Surfers and conspiracy theories etc
CDC and FDA review possible link between Pfizer booster and strokes | GMA
— Camus (@newstart_2024) January 14, 2023
Source: Good Morning America (Youtube) pic.twitter.com/fXJvAq7ENr
Maybe. Let's see what happens.
Supafreak wrote:https://twitter.com/backtolife_2023/status/1614375515036475392?s=46&t=fN...
Geez their review didn’t take long , January 26 more will be revealed.
China Crisis?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/14/nearly-60000-people-have-d...
Deaths 8th Dec 2022 > 12th Jan 2023.
South Korea 2,020 deaths / 51,380,674 pop = 1 death / 25,436 people
Chinese 59,938 deaths / 1,453,386,699 pop = 1 death / 24,248 people
Australia 1,271 deaths / 26,247,269 pop = 1 death / 20,651 people
Japan 10,462 deaths / 125,498,505 pop = 1 death / 11,996 people
Each & every Shock Headline > Chinese Covid Data...never shocks our own Hellish Crisis.
Meaning...We Aussies look like imbeciles ridiculing Gold Standard we can never dream to aspire to.
If China were to double their shocking death data it would still fall well short of Japan's Death waves.
According to Our own Data : Japan / South Korean / Oz Infection Rates are way higher than China's
5 day Avg according to Japan / S Korean mandated test data.(Only Testing Chinese of Course!)
Proven > Most infectious Nationalities simply walk straight thru the terminal...Not very Scientific!
Japan 37.9% > South Korea 28.2 > South Australia 21.4% > Chinese Passengers 14.8% (Test only them!)
During same period Oz were hiding / reducing / ending Covid Data while bullying China for open Data?
True! We withheld a lot of Deaths/Data & still lectured China! Pack of bloody two faced mongrels we are!
Yes! Of course Oz states keep ending data more so each week...Oz could not give a shit about Covid data!
News : Australia is more infectious & dying faster from Covid than Chinese people...(Correct!)
News: Japan is 2x infectious as China! (Correct!)
News: Japan are dying 2x faster than Chinese! (Correct!)
Until WHO know better...this is the only truth that any can report upon.
If media keep headlining a China Crisis then Oz is the Hell Hole of The Pacific...according to us!
"Furthermore, the court found that the mandate was “arbitrary and capricious” as COVID-19 vaccines do not stop transmission, vitiating any rational basis for a mandate."
BREAKING: CHD Defeats NY State Healthcare Mandate!
— Children’s Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) January 14, 2023
“We are thrilled by this critical win against a COVID 💉 mandate, correctly finding that any such mandate at this stage, given current knowledge is arbitrary.” @maryhollandnyc CHD pres. + gen. counsel https://t.co/Ls3rOjHZ7P
..... ..... .....
Follow the Science™ - How the authoritarian Left and wokeism corrupted science.:
https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/follow-the-science?sd=pf
"Science is an indispensable part of Western life and one of the most important channels of knowledge. That’s why the politically driven perversion of actual science into The Science™ by the authoritarian Left is a much bigger deal than it might seem.
There was a time not too long ago when it was mutually agreed upon by both sides of the aisle that science was too important to be politicized, but the authoritarian Left has deemed it too valuable a tool to remain unused, undermining public trust in the field. They have weaponized the word “science” against the critical thinking and inquiry that lie at the heart of the scientific method. The result can only be described as a danger to the foundations of a free and open democratic society.
Science itself is a process of careful observation, record keeping, logical and mathematical reasoning, experimentation, and submitting conclusions to the scrutiny of others. It requires that we agree upon objective truths, and that we believe in our own capacity to explore the unknown to uncover those truths.
The Science™, however, is an entirely different matter. It amounts to a call for silence, not investigation. Purveyors of the oft-repeated slogan “Follow the science!” don’t mean that we ought to acknowledge the reality of scientific findings, but rather that we accept their preferred solutions and look the other way when they ignore and twist science for their own ideological ends. The Science™ is never invoked to convince, but to bludgeon. It is, as conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro put it, “politics dressed in a white coat.”
Over and over again throughout the course of the pandemic we watched as The Science™ prevailed to the detriment of society."
@green room
Hah! Quoting Ben Shapiro! Excellent individual to take words from on this matter.
Oh, and tell me which side of politics has had a long history of using doubt to destabilise science? You know, on climate change?
There's no honour in playing dumb, and asking stupid questions in an attempt to stall progress, which is what we've seen politicians and opinion artists do all over the world for years now.
Don't like the outcome of an agreed position based on science? Does it effect the core of your business (i.e. mining, oil and gas)? Or, do you see an opportunity in recruiting disgrunteld plebs (plebs who say, don't want to wear a mask)? Never fear - you can always instill doubt! Just place a 'TM' at the end of that scientifically agreed truth, find a couple of people in the field who go against the grain and leave it to the swathes of politically motivated podcasters and journalists who'll fill in the rest of the story for you!
"We agree that misinformation has been a major problem during the pandemic. The spread of inaccurate scientific information has made it difficult for the public to make the right decisions to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from COVID-19 and the collateral public health damage arising from the pandemic countermeasures. As such, the disinformation has led to great harm in the lives and livelihoods of Americans. We submit the following examples of disinformation from the CDC and other health organizations that have shattered the public’s trust in science and public health and will take decades to repair."
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2022/05/16/file_attachm...
Governments have been the most important and most damaging source of covid misinformation during the pandemic. With the Indiana AG's office & @MartinKulldorff, we prepared a list of particulars, including recovered immunity, school closures, etc.https://t.co/HOiUFWF1su
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) December 22, 2022
not really a conspiracy...
but nice to see the dark magic going the right way
for once...
https://mobile.twitter.com/metasedin/status/1614533501411278848
This is in part how the narrative ships stay on course:
Innocuous sounding "think tanks" and lobby groups work day and night to herd the cats.
Example:
Savannah Knell, MPH MSSP, the Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships at The Public Good Projects (PGP).
Knell claims to have extensive experience in Public Health Comm. & Social Marketing. And aims to “largely focus on managing the development & execution of strategically targeted & tailored behavior change campaigns with an eye toward health equity.” Sounds important and the mention a magic word: "equity" - everyone loves equity.... and safety and family and apple pie.
In layman’s terms she is a narrative enforcer. She’s funded by Big Pharma.
Imagine a huge soccer field with hundreds of these enforcers / players all endlessly trying to kick a ball in the same direction through a crowd of the general public somewhat aimlessly milling about. Which way does the ball move? Who scores all the goals?
Massive collusion is a better phrase than conspiracy.
Think tanks? No conspiracy needed.
New Study Reveals Rampant Conflicts of Interest at Think Tanks
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/01/11/new-study-reveals-rampant-c...
"Through interviews with grant managers and former and current employees at these think tanks, the authors identified numerous instances where funding biased these organizations’ work through outright censorship, self-censorship, and perspective filtering.
A grant manager who provides funding to these institutions explained the Darwinian nature of this environment wherein, “The recipient knows they might not be funded next time around if they’re very disloyal.”
Given this filtering of research topics and self-censorship of the work itself, one former think tank analyst explained that, “what we were producing was not research, it was a kind of propaganda.”
While these forms of influence and donor motives are not uncommon, the authors argue that donors’ greatest influence was not generally exercised with respect to specific products or analysts, but rather by “affecting which questions are asked” in the marketplace of ideas and getting “to determine who gets funded to write or say something in the first place.”
Funders are simply unlikely to provide initial or continued support to organizations or analysts whose views are antithetical to their own. In this survival of the funded ecosystem — where friendly voices are given large megaphones and foes are marginalized — the policy debate is systematically biased towards the most generous donors.
“Responsible scholars, journalists, and other members of the public should stop treating think tanks and university programmes that accept large donations from vested interests as research entities and instead think of them as communications or public relations operations.”"
udo wrote:
A scientist talking about worms and parasites while letting her dog lick inside her mouth.
Cheers for the laugh Udo, but ill take advise from the doctors and scientists that put their careers on the line to stand up for Ivermectin. Not some weirdo letting her dog lick inside her mouth reading poorly from a script.
I think you'll find that Ivermectin does not have a patient.......... you do the maths
Together trial , seriously ? Besides all the obvious flaws in how this trial was conducted what I always questioned was where they held it . Why hold a trial that’s funded by huge money in South America ? where ivermectin is freely available over the counter and had been in circulation for covid for at least 12 months before this trial started . Couldn’t they find any people in the USA that were suitable ? Or didn’t the USA have enough positive cases ? A Canadian Dr funded by some big money players holds a trial in SA and once patients who weigh 90 kg and above , dont get an increase in dosage plus given on an empty stomach and …….. the list goes on but who really cares ? Borody and doctors in Australia treated 600 patients and submitted their findings to the TGA . Where’s the reporters following up on that story ? Meanwhile doctors continue to successfully treat patients with a combination therapy that “ includes ivermectin “ , in countries around the world including the US . I’m guessing the Dr in the video would recommended remdesivir. https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/10-questions-for-the-together-t...
Plenty of Trails out there on it Supa...Also some were Published then Retracted .
udo wrote:Plenty of Trails out there on it Supa...Also some were Published then Retracted .
Mountain bike or walking?
Patient or Patent
Dont matter its just the Flu
One thing about these studies and how they are conducted , none seem to follow the protocol set out by the doctors that have treated thousands of patients successfully. How many of the 600 that Borody’s team treated died ? None died 2 ended up in hospital and recovered , but like your you tube Dr explained, most people recover anyway. Some studies have been retracted but the majority haven’t. Any ideas Udo on why the together trial was taken to South America ?
The horse dewormer continues to attract studies for various diseases https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505114/
Trails in Sth America no doubt
udo wrote:
Stop posting this lady. She’s bloody irritable, smug and a smartarse. Geeeez
#mute ..click CC.
Ivermectin was readily available and cheap in South Africa up until Omicron came onto the scene, my MD prescribed it for me for preventing and treating covid. I guess it worked cos i had a mild headache for a day, still surfed and enjoyed my arvo JD by the fire. Albeit Covid is no joke and took the wind out of me for a few days but that was the extent of the symptoms. I also provided for my connections who came down with fever and felt better within 2 hours, passing quickly. Natural immunity baby. There are studies that show different results of Ivermectin and covid depending which ones you look at. I spoke to my doc and read widely across all studies I could find, and made my decision.
I then visited Oz briefly during the height of the pandemic and Vax rollout in May 2021 and as soon as i entered the hotel room for quarantine (of a healthy person mind you) the hotel TV literally shocked me of the propaganda that spewed out for the Australian public. Was pretty full on - I thought "this is what Australians are subjected to??!!". All roads led to the vax clinic line. My family didn't even know what Ivermectin was, let alone could buy it since it was banned by the TGA anyway for Drs to prescribe it. Censorship, criticism of people questioning became widespread to the point where my view of majority Australians changed and in fact realised that if castration was to be mandated by the government and health authorities, 95% of Australian men would be lining up, including many on this thread.
Alana_a wrote:udo wrote:Stop posting this lady. She’s bloody irritable, smug and a smartarse. Geeeez
I’m waiting for her report on remdesivir https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coron... and then molnuprivir https://news.yahoo.com/mercks-covid-pill-does-not-233719257.html But she probably won’t get many likes though.
Already Tweeted re Remdesivir..Good News for vulnerable people says Dr Oliver
Well I suppose if Trump endorsed it it must be all good ……… for shareholders anyway …… at least the studies by Gilead ( I shouldn’t laugh ) were promising. https://news.yahoo.com/remdesivir-hailed-and-taken-by-trump-doesnt-work-.... https://www.science.org/content/article/very-very-bad-look-remdesivir-fi...
Are these people considered to be vulnerable? Mixed reviews https://www.drugs.com/comments/remdesivir/for-covid-19.html
udo wrote:Patient or Patent
Dont matter its just the Flu
Ivermectin does not have a patient.…lmao.
Roadkill wrote:udo wrote:Patient or Patent
Dont matter its just the FluIvermectin does not have a patient.…lmao.
You could write it off as a typo, but he's done it before. What a clever lad.
Hiccups wrote:Roadkill wrote:udo wrote:Patient or Patent
Dont matter its just the FluIvermectin does not have a patient.…lmao.
You could write it off as a typo, but he's done it before. What a clever lad.
Cheers HicCup for keeping an eye on my posts.
Here's a quick google search of the patent (spelt it right) for Ivermectin
"Merck's patent on ivermectin expired in 1996, though it was extended for different periods in various countries. Thus, other companies' ivermectin preparations are now commercially available"
No patent (spelt it right again) no money. Hope you remember this post too babe.
udo wrote:Already Tweeted re Remdesivir..Good News for vulnerable people says Dr Oliver
Extremely disturbing that you follow her youtube and twitter Udo.
Does she have a special page where she lets her dog lick her inside the mouth? That's what you like isn't it Udo you dirty boy.
TRUST THE EXPERTS
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE
QUESTION NOTHING
I've been poring over this remarkable overview of #TwitterFiles releases until Jan 16, 2023 by @PetrSvab & team.
— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) January 17, 2023
I find it very helpful to have info summarized so; also good if you're having information overload.
(This👇is the highest res Twitter allows, higher res in 🧵) pic.twitter.com/z1CCrBxup1
https://www.theepochtimes.com/infographic-key-revelations-of-the-twitter...
"Documents revealed by Twitter’s new owner, tech billionaire Elon Musk, show the social media company intertwined with a government-private censorship apparatus.
Twitter suppressed or removed content on various subjects, including irregularities in the 2020 elections, mail-in voting issues, and various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The company was under government pressure to purge such content and its purveyors from the platform, though most of the time it was cooperating with the censorship requests willingly, the documents indicate.
Twitter has extensively suppressed information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Anything about the origin of the virus, its treatment, the vaccines developed for it, and public policies to mitigate its spread had to align with the official position of the federal government, as promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Zweig said he “found countless instances of tweets labeled as ‘misleading’ or taken down entirely, sometimes triggering account suspensions, simply because they veered from CDC guidance or differed from establishment views.”
Twitter user @KelleyKga, a self-described fact-checker, criticized a tweet that falsely claimed that COVID-19 was the leading cause of death by disease in children. @KelleyKga pointed out that such a claim would require cherry-picking data, backing his argument with data from the CDC. His criticism, however, was labeled as “misleading” and suppressed. On the other hand, the tweet that contained the false claim was not suppressed.
All physician Euzebiusz Jamrozik did was write on Twitter an accurate summarization of study results on COVID-19 vaccine side effects. The tweet was labeled “misleading” and suppressed.
Sometimes, it appears, Twitter suppressed the information on its own, but many of the COVID-19-related requests came from the government and even directly from the Biden White House, internal files show.
In one email, White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty accused Twitter of “bending over backwards” to resist one of his censorship requests, calling it “total Calvinball”—a game where rules are made up along the way. The email wasn’t part of the Twitter files. It came out during an ongoing lawsuit against the Biden administration filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.
Another White House staffer wanted Twitter to censor a tweet by Robert Kennedy, Jr., a long-time critic of vaccination. The staffer mused whether Twitter could “get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP.”
“And then if we can keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same genre that would be great,” he said in the Jan. 23, 2021, email.
The administration wasn’t always trying to get such content removed. People who merely expressed “hesitancy” about the vaccines were supposed to only have their content suppressed from reaching any significant audience, the documents indicate.
The Biden administration had a lot at stake as the vaccine rollout was one of its first and most high-profile tasks. There were other stakeholders as well.
Several censorship requests came from Scott Gottlieb, board member and head of the regulatory and compliance committee at Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant that made the most popular COVID-19 vaccine and raked in tens of billions of dollars on sales of it over the past two years.
Gottlieb sent Twitter at least three requests. One targeted a doctor who argued on the platform that naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19 is superior to vaccination. Twitter suppressed the tweet, even though the doctor was correct.
Another request targeted author Justin Hart, who argued on Twitter against school closures, pointing out that COVID-19 fatalities among children are extremely rare. Gottlieb sent the request shortly before Pfizer received approval for the use of its vaccine on children. Twitter didn’t comply with the request.
Yet another request targeted former NY Times reporter Berenson. Gottlieb claimed that Berenson’s criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of COVID-19 response in the Biden administration, was causing threats of physical violence toward Fauci. Twitter suspended Berenson’s account shortly after.
Gottlieb sent his requests to the same Twitter official who served as a contact person for censorship requests coming from the White House."
... ... ...
1. New piece from the TWITTER FILES.
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) January 16, 2023
How the pharmaceutical industry lobbied social media to shape content around vaccine policy.
The push included direct pressure from Pfizer partner BioNTech to censor activists demanding low-cost generic vaccines for low-income countries.
https://theintercept.com/2023/01/16/twitter-covid-vaccine-pharma/
"The social media pressure campaign was just a part of the pharmaceutical industry’s successful lobbying blitz to retain patents — and make record profits."
... ... ...
DEVELOPING: In emails to the White House, Facebook said it suppressed "often-true content" on COVID-19 vaccines, following Biden administration pressure against "vaccine hesitancy." https://t.co/ChNcM4o3Le
— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) January 12, 2023
The Biden White House openly pushed social media to suppress public discussion of inconvenient scientific facts. Didn't the US have a first amendment once?#antiscience #antidemocracy https://t.co/vIV2nzh4mG
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) January 17, 2023
Not Just Misinformation: In Emails to White House, Facebook Admits Suppressing ‘Often-True Content’ on COVID-19 Vaccines
... ... ...
🚨BREAKING: We’ve received more incriminating emails in our lawsuit Missouri v. Biden showing the collusive relationship between the federal government and social media companies to censor Americans’ right to free speech. Stay tuned.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023
... ... ...
US govt agency demanded suspension of 250k accounts, including journalists & Canadian officials! https://t.co/kcEMMCzF7d
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 3, 2023
... ... ...
Thanks to @jasoninthehouse for having @MartinKulldorff and me on @IngrahamAngle.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) December 28, 2022
We discussed the Biden administration’s illegal—and dangerous—collusion with Big Tech to censor doctors and scientists over COVID scientific debate. https://t.co/1byonjNC2i
... ... ...
“Both science and public health are broken,” says Dr. @MartinKulldorff, one of the most qualified public health pandemic experts in the US.
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) December 29, 2022
“A public official narrative was established, and you weren’t allowed to question it.” https://t.co/CjX6picKFw
https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-former-harvard-prof-martin-kulld...
"“For some reason, a public official narrative was established, and you weren’t allowed to question it—which, of course, is very detrimental, both to the pandemic and how to deal with the pandemic, because you have to have a vibrant discussion to figure out how best to deal with these things,” he told The Epoch Times.
“I was able to publish in Sweden, in the major daily newspapers there during the spring of 2020, so that was not a problem,” he said. “But the United States was not allowed to have a debate, which is very troubling.”"
... ... ...
... ... ...
How Can We Trust Institutions that Lied?
https://brownstone.org/articles/how-can-we-trust-institutions-that-lied/
"Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told. Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking.
In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19.
They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm).
From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’ "
... ... ...
When Will Academia Account for Its Covid Failures?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-will-academia-account-for-its-covid-fa...
"We need universities to be robust centers of debate, not rigid enforcers of ideological conformity.
Many in America’s academic class betrayed the public trust during the pandemic. To sway the American people to accept lockdowns, professors with prestigious titles and affiliations denied scientific data about risks, effective mitigation and biological protection. They spouted politicized opinion as if it were objective truth and demonized views counter to their preferred narrative."
... ... ...
Statement on the Ethical Principles of Public Health, on behalf of Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom
https://dc.hillsdale.edu/Academy-for-Science-and-Freedom/The-Ethical-Pri...
"During the SARS2 coronavirus pandemic, fundamental principles of public health were ignored, and trust in public health has been damaged. As experts in public health, medical science, ethics, and health policy, we propose the following ten principles to guide public health officials and scientists, in order to ensure the credibility of public health recommendations and to help restore public trust.
Ethical Principles of Public Health
1. All public health advice should consider the impact on overall health, rather than solely be concerned with a single disease. It should always consider both benefits and harms from public health measures and weigh short-term gains against long-term harms.
2. Public health is about everyone. Any public health policy must first and foremost protect society's most vulnerable, including children, low-income families, persons with disabilities and the elderly. It should never shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent.
3. Public health advice should be adapted to the needs of each population, within cultural, religious, geographic, and other contexts.
4. Public health is about comparative risk evaluations, risk reduction, and reducing uncertainties using the best available evidence, since risk usually cannot be entirely eliminated.
5. Public health requires public trust. Public health recommendations should present facts as the basis for guidance, and never employ fear or shame to sway or manipulate the public.
6. Medical interventions should not be forced or coerced upon a population, but rather should be voluntary and based on informed consent. Public health officials are advisors, not rule setters, and provide information and resources for individuals to make informed decisions.
7. Public health authorities must be honest and transparent, both with what is known and what is not known. Advice should be evidence-based and explained by data, and authorities must acknowledge errors or changes in evidence as soon as they are made aware of them..
8. Public health scientists and practitioners should avoid conflicts-of-interest, and any unavoidable conflicts-of-interest must be clearly stated.
9. In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly important. It is unacceptable for public health professionals to censor, silence or intimidate members of the public or other public health scientists or practitioners.
10. It is critical for public health scientists and practitioners always to listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences of public health decisions, and to adapt appropriately."
Great stuff @greenroom.
What amazes me is that someone like Stok in this thread is always banging on about trusting the science, yet when questioned which exact science it is he puts his trust in, there is zero response. So again, Stok, Andy M, Old Dog, Roadkill, which science do you trust that you believe in so much to supress the freedom of questioning said science?. Specifics please.
"to supress the freedom of questioning said science"
Specifics please.
Eh? What u mean? You know exactly what that means.
So what science Andy? Stop avoiding the question. You and your lot keeo banging on about the scie. What science?? Whos science??
AndyM wrote:"to supress the freedom of questioning said science"
Specifics please.
You don’t want to answer the question hey AndyM. The master of deflection when backed into a corner.
We've seen the same pattern time and time again.
Illusion, confusion and collusion ;)
https://m.
Richard Ebright with his hypothesis on the origin of covid. He has a heap of interesting links , some dating back before 2020 .
. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787COVID: summary of lab-origin hypothesis:
— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) January 17, 2023
1) Pandemic caused by bat SARS-like coronavirus emerged in Wuhan--city 1,000 km from nearest wild bats with SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses, but that contains labs conducting world's largest research program on bat SARS-like coronaviruses.
Jelly Flater wrote:Illusion, confusion and collusion ;)
'...the revoling door ... nothing new...'
indeed
but shit got real weird through covid
the question is....
are / were most of these dudes acting with the best of intentions, displaying such disdain, dismissivenes and vitriol, seemingly ignorant of their own compromised position, bias, and naivete - like stok?
or was it largely purely about the money, and averting any real conversation away, so the machine could roll on - like the oil industry?
...either way, i think we're a bit fucked...
that people's 'percieved' realities have developed such an obvious, void-ous gulf, with seemingly little common ground between the power players on both poles...
another question...
what came first?
the embracing of post modernist perspectives?
or the politicisation of 'the science'?
(both have always been 'a thing' ...but it seems the modern world has just gone so wholeheartedly, unashamedly, uncompromisingly, all in...)
burleigh wrote:AndyM wrote:"to supress the freedom of questioning said science"
Specifics please.
You don’t want to answer the question hey AndyM. The master of deflection when backed into a corner.
It should be a simple answer surely.
Anyone still not awake?
fwiw, I think andym is a good example of what Im on about above - not in a damning 'good example' way - but a good example of how people like to box people and perspectives. and how we all are guided by our own experiences and perspectives...
andym wrote a good post a few pages back, where he ceded considerable ground re. corona vaccines - a post where he said he trusts the 'best' science of the day. and explained why he got vaccinated, and his feelings about it, and the apparatus, now... a very 'rational' response....
but he's now being nit picked and boxed as some all in vaccine ideologue
which is probavly fair enough... as he has engaged in a bit of nit picking and boxing himself...
but if you have followed his posts in context over the years, you'll see he's surrounded by the airy fairy world of the northern rivers - and its descent into the world of 'my truths' and loopy influencers
he also has a hippy(ish) sister, that it seems is full on anti-vax on a wider scale, and has been well before corona came along. a sister full of contradictions (from his own admissions)
his environment clearly influences his wider view re. corona, and his frustrations about 'the anti science movement' around normal vaccines and climate change are also on show
but largely, he is rational being accepting the 'best' science of the day
nit picking about who, what, or which scientists he follows is kinda pointless, as I think it is pretty obvious
he follows the main (established) scientists - that most people followed - and he bailed out on boosters and mandates when it became obvious these were unjustified (thankfully, so so thankfully... many people followed this path)
his position gets a bit caught up in the noise, and he probably could be a bit clearer and ceding in his position - but hey, its the internet! ...and that would take all the sport and fun out of it...
it's clowns like stok that do my head in, cannot cede an inch, so so fucking condescending, and totally ignores - or is wilfully ignorant - of all recent damning revelations about 'the establishment wilfully spreading misinformation, shutting down reputable scientists, and censoring good and useful information - information, that could and should have influenced people's positions
ivory tower ideologues, that cannot ever admit fault
bluediamond wrote:Eh? What u mean? You know exactly what that means.
So what science Andy? Stop avoiding the question. You and your lot keeo banging on about the scie. What science?? Whos science??
Science should be questioned..if the science is correct the evidence will support the science.
No one owns the science....so you can't say who's science to believe. Science is science is science...end of story.
what science you ask..."the science" is the answer. Not hijacked science, not politicised science, not hijacked science and not corrupted by greed science.
There is some effort involved by all of us to filter through all the bogus science but if you want to, even you could get to the real science.
From where I sit, people like yourself and burleigh and others in here don't want to find or acknowledge the real science as it exposes your own bias. Now here is 2 examples of science that is fact and can't be dismissed and yourself and burleigh and others in here ignore, reject and fail to acknowledge.
The risk of getting Myocarditis from covid is far greater than the risk of getting Myocarditis from the vaccine..thus the risk of getting Myocarditis is not a valid reason to not get a vaccine shot.
H2O is two hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen
In your words, BD. "It should be a simple answer" to these above 2 science facts?
BD, do you accept the above 2 science facts are true?
Great to hear a good thorough response roadkill. Thanks. Im working so quick reply.
Yes correct, h20 is most likely that...I'll trust the science on that one.
No i dont agree that myocarditis is higher in covid than vax. I think theres a whole lot more research to be done to evaluate that,as well as long term effects, which simply hsve not, and cannot be observed at present.
The science im asking about that you cant provide an actual answee to is the sane science youve based all your character attacks, belittling and dehumanising of anyone who questioned the vax and the mandates...and the science.So i guess theres still no actual answer after all that on what science it is you put all your faith in. I guess it wss a rhetorical question anyway. The answer is quite obvious.
@roadkill , “ The risk of getting Myocarditis from covid is far greater than the risk of getting Myocarditis from the vaccine..thus the risk of getting Myocarditis is not a valid reason to not get a vaccine shot. “ so in your opinion is this for all age groups ? I tried finding and wrote to various departments asking for a risk benefit analysis for children in the 5 - 12 year olds bracket but came up blank and no one ever replied.
Supafreak wrote:@roadkill , “ The risk of getting Myocarditis from covid is far greater than the risk of getting Myocarditis from the vaccine..thus the risk of getting Myocarditis is not a valid reason to not get a vaccine shot. “ so in your opinion is this for all age groups ? I tried finding and wrote to various departments asking for a risk benefit analysis for children in the 5 - 12 year olds bracket but came up blank and no one ever replied.
my reply was based off science for vaccines administered. I can't answer the risks for that age group...personally I don't think that age group should be vaccinated.
bluediamond wrote:Great to hear a good thorough response roadkill. Thanks. Im working so quick reply.
Yes correct, h20 is most likely that...I'll trust the science on that one.
No i dont agree that myocarditis is higher in covid than vax. I think theres a whole lot more research to be done to evaluate that,as well as long term effects, which simply hsve not, and cannot be observed at present.
The science im asking about that you cant provide an actual answee to is the sane science youve based all your character attacks, belittling and dehumanising of anyone who questioned the vax and the mandates...and the science.So i guess theres still no actual answer after all that on what science it is you put all your faith in. I guess it wss a rhetorical question anyway. The answer is quite obvious.
You ask for a mature conversation..yet can't help but insert a snide wanky line like "your character attacks, belittling and dehumanising" You BD were just as guilty in throwing character attacks, belittling and dehumanising language at anyone that opposed your bias view..you also ignore all the language and character attacks used by those with the same bias as you...yet here you are now still being a dickhead.
If you want a mature discussion please do, if you want to remain a dickhead...carry on as such.
Please show me solid evidence that the risk of myocarditis is greater from Covid than Vax.
As you all keep on saying 95% of the population is vaccinated and has now also prob had covid.
So was it the vaccine or covid? It’s very easy to blame the virus.
I knew surfers weren't immune to being crazy, but a group?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Bryonbaysurfers/?hc_ref=ARRWDoQ3b7IDHBjx...
No i am not a member