Mask Mandates Failed but the Science doesn't matter to Democrats

[Semmelweis Reflex]

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.

I present links, all throughout my website or on forums like this that will give the reader various sides of the story rather than providing only links that agree with my relatively uninformed opinion. I know that the Lancet has, in the past, published in their own pages, that the pharmaceutical corporations have completely taken them over, that they were no longer a science based magazine, I couldn't find it though. In the past I have followed links to the CDC and NIH that were removed after the alleged pandemic. They were hiding it, but you can go to the Internet Web Archive and those pages are preserved there. The Archive is being pressured to not do that, apparently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I present links, all throughout my website or on forums like this that will give the reader various sides of the story rather than providing only links that agree with my relatively uninformed opinion. I know that the Lancet has, in the past, published in their own pages, that the pharmaceutical corporations have completely taken them over, that they were no longer a science based magazine, I couldn't find it though. In the past I have followed links to the CDC and NIH that were removed after the alleged pandemic. They were hiding it, but you can go to the Internet Web Archive and those pages are preserved there. The Archive is being pressured to not do that, apparently.

When all you can do is to post articles by clearly discredited people you defeat yourself.

For example, your quote was correct, but it does not appear to be true. Do you understand why the people that wrote the article showing that the quote was wrong went to an independent source? One that was in no way dependent upon the pharmaceutical industry? If they were wrong they wanted to know that they were wrong. None of your people seem to want to do that. They avoid peer review because they know that they are wrong and are merely selling a hoax.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

When all you can do is to post articles by clearly discredited people you defeat yourself.

For example, your quote was correct, but it does not appear to be true. Do you understand why the people that wrote the article showing that the quote was wrong went to an independent source? One that was in no way dependent upon the pharmaceutical industry? If they were wrong they wanted to know that they were wrong. None of your people seem to want to do that. They avoid peer review because they know that they are wrong and are merely selling a hoax.

Still haven't refuted the video, have you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still haven't refuted the video, have you.

What video? Videos are not evidence. I refuted the unsupported claims in the article that you presented. It was so weak that a handwave would have refuted it.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

What video? Videos are not evidence. I refuted the unsupported claims in the article that you presented. It was so weak that a handwave would have refuted it.

If I recall you said it refuted itself, didn't you? The video you said Gish Gallop? Asked if I could defend it? Told me to pick one, remember? I picked David Martin. The first one. That was after you implied I should back up my claim that the "vaccines" weren't vaccines. Remember? When I explained the very simple reason for that? Which you also haven't addressed.

When I throw you a bone where the science refutes itself, well, that's one thing, but you have some real work to do. I suggest you stop talking and start refutin'! Huh? Huh? Huh?

I told you not to play games with me, you will lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I recall you said it refuted itself, didn't you? The video you said Gish Gallop? Asked if I could defend it? Told me to pick one, remember? I picked David Martin. The first one. That was after you implied I should back up my claim that the "vaccines" weren't vaccines. Remember? When I explained the very simple reason for that? Which you also haven't addressed.

When I throw you a bone where the science refutes itself, well, that's one thing, but you have some real work to do. I suggest you stop talking and start refutin'! Huh? Huh? Huh?

I told you not to play games with me, you will lose.

There was no mention of a video until after I refuted your link There was no video there.

And videos are not evidence. If you claim that they are a video based upon peer reviewed science would refute it. I could do that for you.

And science refutes only refutes incorrect science. The problem is that that the facts that you hate so much have not been refuted. You gave me the link to refute, I refuted it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good. Define what the clinical and legal definitions of a vaccine are, if you would please.

No, you already know that, because otherwise you couldn't have made the post.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

No, you already know that, because otherwise you couldn't have made the post.

No, because you don't know what the clinical and legal definitions are. You just make the assumption that vaccines are beneficial so if they, that is the corrupted government agencies and their propaganda machine the mainstream media call it a vaccine you automatically think it's beneficial. That's why it is important, that's why you don't know those definitions and that's why I asked. So you would look for yourself and learn something on your own. Of course, I knew that was virtually impossible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, because you don't know what the clinical and legal definitions are. You just make the assumption that vaccines are beneficial so if they, that is the corrupted government agencies and their propaganda machine the mainstream media call it a vaccine you automatically think it's beneficial. That's why it is important, that's why you don't know those definitions and that's why I asked. So you would look for yourself and learn something on your own. Of course, I knew that was virtually impossible.

Well, I know. I am a chief agent for them. I am just working undercover. So I know all I have to know.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Well, I know. I am a chief agent for them. I am just working undercover. So I know all I have to know.

Ah, you're on the take, then. You know what's going on for sure. And what a lucrative bidness! You had me fooled, you did! Here I thought you had no idea, but you knew all the while - you just weren't telling.

You know, I'm on statins and beta blockers. I noticed some short term memory problems and mental confusion. Yes! Me! I thought they were coming on a bit strong, since I had an excellent memory most of my life and now, it was suddenly and rapidly diminishing. So, I thought, what could that be. I take a lot of brain damaging pharmaceuticals of the non-recreational kind for high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. So, I goo-goo'd (Googled) Metoprolol. Side effects: short term memory loss and mental confusion. That's me! I said.

Told my doctor, my nephrologist, and asked him if he had any drugs that wouldn't give me a chemical lobotomy and he said statins and betablockers don't cause memory problems and mental confusion. So, the next time I got a refill I checked the inserts and look! Short term memory loss and mental confusion. Now why do you think that is? Oh, yeah, I thought, doctors don't know anything about the dangerous, addictive, petroleum based, carcinogenic synthetic drugs they so freely distribute and get bonuses and lavish gifts for.

Then I remembered, ironically, that the reason I was going to a nephrologist is that my cardiologist had given me a medication that destroyed my kidneys. Giving me kidney disease.

People are so ****ing stupid. Even before the meds. And yes, I'm a person. A man of the people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, because you don't know what the clinical and legal definitions are. You just make the assumption that vaccines are beneficial so if they, that is the corrupted government agencies and their propaganda machine the mainstream media call it a vaccine you automatically think it's beneficial. That's why it is important, that's why you don't know those definitions and that's why I asked. So you would look for yourself and learn something on your own. Of course, I knew that was virtually impossible.

When a person cannot support his claims that person often uses these tactics.

Once again, it is your claim that the Covd19 vaccines are not legally or clinically vaccines. Please support that claim. If you can't then Hitchens' Razor applies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, you're on the take, then. You know what's going on for sure. And what a lucrative bidness! You had me fooled, you did! Here I thought you had no idea, but you knew all the while - you just weren't telling.

You know, I'm on statins and beta blockers. I noticed some short term memory problems and mental confusion. Yes! Me! I thought they were coming on a bit strong, since I had an excellent memory most of my life and now, it was suddenly and rapidly diminishing. So, I thought, what could that be. I take a lot of brain damaging pharmaceuticals of the non-recreational kind for high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. So, I goo-goo'd (Googled) Metoprolol. Side effects: short term memory loss and mental confusion. That's me! I said.

Told my doctor, my nephrologist, and asked him if he had any drugs that wouldn't give me a chemical lobotomy and he said statins and betablockers don't cause memory problems and mental confusion. So, the next time I got a refill I checked the inserts and look! Short term memory loss and mental confusion. Now why do you think that is? Oh, yeah, I thought, doctors don't know anything about the dangerous, addictive, petroleum based, carcinogenic synthetic drugs they so freely distribute and get bonuses and lavish gifts for.

Then I remembered, ironically, that the reason I was going to a nephrologist is that my cardiologist had given me a medication that destroyed my kidneys. Giving me kidney disease.

People are so ****ing stupid. Even before the meds. And yes, I'm a person. A man of the people.

Hope you cope! All the luck to you.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

When a person cannot support his claims that person often uses these tactics.

Once again, it is your claim that the Covd19 vaccines are not legally or clinically vaccines. Please support that claim. If you can't then Hitchens' Razor applies.

People who know that a false claim has been made should correct it. If they can. If, as I said, the legal and clinical definition of what a vaccine must be in order to be labeled a vaccine, is that it prevents disease how could you possibly object to that without admission that vaccines are useless? If they are not legally and clinically defined as such then how are they?

I don't need to support my claim, I can think for myself. I don't have to abuse the name of science for a petty debate. By the way, if you watched the video I suggested upon your own disingenuous request, you would have support for the claim. But you won't because militant fundamentalist atheistic people who use science as a security blanket don't like debate. They only say they do if they have the necessary narcissistic and ideological tendencies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People who know that a false claim has been made should correct it. If they can. If, as I said, the legal and clinical definition of what a vaccine must be in order to be labeled a vaccine, is that it prevents disease how could you possibly object to that without admission that vaccines are useless? If they are not legally and clinically defined as such then how are they?

I don't need to support my claim, I can think for myself. I don't have to abuse the name of science for a petty debate. By the way, if you watched the video I suggested upon your own disingenuous request, you would have support for the claim. But you won't because militant fundamentalist atheistic people who use science as a security blanket don't like debate. They only say they do if they have the necessary narcissistic and ideological tendencies.

Your definition is incorrect. No vaccine guarantees immunity. Not one. What it does is to raise one's immune levels so that one is less likely to get the disease in the first place and secondly if one does get the disease the disease will tend to be less severe than if one does not get it.

Do you need sources? I can provide valid sources that show this. Remember, when a person cannot support their claims properly that means that they are very likely to be wrong.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Your definition is incorrect. No vaccine guarantees immunity. Not one. What it does is to raise one's immune levels so that one is less likely to get the disease in the first place and secondly if one does get the disease the disease will tend to be less severe than if one does not get it.

Do you need sources? I can provide valid sources that show this. Remember, when a person cannot support their claims properly that means that they are very likely to be wrong.

Yes. I need sources. But not on vaccines, on the claim that when a person cannot support their claims properly that means that they are very likely to be wrong. I need a source on that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. I need sources. But not on vaccines, on the claim that when a person cannot support their claims properly that means that they are very likely to be wrong. I need a source on that.

Sorry, but that is a logical conclusion. No source needed.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Sorry, but that is a logical conclusion. No source needed.

Ah, I see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, I see.

People can learn how to reason logically and rationally at almost any age.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

People can learn how to reason logically and rationally at almost any age.

Some people can. Others can't do so at any age.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people can. Others can't do so at any age.

You could always give it a try.

The first thing one has to be able to do is to ask oneself without prejudice (and that is the tricky part) "what would I observe if I was wrong?" You could always point out what you would think that you would see and others will correct you if you are incorrect.