Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[SkepticThinker]

You can easily pretend that you're not delusional.

I know you are but what am I?

Post #795, 802, 827, 926 and 928 are some of the posts I'm referring to. Some are in the other thread. There are probably more but I only scrolled back to page 40 and did your work for you.

I'm not delusional. It's there for all to see. Even if you personally refuse to see it.

You are not acting as an honest interlocuter in these threads. I really wish you would.

 

[Ebionite]

Post #795, 802, 827, 926 and 928 are the posts I'm referring to. There are probably more but I only scrolled back to page 40 and did your work for you.

Wrong, it's not my job to make your argument for you.

You are not acting as an honest interlocuter in these threads.

Because anyone who shows evidence of harm from a "safe and effective vaccine" must be dishonest, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Vaccination was based on bad science from the beginning. Immunity to smallpox was gained from exposure to cowpox via skin contact, not by injection. The decrease in mortality back in the day was due to better hygiene and started before vaccination was commonplace.

Bullpucky. That's more conspiracy nonsense.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5598692/pdf/medphysj68746-0010.pdf

History of smallpox vaccination

One of the deadliest diseases known to humans, smallpox remains the only human disease to have been eradicated. Many believe this achievement to be the most significant milestone in global public health.

www.who.int

Immunity from Smallpox Vaccine Persists for Decades: A Longitudinal Study

The threat of smallpox resulting from bioterrorist action has prompted a reassessment of the level of immunity in current populations.We have examined the magnitude and duration of antiviral antibody immunity conferred by smallpox vaccination in 246 participants ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

History of Smallpox: Outbreaks and Vaccine Timeline

Learn about the development, use and impact of the smallpox vaccine.

www.mayoclinic.org

"The smallpox vaccine has been described as the most successful vaccine in history.1 Smallpox was a highly virulent, easily transmittable disease with a mortality rate of at least 30%.2, 3 Vaccination was first performed in 1796 by Edward Jenner.4 Compulsory smallpox vaccination was followed by more specific patient isolation and targeted vaccination. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced the eradication of smallpox in 1980."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163445305002197

"A few different doctors in the late 1700s had taken note of how a recent infection with cowpox likely protected a patient from an infection with smallpox. However, cowpox infections could be more severe than an inoculation response to smallpox. In part for this reason, no one really considered treatment with cowpox (to prevent smallpox) as an improvement to their medical practices.

However, Edward Jenner, an English physician, didn't let go of this idea. He studied cowpox and found out that there were other diseases that were often mistaken for cowpox. He was also very observant and liked experimentation, habits he had learned from one of his previous mentors. In 1796, he finally got a good chance to do an experiment on the benefits of cowpox as protection from smallpox.

A young dairymaid, Sarah Nelms, had fresh lesions on her hands and arms from cowpox... there was a local outbreak happening at the time. Using fluid from her lesions, Jenner inoculated an 8-year-old boy with cowpox. A few months later, he inoculated him with smallpox and noted a much less severe response than normal. He responded as if he had already had cowpox or smallpox. Testing him again a few months later, the boy showed no response to smallpox.

Cowpox also created an intense infection with lesions all over the body. However, an inoculation with cowpox was less severe, and provided protection from smallpox.
Jenner’s experiment, plus a few repeated experiments, showed that an inoculation with cowpox (which produced a less severe response to cowpox) could indeed protect someone from smallpox. It also showed that cowpox could move from one person to another."

The history of the smallpox vaccine | Ask A Biologist

The first vaccineNjeri paces back and forth as she waits for the doctor to come out of her mother’s room. There are four siblings all together packed in the small living room waiting for news of their mother. Their mother has what the doctor called “smallpox,” but Njeri only knows that her mom...

askabiologist.asu.edu

Analysis of the NZ data suggests that the elderly are more susceptible to harm from the "safe and effective covid vaccine".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong, it's not my job to make your argument for you.

Nobody said it was. You seem to be having a hard time following a conversation.

You just claimed that I'm delusional for pointing out to you that I've provided citations demonstrating that myself, @Shadow Wolf, @Sargonski and others actually do know what we're talking about when it comes to the scientific method and peer review.

I just pointed out to you exactly where I provided those citations, in several different points across several different pages, as well as the posts in which I countered your assertions about the vaccine, thus demonstrating that your claim that I am delusional is an erroneous, inaccurate claim.

Now you say, "Wrong, it's not my job to make your argument for you" which has nothing to do with anything we're saying here and is a total non sequitur.

Because anyone who shows evidence of harm from a "safe and effective vaccine" must be dishonest, right?

Nope. You haven't shown that evidence.

It's because of things like your comment right above.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's yet another one, Post #914:

"Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else’s unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results."

Scrutinizing science: Peer review - Understanding Science​

undsci.berkeley.edu



"As a peer reviewer for a Science journal, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the trustworthiness of communicated information, and the peer-review process is a vital means to that end."
https://www.science.org/content/page/peer-review-science-publications



"How does peer review contribute to science?
Yuan Qin [Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, China] : Peer review contributes to science in a big way by acting as a quality-control system and applying checks and balances for ideas and scientific discoveries before they are widely accepted by the scientific community. That is why this time-honored tradition continues till today and it is followed by all the reputable journals and funding agencies.

Si Ming Man [ Australian National University, Australia] : Peer review has its merits and flaws. Traditional peer review (pre-publication peer review) is considered the “gatekeeper” of science. However, our work is subject to evaluation by our peers even after it’s published via post-publication peer review. On the whole, peer review is still the very essence of science, which is important for the advancement of knowledge."

What is the role of peer review in science?​

Editorial Board Members from Communications Biology share their perspectives on the role of peer review in modern science

microbiologycommunity.nature.com




Peer review helps us weed out the errors, bias, bad data, etc.. It's also how we replicate results to verify the data and the conclusions. It's part of the self-correcting part of science."


I'm the delusional one though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Having an actual point to make trumps vain innuendo every time.

You said peer review isn't a thing in science. Ergo you have no actual point.

 

[Sargonski]

Well look at that, we agree on something (I think)!


Not this part though. But you can't have everything.

What do you mean "not this part" . have you still not come to grips with the fact that the Gov't lied .. and pressured Social Media to parrot those lies and censor anything that conflicted with the lie ? My My

 

[Sargonski]

Nature? That's a respected scientific journal. What you've got there is NaturalNews.com. From Wiki:

"Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting alternative medicine, pseudoscience, disinformation, and far-right extremism."

Nature is a fine journal .. and "Naturalnews.com" is not the primary source .. need to hone those citation skills friend .. save you from stepping in the ad hom fallacy puddle.

Major Risk of harm these mRNA vaccines ... the news gets worse by the day it seems .. sad that the Gov't lied

 

[Sargonski]

WTF are you talking about?

my mistake .. swy

 

[Sargonski]

Nobody said it was. You seem to be having a hard time following a conversation.

You just claimed that I'm delusional for pointing out to you that I've provided citations demonstrating that myself, @Shadow Wolf, @Sargonski and others actually do know what we're talking about when it comes to the scientific method and peer review.

I just pointed out to you exactly where I provided those citations, in several different points across several different pages, as well as the posts in which I countered your assertions about the vaccine, thus demonstrating that your claim that I am delusional is an erroneous, inaccurate claim.

Now you say, "Wrong, it's not my job to make your argument for you" which has nothing to do with anything we're saying here and is a total non sequitur.

Nope. You haven't shown that evidence.

It's because of things like your comment right above.

Poor Ebionite .. what a bunch of bla blah with no advancement of any argument. You have been shown all the evidence you need to know the risk of harm from the Vax is significant .. 1 in 30 males 16-30 .. doing the 3 jab per year stint over 10 years - will have a Severe Adverse Reaction - (SAR) .

Putting a gun to one's head .. 30 chambers -- a bullet in one -- is not what I would call insignificant risk of harm. Now in your ever present partisan wisdom .. you may disagree, choosing to believe the Gov't would never lie .. but you can't say you haven't been shown the Evidence...

Wrong, it's not my job to make your argument for you.


Because anyone who shows evidence of harm from a "safe and effective vaccine" must be dishonest, right?

It is difficult to accept the shattering of a necessary illusion bubble. . and unwavering belief in Gov't .. Trusting in our medical institutions .. is a big one to have to let go of ... and most cannot .. going into blind denial and/or deflection mode .. engaging in "Thought stopping techniques" .. anything to make the bad thought go away .. similar to what we see in destructive religious cults .. where some cult leader is skilled in the arts of mind control .. uses sophisticated techniques by intent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What do you mean "not this part" . have you still not come to grips with the fact that the Gov't lied .. and pressured Social Media to parrot those lies and censor anything that conflicted with the lie ? My My

I don't know which government you're talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Poor Ebionite .

Poor Ebionate? They're the one taking us on this endless loop of "nuh uh" and "I know you are but what am I?" and Twitter posts.

. what a bunch of bla blah with no advancement of any argument. You have been shown all the evidence you need to know the risk of harm from the Vax is significant .. 1 in 30 males 16-30 .. doing the 3 jab per year stint over 10 years - will have a Severe Adverse Reaction - (SAR) .
Putting a gun to one's head .. 30 chambers -- a bullet in one -- is not what I would call insignificant risk of harm. Now in your ever present partisan wisdom .. you may disagree, choosing to believe the Gov't would never lie .. but you can't say you haven't been shown the Evidence...

Already discussed and not shown to be case.

It is difficult to accept the shattering of a necessary illusion bubble. . and unwavering belief in Gov't ..

I don't have unwavering belief in government. In fact, in our discussions together, you're the only one bringing up governments.

Trusting in our medical institutions

Yep, I do. Because I know how they operate and I know how research and evidence are collected.

.. is a big one to have to let go of ... and most cannot .. going into blind denial and/or deflection mode .. engaging in "Thought stopping techniques" .. anything to make the bad thought go away .. similar to what we see in destructive religious cults .. where some cult leader is skilled in the arts of mind control .. uses sophisticated techniques by intent.

Don't know what this means. I don't follow cult leaders.

 

[exchemist]

Nobody said it was. You seem to be having a hard time following a conversation.

You just claimed that I'm delusional for pointing out to you that I've provided citations demonstrating that myself, @Shadow Wolf, @Sargonski and others actually do know what we're talking about when it comes to the scientific method and peer review.

I just pointed out to you exactly where I provided those citations, in several different points across several different pages, as well as the posts in which I countered your assertions about the vaccine, thus demonstrating that your claim that I am delusional is an erroneous, inaccurate claim.

Now you say, "Wrong, it's not my job to make your argument for you" which has nothing to do with anything we're saying here and is a total non sequitur.

Nope. You haven't shown that evidence.

It's because of things like your comment right above.

This person can't even think straight. I put him or her on Ignore a while ago.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This person can't even think straight. I put him or her on Ignore a while ago.

Right?? Good grief. I don't like putting people on ignore but I'm seriously considering it after the last couple posts. I mean ....

 

[metis]

Vaccination was based on bad science from the beginning.

Analysis of the NZ data suggests that the elderly are more susceptible to harm from the "safe and effective covid vaccine".

The overwhelming research shows both statements are not true. Maybe do the research.

 

[Revoltingest]

Vaccines have saved many people and I would never want to give ammunition to people who argue against vaccines.

That said, two members of my extended family were double vaxxed (the most available at the time) and both got Covid and died <4 days.
They were in there 70s, but neither seemed particularly fragile. The vaccine gave them the confidence to stop isolating and pretend things were normal again.

So part of me is concerned that this messaging might convince people in vulnerable populations that the vaccine is a guarantee, which it isn't.

That said, I doubt the judgement of many who are more concerned about the vaccine-side affects than the risk of covid. With the exception of those in this thread who are making decisions based on prior experience.

The benefits of vaccination are probabilistic.
Getting vaccinated typically means one is less
likely to be hospitalized, or die from the disease.
There are no guarantees of a specific outcome.

 

[Ebionite]

The overwhelming research shows both statements are not true. Maybe do the research.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Ebionite]

You said peer review isn't a thing in science. Ergo you have no actual point.

No, I didn't say that. Science and the scientific method are different things.

 

[Ebionite]

similar to what we see in destructive religious cults

This is the actual point. The cult in this case is the union of the state and church. The connection between the church and death by "safe and effective vaccination" is the Rod of Asclepius as a symbol of the crucifixion (John 3:14) and the prophetic text relating to the crucifixion which describes the healing of a wounded people.

 

[Sargonski]

This is the actual point. The cult in this case is the union of the state and church. The connection between the church and death by "safe and effective vaccination" is the Rod of Asclepius as a symbol of the crucifixion (John 3:14) and the prophetic text relating to the crucifixion which describes the healing of a wounded people.

Yeeeaaaahhhhh ........No. The cult is the the Orwellian Collectivist hive mind .. coupled the Oligopolists .. in a nasty beast known as the Oligopoly Bureaucracy Fusion Monster ..and while there is a divine connection here .. not at all what you are getting at .. the prophecy not on the mark .. at all .. overlooking the prophecy that does apply .. due to lack of proper perspective.