Big Blitz Posted August 5, 2023 Author Share Posted August 5, 2023 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted August 5, 2023 Share Posted August 5, 2023 5 hours ago, Big Blitz said: Also this: Stock up on those test kits everyone and please do your part and stay six feet apart. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 5, 2023 Share Posted August 5, 2023 But there's no election coming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted August 6, 2023 Share Posted August 6, 2023 On 8/5/2023 at 8:27 AM, Doc said: But there's no election coming up. There is always an election coming up you idiot!!😁 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted August 6, 2023 Author Share Posted August 6, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cle23 Posted August 6, 2023 Share Posted August 6, 2023 15 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Your own article doesn't actually link anything. They claim by going through insurance data that they can link the vaccine to still births. But it is simply guessing based on when the vaccine went live, and 9 months later. No other supporting data is given. And, from the article itself: "That makes COVID-19 vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion the most plausible hypothesis for the drop in birth rates — because the same number of women were becoming pregnant, but fewer of them were carrying their pregnancies to term." The author of the article is a political writer from a political website created by RFK Jr., and supporting his anti vaccine book at every turn. I am not saying that these absolutely couldn't be linked, but the article just gathers a bunch of random data and then claims they must be linked without actually linking any of it directly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted August 6, 2023 Share Posted August 6, 2023 4 hours ago, cle23 said: Your own article doesn't actually link anything. They claim by going through insurance data that they can link the vaccine to still births. But it is simply guessing based on when the vaccine went live, and 9 months later. No other supporting data is given. And, from the article itself: "That makes COVID-19 vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion the most plausible hypothesis for the drop in birth rates — because the same number of women were becoming pregnant, but fewer of them were carrying their pregnancies to term." The author of the article is a political writer from a political website created by RFK Jr., and supporting his anti vaccine book at every turn. I am not saying that these absolutely couldn't be linked, but the article just gathers a bunch of random data and then claims they must be linked without actually linking any of it directly. I do understand that this could be a different unrelated cause, but what could it be that would explain this kind of jump? Myocarditis is almost certainly from the vaccine, but so many of the other ailments that are blamed on it are as likely from people being shut ins for 3 year. I truly believe that the vaccine was a bad idea for young people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cle23 Posted August 6, 2023 Share Posted August 6, 2023 21 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: I do understand that this could be a different unrelated cause, but what could it be that would explain this kind of jump? Myocarditis is almost certainly from the vaccine, but so many of the other ailments that are blamed on it are as likely from people being shut ins for 3 year. I truly believe that the vaccine was a bad idea for young people. I am not arguing that it's not possible. My issue is a very biased website pushing out articles based on "research" that links things with no direct evidence provided. Are the side effects caused by the vaccine? It's possible. But the article says they are linked, and then just says that A and B happened and makes the assumption that they are linked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted August 6, 2023 Share Posted August 6, 2023 14 minutes ago, cle23 said: I am not arguing that it's not possible. My issue is a very biased website pushing out articles based on "research" that links things with no direct evidence provided. Are the side effects caused by the vaccine? It's possible. But the article says they are linked, and then just says that A and B happened and makes the assumption that they are linked. scientific objectivity is not their strong suit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted August 6, 2023 Share Posted August 6, 2023 48 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: I do understand that this could be a different unrelated cause, but what could it be that would explain this kind of jump? Myocarditis is almost certainly from the vaccine, but so many of the other ailments that are blamed on it are as likely from people being shut ins for 3 year. I truly believe that the vaccine was a bad idea for young people. This is what happens when you have a regime that demands censorship and control of information…Everyone is forced to use whatever info they have to make the best educated assumptions…This is why, in a free society, it is imperative to have open and honest dialogue about issues that govern people’s lives… It’s unfortunate, but this is why nobody trusts the government or the msm, that has been captured, and does their bidding… 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, JaCrispy said: This is what happens when you have a regime that demands censorship and control of information…Everyone is forced to use whatever info they have to make the best educated assumptions…This is why, in a free society, it is imperative to have open and honest dialogue about issues that govern people’s lives… It’s unfortunate, but this is why nobody trusts the government or the msm, that has been captured, and does their bidding… or you could just trust that the scientific expert consensus has your best interests at heart...cuz they do...it's way too enormous a community of disparate intellects to believe otherwise. And they also want to live long, happy lives. Edited August 7, 2023 by redtail hawk 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 2 hours ago, redtail hawk said: or you could just trust that the scientific expert consensus has your best interests at heart...cuz they do...it's way too enormous a community of disparate intellects to believe otherwise. And they also want to live long, happy lives. Check out The Great Barrington Declaration… Almost 1 million signatures, including the top scientists and doctors in their fields, who disagreed with the “consensus”- or the acceptable narrative… These people are censored, banned, and mocked about everything they stood for, by the “consensus”…Except they were right all along…👍 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 Just now, JaCrispy said: Check out The Great Barrington Declaration… Almost 1 million signatures, including the top scientists and doctors in their fields, who disagreed with the “consensus”- or the acceptable narrative… These people are censored, banned, and mocked about everything they stood for, by the “consensus”…Except they were right all along…👍 i have. bunch of pseudoscientific charlatans. why can't they make a legitimate living? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 4 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: i have. bunch of pseudoscientific charlatans. why can't they make a legitimate living? Bullsh*t You haven’t read anything, and your lack of understanding is clearly demonstrated by your ignorant attack on the scientists who wrote it. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 8 hours ago, redtail hawk said: scientific objectivity is not their strong suit. Tell us more about how righties that might/might not have taken the shot died off again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Chris farley said: Tell us more about how righties that might/might not have taken the shot died off again? no f'in idea,u been into the boones farm again. just thinking about that makes me nauseous . sartre wrote a book on it. u should read it. Edited August 7, 2023 by redtail hawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 Just now, redtail hawk said: no f'in idea, been into the boones farm again. just think about that makes me nauseous . sartre wrote a book on it. u should read it. that crap will rot your gut and lick your brain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 Just now, Chris farley said: that crap will rot your gut and lick your brain. obviously 2 minutes ago, Chris farley said: that crap will rot your gut and lick your brain. drank several huge bottles with kids of pols you'd know. in college. sex was good. next morning not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 Quack MD strikes again! The GBD, led by infectious disease and epidemiology experts from Stanford, Oxford and Harvard are "psuedoscientific charlatans" Meanwhile the actual psuedoscientific charlatans, the authors of the covid proximal origin paper, as shown by THEIR OWN private conversations that they didn't believe their own published conclusion.....Those guys he holds in high regard! Leaving out the validity of any scientific claims by a given group or individual, it's nice to see ole Quack MD in his unquenchable thirst for scientific knowledge, supporting scientific censorship. Because really, what can possibly show your strict adherence to scientific principles and the method that lays its very foundation more than supporting the silencing of scientific debate? Quack MD indeed! @redtail hawk 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted August 7, 2023 Share Posted August 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Quack MD strikes again! The GBD, led by infectious disease and epidemiology experts from Stanford, Oxford and Harvard are "psuedoscientific charlatans" Meanwhile the actual psuedoscientific charlatans, the authors of the covid proximal origin paper, as shown by THEIR OWN private conversations that they didn't believe their own published conclusion.....Those guys he holds in high regard! Leaving out the validity of any scientific claims by a given group or individual, it's nice to see ole Quack MD in his unquenchable thirst for scientific knowledge, supporting scientific censorship. Because really, what can possibly show your strict adherence to scientific principles and the method that lays its very foundation more than supporting the silencing of scientific debate? Quack MD indeed! @redtail hawk you are a joke. show me your molecular biology publications and I'll show you my medical ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts