Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="muichimotsu" data-source="post: 76244680" data-attributes="member: 149131"><p>Except that isn't an absolute in a civil society, you don't get to endanger others with a communicable disease just because you don't want to put this thing in your body that you think is somehow dangerous with cherry picked stats</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because there's totally no one that has affluence who's also anti vax. SEem to be framing this narrative like you're a victim instead of considering that you might just be wrong instead of some conspiracy against you. Or if you don't like that term, paranoid delusions of persecution.</p><p></p><p>No one is absolutely saying that science journals are without flaws, because they exist, especially in that replicability is difficult without a significant amount of funding, which not everyone is able to get.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10005295/Now-Lancet-U-turns-Covid-lab-leak-theory.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 18px"><strong>Now the Lancet U-turns over Covid lab leak theory and publishes 'alternative view' calling for a 'transparent debate' on the origins of the virus</strong></span></a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>And a reminder, good scientists are sceptical by nature. They ask questions. They are pragmatic and conservative, and they look for potential problems and possibilities for things to go wrong. The vaccinate everyone approach is the opposite of all of that. The sensible approach would be to vaccinate the most vulnerable, and then wait. And if you've never looked at the money aspects behind all of this, then you've got a lot to learn.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>"Better informed" doesn't equate to being remotely objective, it just means your knowledge has outstripped wisdom and prudence.</p><p></p><p>I don't have a stance of complete denial, that seems to be you far more in the idea that the risks outweigh the benefits when we're reaching even the conservative number of deaths from the 1918 flu pandemic and probably will surpass it easily by the end of this year. The virus is not harmless and it isn't overblown, that is very much in the vein of what you're saying even if you didn't explicitly say it.</p><p></p><p>Ah, the Great Barrington Declaration strategy that treats people like they're expendable if they're not in the vulnerable group and just trudge on in spite of rampant death? Yeah, that's totally <strong>rational</strong> and not bordering on sociopathy masquerading as "science"</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="muichimotsu, post: 76244680, member: 149131"] Except that isn't an absolute in a civil society, you don't get to endanger others with a communicable disease just because you don't want to put this thing in your body that you think is somehow dangerous with cherry picked stats Because there's totally no one that has affluence who's also anti vax. SEem to be framing this narrative like you're a victim instead of considering that you might just be wrong instead of some conspiracy against you. Or if you don't like that term, paranoid delusions of persecution. No one is absolutely saying that science journals are without flaws, because they exist, especially in that replicability is difficult without a significant amount of funding, which not everyone is able to get. [URL='https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10005295/Now-Lancet-U-turns-Covid-lab-leak-theory.html'][SIZE=5][B]Now the Lancet U-turns over Covid lab leak theory and publishes 'alternative view' calling for a 'transparent debate' on the origins of the virus[/B][/SIZE][/URL] 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. And a reminder, good scientists are sceptical by nature. They ask questions. They are pragmatic and conservative, and they look for potential problems and possibilities for things to go wrong. The vaccinate everyone approach is the opposite of all of that. The sensible approach would be to vaccinate the most vulnerable, and then wait. And if you've never looked at the money aspects behind all of this, then you've got a lot to learn.[/QUOTE] "Better informed" doesn't equate to being remotely objective, it just means your knowledge has outstripped wisdom and prudence. I don't have a stance of complete denial, that seems to be you far more in the idea that the risks outweigh the benefits when we're reaching even the conservative number of deaths from the 1918 flu pandemic and probably will surpass it easily by the end of this year. The virus is not harmless and it isn't overblown, that is very much in the vein of what you're saying even if you didn't explicitly say it. Ah, the Great Barrington Declaration strategy that treats people like they're expendable if they're not in the vulnerable group and just trudge on in spite of rampant death? Yeah, that's totally [B]rational[/B] and not bordering on sociopathy masquerading as "science" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients
Top
Bottom