than the global population of people who are the most knowledgeable and experienced in this field or any other. Are you able to address this question at all? The irony. You expect/demand answers to your questions, yet dismiss any questions other people have." The question is literally the point of the thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms such as Duck Duck Go, Telegram, Bitchute, Rumble and Odysee. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagne´ Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Herve´ Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Prof. Retsif Levi Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Ariyana Love, Sherri Tenpenny, Geert Vanden Bossche... Damn, some of these names are 100% pure showbiz and wasted on science... Time will decide and the truth will always set you free… " Time has told is that changes in behaviour brought down infection, and death rates. Time has told us that vaccinations have brought down infection, severe illness and death rates. Why do you feel that you research is more valid than that of knowledgeable and qualified specialists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look long enough with belief you will see what nobody else can see. Does believing something make it true? My child believes in Father Christmas..." What is truth and who's truth, I believed in father Christmas and that he came down the chimney to bring me presents on Christmas day but one year i questioned how does he get past the gas fire and I was told the truth else I would still be leaving mince pies out, all for not questioning and been told the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the majority of people on this thread who don't trust scientists think that Covid is not serious because they or some of the unvaccinated people they know have not caught Covid whereas those who have caught it were vaccinated. How many people do you know? How many people are there in the country or the world? What percentage of the data do you have? Why are you right with that proportion of the data whilst those with all of the data are wrong? Do you know the percentage of people that died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid actually died OF Covid? Are these figures available? Just wondered Interesting that you did not, actually, address either this question or the original OP. Why is the "with" figure used? Do you know and understand the explanation? Why is it important if "of" is not used? To minimise any confusion another measure is to use excess deaths. The death rate above what would be expected in a normal year. What does that tell you and why do you not accept it? When the Global economy is collapsed shortly you will not be worried about numbers, you will be worrying about how to grow your own food & source fresh water in order to stay alive… now there’s a head start… good luck, stay strong… please know that these are genuine warnings… thank you " Did the global economy collapse in 1929, 1973, 2008? The global economy collapsed last year. Aren't you predicting something that has already happened? I would still place contracting a severe illness or passing it on to others with the chance of death or long term complications above economic turbulence. Wouldn't you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look long enough with belief you will see what nobody else can see. Does believing something make it true? My child believes in Father Christmas... What is truth and who's truth, I believed in father Christmas and that he came down the chimney to bring me presents on Christmas day but one year i questioned how does he get past the gas fire and I was told the truth else I would still be leaving mince pies out, all for not questioning and been told the truth." But before, you said "if you look long enough with belief, you will see what no-one else can see.". Nothing about questioning or revising beliefs based on new information/evidence. I ask you again. If my daughter believes hard enough in Father Christmas, does he become real? Will she see what no-one else sees, simply because of blind belief? Belief is nonsense. Some people believe the earth is flat. However, that is demonstrably nonsense and no amount of belief will make it true. Etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Belief is nonsense. Some people believe the earth is flat. However, that is demonstrably nonsense and no amount of belief will make it true. Etc. " A person who believes the earth is flat will disagree with your comment. Just like someone who believes a transwoman is a woman will disagree with someone who says they are not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look long enough with belief you will see what nobody else can see. Does believing something make it true? My child believes in Father Christmas... What is truth and who's truth, I believed in father Christmas and that he came down the chimney to bring me presents on Christmas day but one year i questioned how does he get past the gas fire and I was told the truth else I would still be leaving mince pies out, all for not questioning and been told the truth. But before, you said "if you look long enough with belief, you will see what no-one else can see.". Nothing about questioning or revising beliefs based on new information/evidence. I ask you again. If my daughter believes hard enough in Father Christmas, does he become real? Will she see what no-one else sees, simply because of blind belief? Belief is nonsense. Some people believe the earth is flat. However, that is demonstrably nonsense and no amount of belief will make it true. Etc. " The question is are you going to tell your daughter the truth about father christmas if she questions asks you. Or is it a bit of harmless nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look long enough with belief you will see what nobody else can see. Does believing something make it true? My child believes in Father Christmas... What is truth and who's truth, I believed in father Christmas and that he came down the chimney to bring me presents on Christmas day but one year i questioned how does he get past the gas fire and I was told the truth else I would still be leaving mince pies out, all for not questioning and been told the truth. But before, you said "if you look long enough with belief, you will see what no-one else can see.". Nothing about questioning or revising beliefs based on new information/evidence. I ask you again. If my daughter believes hard enough in Father Christmas, does he become real? Will she see what no-one else sees, simply because of blind belief? Belief is nonsense. Some people believe the earth is flat. However, that is demonstrably nonsense and no amount of belief will make it true. Etc. The question is are you going to tell your daughter the truth about father christmas if she questions asks you. Or is it a bit of harmless nonsense." Depends what age she is | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look long enough with belief you will see what nobody else can see. Does believing something make it true? My child believes in Father Christmas... What is truth and who's truth, I believed in father Christmas and that he came down the chimney to bring me presents on Christmas day but one year i questioned how does he get past the gas fire and I was told the truth else I would still be leaving mince pies out, all for not questioning and been told the truth. But before, you said "if you look long enough with belief, you will see what no-one else can see.". Nothing about questioning or revising beliefs based on new information/evidence. I ask you again. If my daughter believes hard enough in Father Christmas, does he become real? Will she see what no-one else sees, simply because of blind belief? Belief is nonsense. Some people believe the earth is flat. However, that is demonstrably nonsense and no amount of belief will make it true. Etc. The question is are you going to tell your daughter the truth about father christmas if she questions asks you. Or is it a bit of harmless nonsense." It depends on the consequences of not believing in Father Christmas. Are they serious or potentially fatal to her or anyone else? Is there substantial knowledge and experience to suggest that Father Christmas is imaginary? If so, why would you contest it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As this thread closes, nobody has managed to answer the OP in any coherent way although, it seems, that some believe that they have Perhaps that's the answer?" Cause journalists etc speak words most people understand! The people talking factual science that have dedicated there life’s to there profession sound confusing to a lot of people ! that’s not the answer and I’m definitely not claiming it is but in some cases it makes more sense for people to hear it that way right or wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you repeat someone else's opinion have you "come to your own conclusion"?" Suppose this could be applied many things couldn’t it? What if someone else’s opinion was forged from someone else’s opinion? Was that their own conclusion? Opinion/conclusion inception. Does anyone ever really make a conclusion without any influence at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look long enough with belief you will see what nobody else can see. Does believing something make it true? My child believes in Father Christmas... What is truth and who's truth, I believed in father Christmas and that he came down the chimney to bring me presents on Christmas day but one year i questioned how does he get past the gas fire and I was told the truth else I would still be leaving mince pies out, all for not questioning and been told the truth. But before, you said "if you look long enough with belief, you will see what no-one else can see.". Nothing about questioning or revising beliefs based on new information/evidence. I ask you again. If my daughter believes hard enough in Father Christmas, does he become real? Will she see what no-one else sees, simply because of blind belief? Belief is nonsense. Some people believe the earth is flat. However, that is demonstrably nonsense and no amount of belief will make it true. Etc. The question is are you going to tell your daughter the truth about father christmas if she questions asks you. Or is it a bit of harmless nonsense. It depends on the consequences of not believing in Father Christmas. Are they serious or potentially fatal to her or anyone else? Is there substantial knowledge and experience to suggest that Father Christmas is imaginary? If so, why would you contest it?" Some folk believe in ghosts and poltergeist and the evidence is there to see, countless TV shows with scientific instruments used to prove the evidence as fact and truth. Should we all belive in someone else's facts or truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because all the ones that tell the truth are being silenced by big pharma. Wake up sheeple!!! It never ceases to amaze me that the Flat Earthers call people who believe in the vaccine "Sheeple." Could it not equally be the other way round - that said Covidiots are in fact the "Sheeple?" Hopefully you will wake up before it’s too late! The global economy is about to collapse… are you ready for it, did you know it was even coming ?? Please learn how to have open debate with all sides of all stories… this is key to survival in life… most people who mention comments like this are really only trying to help you see the world for what it has become today… thank you I asked why you think that you know better than the global population of people who are the most knowledgeable and experienced in this field or any other. Are you able to address this question at all? The irony. You expect/demand answers to your questions, yet dismiss any questions other people have. The question is literally the point of the thread." The simple answer is because people can think what they like. They have a free will. You can belittle and respond with contemptuous and disparaging questions all you want, but if somebody wants to favour the tiny minority opinion over the majority one, they can. Yes it's a fact! People have different opinions. It is clear from this thread that this is difficult concept for some people on this forum to grasp. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Conspiracy theorists desperately want to feel like they have some sort of 'insider knowledge' and they're heroes for spreading misinformation." Indeed. And they very much misunderstand what research actually entails, and why they're not doing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing your own research is now a bad thing... Unless it is from approved and agreed sources and providing evidence that is approved and agreed and you arrive at the same conclusions as those in the all knowing gang who are permitted to form opinion, no critical thinking or challenges permitted..... When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you are now criticised for concluding it's a duck unless you have a degree in ornithology, you have 20 years experience in researching and statistics and probability from approved sources show conclusively that the quacking, waddling, billed creature is in fact a duck.. Observing what happens before your own eyes and forming your own opinion is now verboten unless you "understand" the bigger picture and youre certainly not permitted to voice your Ill informed, Ill concluded opinions, how very dare you... Go over there Mr thick and stand with the other thickies and let us tell you what you've seen. Questioning the authorised groupspeak marks you down as intellectually inferior and unable to think or form the correct opinion. " Hmm. I think it's more that most people don't know how to research, vet sources, etc. Independent inquiry is a good thing, but searching for sources that agree with you is neither inquiry nor research, no matter what anyone tries to call it. What ordinary people do is content consumption, in the main, not research at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doing your own research is now a bad thing... Unless it is from approved and agreed sources and providing evidence that is approved and agreed and you arrive at the same conclusions as those in the all knowing gang who are permitted to form opinion, no critical thinking or challenges permitted..... When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you are now criticised for concluding it's a duck unless you have a degree in ornithology, you have 20 years experience in researching and statistics and probability from approved sources show conclusively that the quacking, waddling, billed creature is in fact a duck.. Observing what happens before your own eyes and forming your own opinion is now verboten unless you "understand" the bigger picture and youre certainly not permitted to voice your Ill informed, Ill concluded opinions, how very dare you... Go over there Mr thick and stand with the other thickies and let us tell you what you've seen. Questioning the authorised groupspeak marks you down as intellectually inferior and unable to think or form the correct opinion. Hmm. I think it's more that most people don't know how to research, vet sources, etc. Independent inquiry is a good thing, but searching for sources that agree with you is neither inquiry nor research, no matter what anyone tries to call it. What ordinary people do is content consumption, in the main, not research at all." Btw, I know that I consume content, too. Although I hope I apply my research techniques and skills to the way I do so. As someone with no relevant training, I know I have vast limitations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
