COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Some of it actually is, though....

Those actors are taking advantage of something that already existed.  The change dates back about a decade, to the introduction of smart phones really.

Arab spring, yellow jackets, indignados, occupy wall street, original tea party, etc.

The distrust of traditional institutions of power pairs with their inability to hide or spin their failures to live up to promises of competency in the social media/smart phone age.  "Combatting it" will be a matter of those institutions learning to deal with the new reality.

Again, I highly recommend reading "The Revolt of the Public."  Martin Gurri, a former CIA analyst, released it in 2014 and it is remarkably prescient.  

[HeloDude]

4 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Remember when there were tons of headlines and news stories about democrats regularly dying from the vaccine, because they were incorrectly and wrongly convinced it was safe by a disingenuous disinformation campaign?

…

Wait, did I mix up how that went down?

If you were trying to provide a counter argument, resubmit and try again.

My argument proves that “medical professionals” will change their medical opinions based on their own emotions towards a given subject.  It’s a shame that this is true.

[Negatory]

Your argument incorrectly categorizes everyone in medicine into the same bucket, from the whackos pushing crystal healing to the PhDs at the CDC. No matter what, “they” are the “medical professionals.” The truth is the folks that were saying that protests for BLM were not super spreader events - purely because it fit the liberal political agenda - do not represent the wide body of science. Pretty sure there are very few papers out there that would corroborate MSNBCs claims that protests are no big deal.

Remember when Fauci bought off on the liberal agenda and said that the BLM protests were okay? Oh, right. He didn’t. He said “avoid crowds of any type.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/509961-jim-jordan-presses-fauci-on-protests-covid-19%3famp

You provided an absurd overgeneralization that wasn’t related to the discussion at hand, I provided an absurd point back.

Trying to discredit scientists by cherry-picking idiots that went on CNN for political gain is disingenuous. For the record, I am equally as disgusted by how liberal media - not scientists - treated the BLM protests in regards to COVID as I am by the current conservative media is in regards to the vaccine.

[Negatory]

For your counterpoint, please show me an example of when Fauci directly disregarded agreed upon scientific evidence as was understood at the time for his own political gain. You’re going to have a tough time, even though you wish you wouldn’t.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

For your counterpoint, please show me an example of when Fauci directly disregarded agreed upon scientific evidence as was understood at the time for his own political gain. You’re going to have a tough time, even though you wish you wouldn’t.

I never mentioned Fauci, did I?  I’m sure there are “medical professionals” that don’t include him, are there not?  But here you go—too easy!   Enjoy!

https://abcnews.go.com/US/disagree-medical-professionals-counter-coronavirus-lockdown-protesters/story?id=70293830
 

https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

I never mentioned Fauci, did I?  I’m sure there are “medical professionals” that don’t include him, are there not?  But here you go—too easy!   Enjoy!

https://abcnews.go.com/US/disagree-medical-professionals-counter-coronavirus-lockdown-protesters/story?id=70293830
 

https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/

Wow, holy shit!  I mean there's over a million doctors in the United States and you're telling me that there is a wide variance of opinions amongst them? Mindblowing! FWIW, I don't recall the wider medical community as a whole supporting large gatherings for any reason during the pandemic.  But that's really here nor there because your post seems to be more about "whataboutism" and less about anything germane to the discussion at hand which is whether ivermectin is a good substitute for vaccination (it's not). 

[HeloDude]

13 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Wow, holy shit!  I mean there's over a million doctors in the United States and you're telling me that there is a wide variance of opinions amongst them? Mindblowing! FWIW, I don't recall the wider medical community as a whole supporting large gatherings for any reason during the pandemic.  But that's really here nor there because your post seems to be more about "whataboutism" and less about anything germane to the discussion at hand which is whether ivermectin is a good substitute for vaccination (it's not). 

Yeah…I mean, who would believe Times or the Wash Post, since they cater to the  progressive audience.  Thanks for pointing that out!

[Guest]

18 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I never mentioned Fauci, did I?

Lmao I was wondering the same thing @HeloDudeWas scrolling through your posts thinking no way did he mention Fauci? @NegatoryIs playing dirty.

For you schmucks, Ivermectin has been approved for human use since 1988 by the FDA. Sure it's not "approved" to treat covid-19, why would it be? $0.22 per ivermectin pill doesn't make Pfizer (and the FDA commissioners) rich as can be!

https://c19ivermectin.com

You want some studies? See above.

I wonder how many physicians of those covid-19 drug skeptics that @Negatoryposted who allegedly died from covid-19 even considered using ivermectin, or hydroxychloroquine, or the Zelenko protocol, instead of putting them on a death sentence ventilator?

You all want to talk sh*t on those (including physicians) who want to try an FDA human approved Ivermectin with 33 years of post human approval application/research, but you'll gladly salivate over the idea of taking an experimental covid-19 drug.

I'm not against you taking the experimental covid-19 drugs, go for it if you truly want it that's your choice, but do not ever think the people of this nation will stay peaceful if you try to force it on those who don't want it.

[glockenspiel]

On 8/25/2021 at 6:26 AM, pawnman said:

When it gets anywhere near the number of Covid deaths.  For a group that keeps touting a 99% survival rate for the illness, y'all seem awfully skittish about a 99.999% survival rate for the vaccine.

So until the solution is as bad as the problem, only then will you be open to looking into possible risks of the solution? How is that reasonable? People should know all the risks of CV19 and all the risks of the potential solution. I’m not suggesting taking VAERS completely at face value. To draw an analogy, sexual assault is largely self reported. Are victims always telling the truth? some guys at Duke would beg to differ. But every self reported sexual assault case should be given due diligence. Bottom line, VAERS data needs to be given due diligence and to my knowledge it hasn’t.
 

I could be wrong though… (Pawnman isn’t that tough to say?)

 

 

 

[pawnman]

Just now, glockenspiel said:

So until the solution is as bad as the problem, only then will you be open to looking into possible risks of the solution? How is that reasonable? People should know all the risks of CV19 and all the risks of the potential solution. I’m not suggesting taking VAERS completely at face value. To draw an analogy, sexual assault is largely self reported. Are victims always telling the truth? some guys at Duke would beg to differ. But every self reported sexual assault case should be given due diligence. Bottom line, VAERS data needs to be given due diligence and to my knowledge it hasn’t.
 

I could be wrong though… (Pawnman isn’t that tough to say?)

 

 

 

I'm curious why you think VAERS data isn't being taken seriously.

Did you comb through the VAERS data on the flu shot before taking it every year you've been in the military?  Did you look up the VAERS data for MMR, polio, or diptheria vaccines before taking them?  

I know that I'm not an epidemiologist or microbiologist.  So...I'm gonna go with the experts on this one.  

[BashiChuni]

Were MMR or Polio man made in a lab? 
 

were those respective vacs forced on people under EUA?

 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Were MMR or Polio man made in a lab? 
 

were those respective vacs forced on people under EUA?

 

1. What does the origin of the disease have to do with VAERS data for the vaccine?

2. The Pfizer shot is no longer under and EUA and no one was forced to get it while it was. It's fully FDA approved, so now it can be mandated. Just like all those other vaccines.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

1. What does the origin of the disease have to do with VAERS data for the vaccine?

2. The Pfizer shot is no longer under and EUA and no one was forced to get it while it was. It's fully FDA approved, so now it can be mandated. Just like all those other vaccines.

Anyone know if now that Phizer is mandated that obligates DoD to liability should something happen? I believe it does but I can't find where I've read that before. 

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Anyone know if now that Phizer is mandated that obligates DoD to liability should something happen? I believe it does but I can't find where I've read that before. 

Probably the same liability for the peanut butter shot and the annual flu shot...slim to none.

Have to apply to these folks.  https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html

[Negatory]

On 8/28/2021 at 3:03 PM, HeloDude said:

I never mentioned Fauci, did I?  I’m sure there are “medical professionals” that don’t include him, are there not?  But here you go—too easy!   Enjoy!

Its not playing dirty to point out that the medical and scientific leadership in America’s health systems - who Fauci represents - actually have been relatively resolute, steadfast, and adaptive to new scientific information in their policies and approaches.

Also, @HeloDudetry again, those journalistic articles are no representation of scientific consensus. Just because you can find news articles about “medical professionals” who think HQC and Ivermectin are effective doesn’t mean that’s a consensus among science.

By your logic, this persons opinion matters as much as the CDC and Fauci:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53579773.amp

Also, last point, but the articles that you posted literally never said that anyone didn’t think that protests were bad when it comes to COVID. They all acknowledged that the groups would increase everyone’s risk. They just personally thought that racial justice was worth the cost:

”Risking coronavirus pales in comparison to all the other ways we can die,” says Dr. Dorothy Charles, a family medicine resident at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and an organizer at the racial-justice group White Coats for Black Lives. “Addressing the root causes [of racial inequality] is more imperative at this point than staying at home.””

Edited August 30, 2021 by Negatory

[Negatory]

On 8/27/2021 at 7:06 PM, Negatory said:

Yes, I have already accepted that you think that webmd, Reuters, Forbes, and the NHS are all part of the deep state conspiracy to hide the fact that mRNA vaccines are IN FACT secret government gene therapy.

@dogfish78 welcome back! See my previous post that you couldn’t figure out a response for and probably start your argument there (you responded to every other thread on this website, though, it seems).

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

They just personally thought that racial justice was worth the cost.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Also, last point, but the articles that you posted literally never said that anyone didn’t think that protests were bad when it comes to COVID. They all acknowledged that the groups would increase everyone’s risk. They just personally thought that racial justice was worth the cost:

So you agree they allowed politics to motivate their health policy to censor some groups and promote others. Fantastic! 

[Negatory]

14 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Words matter, you’re gonna need to see this one again. Actually, you’re probably just gonna need to take some time out of the upgrade to reassess performance.

You said, very specifically, medical professionals would change their medical opinions.

They never changed their medical opinion that large groups were bad for COVID transmission.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Negatory

[HeloDude]

7 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Words matter, you’re gonna need to see this one again. Actually, you’re probably just gonna need to take some time out of the upgrade to reassess performance.

You said, very specifically, medical professionals would change their medical opinions.

They never changed their medical opinion that large groups were bad for COVID transmission.

You’re struggling here.  You agreed that the “medical professionals” changed their medical opinions on covid risk because of their own personal opinions on whether a cause was worth the risk or not.  Sorry, but that’s not sound medicine as ”medical professionals” have zero say on whether or not a cause is worthy of protests.  

[Prozac]

7 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

You’re struggling here.  You agreed that the “medical professionals” changed their medical opinions on covid risk because of their own personal opinions on whether a cause was worth the risk or not.  Sorry, but that’s not sound medicine as ”medical professionals” have zero say on whether or not a cause is worthy of protests.  

Again, "medical professionals" spans a wide range of individual experience, political viewpoints, religious viewpoints, etc.  I don't think it's exactly news that there were some medical professionals that held the controversial viewpoint that protests of any kind were worth the COVID risk.  I'm sure there were doctors and nurses that also believed anti-lockdown protests were well worth the risks.  That's not the same thing as the CDC, NIH, or Surgeon General making an official statement on the matter.  You seem to like to take the fight into the weeds when the real argument is at 30K feet.  

[HeloDude]

Just now, Prozac said:

Again, "medical professionals" spans a wide range of individual experience, political viewpoints, religious viewpoints, etc.  I don't think it's exactly news that there were some medical professionals that held the controversial viewpoint that protests of any kind were worth the COVID risk.  I'm sure there were doctors and nurses that also believed anti-lockdown protests were well worth the risks.  That's not the same thing as the CDC, NIH, or Surgeon General making an official statement on the matter.  You seem to like to take the fight into the weeds when the real argument is at 30K feet.  

I literally posted sources from not what I would call “far right” sources.  Unless you now think the Times and Washington Post is junk?

[Prozac]

21 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I literally posted sources from not what I would call “far right” sources.  Unless you now think the Times and Washington Post is junk?

Not arguing your sources are wrong, just that they don’t support the argument you are trying to make. Go back and read what I wrote. Dr. Bagadonuts professing his personal opinion to CNN does not equal the overall consensus of the medical establishment. 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Not arguing your sources are wrong, just that they don’t support the argument you are trying to make. Go back and read what I wrote. Dr. Bagadonuts professing his personal opinion to CNN does not equal the overall consensus of the medical establishment. 

Ok man, whatever you say lol…

“This letter is signed by 1,288 public health professionals, infectious diseases professionals, and community stakeholders.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Negatory said:

@dogfish78 welcome back! See my previous post that you couldn’t figure out a response for and probably start your argument there (you responded to every other thread on this website, though, it seems).

This forum sucks balls for keeping a thread’s information easily accessible to read and remember what to respond to. It only allows what, probably 15 posts before it makes a new page? Don’t flatter yourself.

Just (((who))) do you think owns the media? Why should we trust them when they have been lying for years? They’re mainstream CORPORATE owned media with an agenda, and *newsflash*, it’s not to the benefit of us! You want us to obey the top 10 Google™️ algorithm provided and censored search results of corporate owned media? Nah I’ll pass. It’s better to not listen to people with a profit agenda at best and a sinister agenda at worst.

Not wanting to be your enemy. But for example, Reuters news has a Pfizer executive sitting on their board. Yet *mysteriously* Reuters doesn’t write bad about the Pfizer injection. It’s this pattern recognition that has allowed humans to survive and to toss it away is anti-God. We have intuition for a reason. You don’t even need intuition for this anymore. Look at the billion$ in criminal fines these pharmaceutical corporations have gotten in years past. They do not want us healthy. It’s more profitable to have us sick.