-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mask Mandates Failed but the Science doesn't matter to Democrats
- Thread starter KW
- Start date
Semmelweis Reflex
Antivaxxer
Can't find it on Google? A vaccine must prevent infection.
What is he a doctor of? It seems he is neither a physician nor a scientist.
Why do people find the claims of untrained, unskilled novice individuals more credible than those of physicians and scientists that spend their lives studying diseases and disease organisms?
I am pretty sure he has already been debunked here Fact check: The mRNA coronavirus vaccine is a vaccine, and it is designed to prevent illness and here New 'Plandemic' Video Peddles Misinformation, Conspiracies - FactCheck.org
Looks like it is debunked everywhere.
No.
A vaccine stimulates antibody production in the body to fight infection, including prevention or reduction of the manifestation of the infection.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Your first source is just empty claims so once again the same rule applies:
A manufactured illusion. Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich 9-7-21
"not novel... no pandemic.. no variants... "
Meanwhile this article refutes why it is "novel":
Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it
"This name was chosen because the virus is genetically related to the coronavirus responsible for the SARS outbreak of 2003. While related, the two viruses are different."
Now you know why it is "novel"
At least 6,6330,000 deaths worldwide:
COVID Live - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
Now you know that it is a pandemic.
And variants is easy. Many people have had it more than once. The reason is, new variants have arisen. Here is just one peer reviewed source for you:
COVID-19 Delta variants—Current status and implications as of August 2021
And a general refutation of Dr. David Martin:
New 'Plandemic' Video Peddles Misinformation, Conspiracies - FactCheck.org
If all that you have are science denying loons it makes you very easy to refute.
Your error appears to be one of "Once right always right" but only if they agree with you. Science does not work that way.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I took a while because i dealt with several parts of an unsupported article, but I used the same article.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not playing games. And I did. Do you know what "science" is? Why do you choose only science deniers to support your claims?
Semmelweis Reflex
Antivaxxer
If you are referring to me my pronouns are he/him. And if you are talking about my website, could you provide a quote? I'm glad that you have investigated me but for clarification exactly how did you come to that conclusion. If you are talking about me.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It appeared to be spot on from the couple of sources of yours that I looked at.
You make empty claims. You link to nuts and science deniers. Can you find anything that managed to pass peer review at a well respected professional journal?
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
Yes I am talking about you. I did not know your pronouns are only he/him. I'll use them here on. Give me a sec I'll provide the quote
Last edited:
Semmelweis Reflex
Antivaxxer
Are you familiar with Lancet? From their website, I'll provide the link so you can check the sources.
The Editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, is famously quoted as saying: “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.” 1
This sentiment is echoed by former New England Journal of Medicine Editor, Marcia Angell, who describes information from the pharmaceutical industry as coming, “mixed with hyperbole, bias and misinformation, and there is often no way to tell which is which.” 2
Both of these statements were cited by the Editors of the Journal of Emergency Medicine Australasia in their decision earlier this year to ban drug company advertising from their journal. 3
Lancet
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is nothing wrong with your use of "their" In fact there was recently a FOX host who did a self own by using the word "their" in just that fashion while ranting about how it was not proper English. I could try to find it if you like.
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
Last edited:
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
Some folk don't like they them pronouns for whatever reason and would rather you use other pronouns outta comfort. I use they/them unless asked not to for everyone so there is that.
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
@Semmelweis Reflex
I'll also add just a bit of friendly advice. Your site is great for the computer. Easy to use on there. Terrible to use on the cell phone
I'll also add just a bit of friendly advice. Your site is great for the computer. Easy to use on there. Terrible to use on the cell phone
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Did you read the article that you linked? It appears that you did not. That article appears to contradict the quote. And the people that made that study that refuted that quote published their work in a journal that refuses money from pharmaceutical companies. Here is a link to their article:
Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review - PubMed
"Conclusions: With rare exceptions, studies of exposure to information provided directly by pharmaceutical companies have found associations with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality or have not found significant associations. We did not find evidence of net improvements in prescribing, but the available literature does not exclude the possibility that prescribing may sometimes be improved. Still, we recommend that practitioners follow the precautionary principle and thus avoid exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary."
It is a potential problem. One that they are aware of and try to avoid, and it appears that to date they have been fairly successful.
You make it too easy when the refutation to your claim is included in your own links.
Semmelweis Reflex
Antivaxxer
I haven't gotten used to referring to an individual as they/them, but I have no objections to it, I was merely confused about who you were referring to and so nicely pointed my pronouns out as you had nicely pointed out yours to me in my introduction thread.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And if someone makes their preference clear, but as you can see in my usage it is perfectly fine to use "their" in that sense. Even those that appear to be transphobic will use that term that way. If a person makes their preference know I will call a "he" a he and a "her" a her. But until then there is nothing wrong with "their".
On a related note in the 1800's "you" went from being plural only to be plural or singular. Before then "thou" was the singular.
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
Thank you for that I shall use your correct pronouns from here on out
Semmelweis Reflex
Antivaxxer
Yes, I know. I hate using cell phones for websites. It is only a personal website and I'm not concerned about SEO and what it looks like on phones. Thanks for the advice though, I do like to know what people who visit see and their constructive criticism.