Beer Virus V

[printcraft]

 

[foszoe]

That sounds like a setup line for printcraft.

Yeah. You think a lawyer would word things a little better...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

UK: More vaccinated than unvaccinated people over 50 test positive, die with COVID - LifeSite

The Delta variant of COVID-19 is reportedly spreading wildly throughout the country, but vaccines are not particularly effective.

www.lifesitenews.com

Yes more people over 50 with the vac died then those over 50 without. There were also a far higher number of those with the vac that were infected than those without. For the over 50 group 68-94% by ethnic/racial group have been vaccinated with about 80% overall.
There were just under a thousand unvaccinated of with 38 died. There were just over 3500 vaccinated of which 50 died.

So if you catch it, the chances of dying from it if you're over 50 are much less if you've been vaccinated than if you haven't.

 

[jamil]

Yeah. You think a lawyer would word things a little better...

I'm still not convinced it was not intentional. It's rare space to be on PC's sig line.

 

[foszoe]

I'm still not convinced it was not intentional. It's rare space to be on PC's sig line.

Does that mean you are convinced that it was intentional?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Secret Docs Reveal Moderna Sent Coronavirus Vaccine To North Carolina University Weeks Before Pandemic

A blog that celebrates the U.S. Constitution, personal responsibility, second amendment rights, first amendment rights and small government.

ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com

The NDA is dated December 19, 2019, which is not "weeks before" the pandemic. There were already cases all over the world (including here in Indiana) by that date.

mRNA vaccines have been in development for decades, IIRC. The vector is basically a mRNA vehicle for potentially any protein strain. It is not inconceivable that a SARS-CoV-2 protein strain could have been isolated by late December 2019.

Not to mention it doesn't mention which coronavirus this vaccine targets. Weren't there mRNA vaccines in development for MERS awhile ago? Perhaps this is one of them.

Dr. Michael Yeadon - Final Warning! - Common Sense Evaluation

Dr. Michael Yeadon the former Pfizer Vice President with a Final Warning!

commonsenseevaluation.com

What did he say? Something about if you find one thing they tell you that's not true, why would you believe anything else they tell you? His first couple of sentences are BS, that a asymptomatic carrier of a virus could pass it along was invented in 2020. I'm assuming he's never heard of HIV, HPV, the various Hep viruses, Epstein-Barr....

Not to mention he wasn't the VP of Pfiser, he was VP of a small division of them that had nothing to do with vaccines or viruses. He worked on drugs to treat allergies, asthma, and copd.

 

[Leadeye]

The Covid will be with you....always.

 

[nonobaddog]

N

Does that mean you are convinced that it was intentional?

I bet he meant what he said and not what you said.

 

[jamil]

I guess when people present things (e.g. the struggles in question) that are so obviously biased lies as if they are well reasoned facts...

So thinking about this for a bit, this sticks out as a problem to me. And I'm talking generally about when to be so dismissive and when not to be. And what the highlighted refers to isn't specifically what I'm saying.

Bias can be obvious. Lies are only "obvious" when intuited to be false, OR if you have factual evidence of the truth. Intuition can be wrong. Your own bias might make you think it's an obvious lie when it could be the truth. So that leaves factual evidence of the truth as the most reliably obvious.

It's fair to question a source that has historically fabricated "facts", for example GWP, or CNN. They WILL report with a bias, but that doesn't mean they won't report truth from time to time. Although these highly biased sources deserve higher scrutiny, they don't deserve automatic dismissal. What they're saying could be true. Bias isn't always false. It takes some investigation to know.

When I think it does warrant automatic dismissal is when you read the article and the due diligence is missing. No facts proven. No named sources. No logical path for deductive reasoning. Just claims without real evidence. That's the point where I would want to dismiss the claim. For example, why should I believe the claim about UFO's? Without you showing me that there are aliens visiting us, there is no reason to believe that unexplained phenomenon is because it's aliens. Without you connecting the dots between DJT and Russia, with real ass evidence instead of fabricated ********, yeah. I'm dismissing that.

Fauci lied. And that makes everything he says from then on eligible for a higher scrutiny. He wasted his cred. The CDC and WHO and other loudmouthed scientists have been all over the place during the whole thing. And maybe we can excuse some of that because this is all new. They didn't know much. But when they don't know, and still ferociously attack any discussion of theories they don't like, I think it's fair suspect that they're not being very honest.

If they want me to be less skeptical, then they need to stop acting like they're hiding ****. They behaved like they didn't want HCQ to be effective. Within days of Trump touting HCQ, there were studies saying it was not. And then after time, when other more genuinely curious scientists study it, we find that it's more effective than those early studies showed. And then some scientists come out and admit that they felt they needed to disparage HCQ because they didn't want to be on the same side as the bad orange man.

I think at this point, institutional science has a reputation to rebuild. They've behaved horribly. But worshipers of institutional science won't see that. Because being on the side of apparent truth is more important than being on the side of actual truth.

Sorry for the long rant.

 

[printcraft]

So thinking about this for a bit, this sticks out as a problem to me. And I'm talking generally about when to be so dismissive and when not to be. And what the highlighted refers to isn't specifically what I'm saying.

Bias can be obvious. Lies are only "obvious" when intuited to be false, OR if you have factual evidence of the truth. Intuition can be wrong. Your own bias might make you think it's an obvious lie when it could be the truth. So that leaves factual evidence of the truth as the most reliably obvious.

It's fair to question a source that has historically fabricated "facts", for example GWP, or CNN. They WILL report with a bias, but that doesn't mean they won't report truth from time to time. Although these highly biased sources deserve higher scrutiny, they don't deserve automatic dismissal. What they're saying could be true. Bias isn't always false. It takes some investigation to know.

When I think it does warrant automatic dismissal is when you read the article and the due diligence is missing. No facts proven. No named sources. No logical path for deductive reasoning. Just claims without real evidence. That's the point where I would want to dismiss the claim. For example, why should I believe the claim about UFO's? Without you showing me that there are aliens visiting us, there is no reason to believe that unexplained phenomenon is because it's aliens. Without you connecting the dots between DJT and Russia, with real ass evidence instead of fabricated ********, yeah. I'm dismissing that.

Fauci lied. And that makes everything he says from then on eligible for a higher scrutiny. He wasted his cred. The CDC and WHO and other loudmouthed scientists have been all over the place during the whole thing. And maybe we can excuse some of that because this is all new. They didn't know much. But when they don't know, and still ferociously attack any discussion of theories they don't like, I think it's fair suspect that they're not being very honest.

If they want me to be less skeptical, then they need to stop acting like they're hiding ****. They behaved like they didn't want HCQ to be effective. Within days of Trump touting HCQ, there were studies saying it was not. And then after time, when other more genuinely curious scientists study it, we find that it's more effective than those early studies showed. And then some scientists come out and admit that they felt they needed to disparage HCQ because they didn't want to be on the same side as the bad orange man.

I think at this point, institutional science has a reputation to rebuild. They've behaved horribly. But science worshipers won't see that. Because being on the side of apparent truth is more important than being on the side of actual truth.

Sorry for the long rant.

Sure but "man made global warming" is true science not able to be used for politically motivated purposes... don't be a science denier.

 

[jamil]

Sure but "man made global warming" is true science not able to be used for politically motivated purposes... don't be a science denier.

Don't get me started on that. Institutional science needs to fix that too.

 

[Ingomike]

What did he say? Something about if you find one thing they tell you that's not true, why would you believe anything else they tell you?

Some of you guys are far more trusting of known liars, even to the point of making excuses...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Some of you guys are far more trusting of known liars, even to the point of making excuses...

You mean like that known liar in the video? Or perhaps the site the video was hosted on?

And some of you guys are far too trusting of any non mainstream site, that is known to exaggerate or straight out lie as long as it fits what you wish to believe.

I don't really trust any site.

 

[foszoe]

If you can cite a site that's trustworthy 100% of the time that would be dyn-o-mite outta sight!

 

[Ingomike]

You mean like that known liar in the video? Or perhaps the site the video was hosted on?

And some of you guys are far too trusting of any non mainstream site, that is known to exaggerate or straight out lie as long as it fits what you wish to believe.

I don't really trust any site.

BS, you are all about this crap. I post things that are interesting not necessarily that I believe them. I'm capable of discussing Trump being reinstated in the presidency, smoking a cigar (don't like bubble gum), and knowing it is very very unlikely.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

BS, you are all about this crap. I post things that are interesting not necessarily that I believe them. I'm capable of discussing Trump being reinstated in the presidency, smoking a cigar (don't like bubble gum), and knowing it is very very unlikely.

I'm all about what crap?

 

[Ingomike]

I'm all about what crap?

I may be mistaken. I thought you were in the we believe the government, big pharma, and politicized science group. My apologies if I was mistaken.

 

[rhamersley]

Don't get me started on that. Institutional science needs to fix that too.

But Bill Nye said so.....

 

[Ingomike]

But Bill Nye said so.....

OMG! That one blows my mind. He is not even a scientist. LOL

 

[rhamersley]

OMG! That one blows my mind. He is not even a scientist. LOL

Maybe I should have used the sarcasm symbol???