It's no such vote. It is a preemptive explanation for the inevitable increase in diagnosis of cancer and other diseases that some will wrongly attribute to vaccines.
The problem is that without lockdowns healthcare was overwhelmed by covid cases the same issue would occur but with additional covid death on top.Ok about vaccines however your post indicated that they are due to lock downs, that my dear fiend is coercion thus causing harm not good
Really ???Stay with the word of GOD he does not employ coercion only satan does
MOD HAT ON
This Thread has Moved
From News & Current Events (Articles Required)
To The Kitchen Sink
MOD HAT OFF
LOL! Isn't it funny how factchecking seems to almost always be a hobby of lefty, censorious types?
Closing hospitals and doctors to non Covid treatment was brief, during real peaks. The problem isn’t lockdowns, but people not wanting to go to doctors offices. I’ve heard radio ads encouraging people to get routine treatments. Doctors offices have been taking lots of precautions. But I can understand not wanting to go to a doctor.Thanks for the vote for no more masks or lockdowns
Ok about vaccines however your post indicated that they are due to lock downs, that my dear fiend is coercion thus causing harm not good
The real problem shorter term may be ADE or vaccine enhanced disease.
There are studies suggesting this and past coronavirus vaccines have had these problems. The good antibodies are gone in a few months. You have the bad ones left that can enhance an infection. A booster will hide that problem for a while and people believe everything is great.
+ the boosters increase risk for all those spike proteins causing clots etc.
They are all biased on this issue for it or against it.
Alright, how about we just say it's fallacious reasoning? Correlation doesn't equal causation, that's basic science and he's making a specious inference of an uptick in cancer and then referencing things that I'm 100% sure aren't cancers, but entirely different things that could have other factors that are not caused or even related to anything from the covid vaccines (of which it's not clear without more data how many people are getting the mRNA versus the adenovirus type, plus the possibility that we could eventually have more diversity in vaccine options eventually)Calling 'fake news' is considered to be trolling, and is banned on CF.
Announcement: Trolling- 'Fake News'
It should be obvious by now that anything that is vaccine sceptic will struggle to get published. And why do you disbelieve? Are you vaccinated and worried? And why do you think he would lie? What's his motivation?
Y'all need to take a few deep breaths. Do a bit of research online, and quit jumping up and down while shouting 'conspiracy theory'.
Really ???
God does not employ coercion ?
What of the first command given to humankind ... "Of all the trees in the garden, you may eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you shall do so, ... you shall die."
... and that's just chapter 3 of the first of 66 books.
Not that I have a problem with it, ... but I think that christians need to rethink the idea that God doesn't use coercion ...
It isn't a bad thing. Provided it's done by people and organisations who are impartial. But it usually isn't. I know that because I often try to find out who is behind these so called factcheckers, and who is funding them, and I usually discover evidence of Left wing bias. There was already an example of this upthread. Didn't you see it? Someone posted a so-called factcheck, and I saw immediately that it was supported by Google. That's a problem, given that Google (and YouTube, which they own) are the king of internet censorship, and are vigorously deleting absolutely everything that questions the covid vaccines or suggests alternative treatments. There has also been numerous reports of Google shadow banning and demoting content they don't like, so that nearly no one can see it or find it. Why would anyone expect a factchecking website supported by Google to be impartial?As if fact-checking is a bad thing ?
Tell that to the Swedes. But I suppose the pro-lockdown types would probably rather not discuss Sweden. They might be forced to conclude that wrecking the economy, jobs, education and numerous other areas was all for nought.The problem is that without lockdowns healthcare was overwhelmed by covid cases the same issue would occur but with additional covid death on top.
Can you explain what you think is meant by the term 'Estimated new cases in 2021'? In particular, what is meant by 'estimated', and as 2021 has not yet ended, are they working to a calendar that does not end on 31st December?That's a reaction to the fact that the other side tends to "under-check" info before willingly accepting it when it's things that align with their stance on vaccination.
For instance, people will search into google 5 & 6 pages deep to compile a list of all of negative things they can possible scrounge up about the vaccine (even if it's unverified anecdotes) and then pride themselves on "I did the research".
But then when groups like "America's Frontline Doctors" shows up on the scene, or some anti-mainstream practitioner takes an anti-vaccine stance, they'll seemingly have a willingness to accept it at face value.
For instance, this guy's claim:
"“Since January 1, in the laboratory, I’m seeing a 20 times increase of endometrial cancers over what I see on an annual basis,”"
Across the entire US for 2021, new cases of that cancer type was
View attachment 306007
For 2020
View attachment 306005
For 2019
View attachment 306006
This "20 times increase" that he claims he's seeing certainly isn't reflected in the national data. 2021 hasn't really deviated from past years.
Now, of course, a much more feasible and grounded explanation would be:
Amid covid, hospitals (and their in-house labs) - especially hospitals that already had limited capacity to do that kind of work - outsourced quite a bit of of their lab and diagnostics work to independent CLS companies (like Cole Diagnostics, the one this guys runs) that they normally would've done in-house.
With in-house laboratory services and the larger CLS companies (like Quest Diagnostics) being heavily focused on Covid testing. Many of these smaller lab companies have started getting a lot more work in areas where they wouldn't have before.
Think about it from a practical sense, under normal circumstances, why would a smaller independent lab (with a typical focus on dermatopathology) be handling endometrial/uterine cancer screening lab work? In most cases, they wouldn't (unless a hospitals in-house laboratory was either bogged down or short staffed...which happens to be the case amid covid)
So the fact that he's "seeing 20 times more that he previously did" doesn't mean there are 20 times more, clearly that's not the case from the numbers.
Deuteronomy 28The verse you quoted does not appear to be coercion, if you see it that way please explain it to me.
They freely eat of it thus it was their choice, and had to suffer the consequences. Cause and effect yes but it was their choice.
Thanks
It's a reference to a fraud that has most likely occurred.Why does your avatar say 'Fraud'?
I don't think it's a viable forum policy to pick and choose what should be allowed from a particular news site. Or say that it can only be posted in a specific sub-forum, and only if it's on a specific topic (e.g. abortion). Either all content from a news website should be allowed, or none.If it's the person I'm thinking of that would be because their posts are in a specific denomination's forum where others are not allowed to debate them.
I did produce evidence. And then you kindly assisted by producing even more evidence that vaccines can trigger unwanted immune system side effects. And to be quite frank, there are some people, that no matter what you post as evidence, it will never be considered good enough.There are rules that develop among forum posters. Common 'good form' says that if you make a statement you are responsible for producing evidence to support it. Just like in a courtroom.
If you had watched the video to the end, you would know that he's calling for this to be studied. If I recall correctly he said 'who is studying this?'. His message is that this needs to be urgently looked into. In my opinion it's also an argument for not rolling out vaccines to entire populations, when so little is known about the vaccines.Alright, how about we just say it's fallacious reasoning? Correlation doesn't equal causation
No. I'm genuinely interested in why these people react in the way they do. Everyone who wants a vaccine can have one, and as vaccination doesn't prevent infection and transmission to others, there's no logic in demanding that people get vaccinated to protect others. So why do they get so agitated, and why do they employ fallacious arguments such as ad-hominem and genetic logical fallacy? Whatever happened to tolerance for other people's point of view? They've had their vaccinations, but they're still ranting and raving at others who are more cautious. I'd like to know why?Is this your only tactic? Deflection and gaslighting of the opponents to make yourself seem more rational?
No substantive data means we can dismiss the claim out of hand pretty easily because it's a generalization and possibly even poor methodology on the part of a supposed "expert"
If you had watched the video to the end, you would know that he's calling for this to be studied. If I recall correctly he said 'who is studying this?'. His message is that this needs to be urgently looked into. In my opinion it's also an argument for not rolling out vaccines to entire populations, when so little is known about the vaccines.
No. I'm genuinely interested in why these people react in the way they do. Everyone who wants a vaccine can have one, and as vaccination doesn't prevent infection and transmission to others, there's no logic in demanding that people get vaccinated to protect others. So why do they get so agitated, and why do they employ fallacious arguments such as ad-hominem and genetic logical fallacy? Whatever happened to tolerance for other people's point of view? They've had their vaccinations, but they're still ranting and raving at others who are more cautious. I'd like to know why?
It's called 'bodily autonomy'. Just quit telling everyone what to put in their bodies, and we'll all be happy.There is not an absolute right to be a willful contrarian in a civil society, some basic conformity in terms of requirements is expected unless you just selectively apply what rules you think apply arbitrarily
The ultimate in cherry picking is BigTech and the MSM. They exclude anything that doesn't fit the pro-vaxx narrative, and they have a lot of power.You realize people are not necessarily using those fallacies as much as you keep accusing them of doing so, right? Cherry picking is a fallacy too and fixating on what you can use to discredit an argument against you is not rational, it's confirmation bias of the highest order to reconcile cognitive dissonance that would otherwise come up. The argument made is not solely based on what you think it is, you have to demonstrate and have a dialogue to show that the argument is solely based on that and not a line of argumentation that isn't utilizing fallacious reasoning.
I'm selectively observing data? Really?This is not "caution", don't dishonestly frame this like the technology is experimental, because it definitively is not, we've had studies on mRNA technology since the 90s, this is not something new except in the execution with regards to human immune systems. This is resistance and needless at that, it's hypervigilance and bordering on paranoia, none of which is rational when you grasp at straws and vague concerns about long term problems instead of recognizing that the current pandemic IS a problem and an immediate one that isn't going away because you selectively observe data to act like we're not in an epidemic surge.
The UK government hasn't done a single risk/benefit analysis on the impact of lockdowns on areas such as the economy, education, jobs etc. And they now want to try and coerce everyone into taking a vaccine that hasn't completed trials. Furthermore, they refused to admit that blood clotting might be a problem, until after other countries started reporting blood clots, and it became impossible to maintain a stance of complete denial. From that point of view, you ought to be able to forgive those who are cautious.But this is a risk/benefit analysis that you seem to want to act like you have the only valid assessment and tolerance is not an absolute, so maybe don't strawman how an opposing position thinks because you want to frame yourself as more rational, which is more dishonesty and fallacious to boot
It's called 'bodily autonomy'. Just quit telling everyone what to put in their bodies, and we'll all be happy.
The ultimate in cherry picking is BigTech and the MSM. They exclude anything that doesn't fit the pro-vaxx narrative, and they have a lot of power.
And it's no use complaining that 'The Science' is on your side, because we're finding out that some of the most reputable and prestigious scientific journals in the world have now effectively relegated themselves to biased-junk status.
I'm selectively observing data? Really?
I think you'll find that most vaccine sceptics are far better informed about both sides of the vaccination argument than the average pro-vaxxer. Reason is that most of the material published is pro-vaxx, so vaccine sceptics encounter all of that every single day. Whereas my experience of pro-vaxx people is that they don't seem to have encountered much vaccine sceptic material at all. It certainly explains why they have to be spoonfed so often, and keep demanding evidence that could be found in 30 seconds on duckduckgo. It's like they don't even know that it exists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?