The Order of Pen - Question everything and then some

EMF does not buy into the fear hysteria of COVID-19,
nor agree with the agenda of mandatory mRNA vaccinations.
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

The Order of Pen - Question everything and then some

Unread post by David McCarthy »

224837435_902405326977995_4807164886216032730_n.jpg
Since there is zero debate / sharing going on on EMF....
here's a rare covid exchange/ debate I feel worth copying over from FaceBook
The Order of Pen - Question everything and then some
Gregory Morgan
While it sounds great, this is also the mentality of people who think they’re covid experts after 20 minutes on the internet.

• Danny N Sarah Pelasio
Gregory Morgan but the so called covid experts have changed their minds too many times ... contradicted themselves .... they are full of it

• Jean Ann Fabo
Gregory Morgan and the most rabid climate change "experts" never took a weather class. (Ed)

• Rosalie Poynter
How can someone be called an expert on something we don't understand yet?

• Paul Englebrecht
Gregory Morgan as opposed to mental midgets who believe everything they are told to believe and then project that hoirse shit on the rest of the normal world. I will be a bit prejudiced here and say you are dumber than a box of rocks.

• Mark Burgess
LOL, words from a man 10 times more intelligent than anyone in the present administration. Always question and if not given acceptable responses, be suspicious of intent.

• Paul Clement
and your expert opinion is backed by what? medical degree? you are a scientist? a virologist perhaps, I am none of these but I don't just buy it because some politician tells me it is how it is. Politicians are not often associated with honesty are they?

• Edward Tucker
Gregory Morgan It also makes the point that "experts" are only "experts" as long as they speak "FACT and TRUTH" ALL OF IT CONSISTENTLY, and are open to ALL QUESTIONS no matter WHO asks them!

• Deborah Grace Jones
Sure...lets just disregard the opinions of 99% of the scientific community and believe in conspiracy theories. Lets disregard the fact that 97% of people experiencing severe complications from the delta variant are unvaccinated...that must just be a fluke. At this point, I don't know how anyone can justify not getting vaccinated. Even if you're not worried about your own health, you should be able to muster enough decency to get vaccinated to limit the spread to others. The COVID situation has really opened my eyes to just how selfish my fellow americans can be. I think you conspiracy theorists need to believe that you're right because otherwise, you'd have to admit that you've contributed to the deaths of others.

• Jim Hohn
Gregory Morgan could be worse. THey could think they are Covid experts after studying it for over a year and a half and STILL cant give the same piece of advise twice in a row!!

• John Docherty
Gregory Morgan the really smart ones only tell you what they heard....never able to cite the source

• Bruce Baxter
What point do you call testing has ended?


• Bruce Baxter
Seriously though, even though you are a North Korean bioterrorists,
You think a vaccine is a drug?

• Darron Clark
They have to start somewhere.

• Raymond Schlichting
Gregory Morgan why use the internet. I trust my government and MSM. They would never lie to me.


• Brian Roland
It doesn't require much 'science' to realize that the pandemic has intentionally been POLITICIZED. It would appear that a handful of players are performing an 'experiment' on the world population. How much unnecessary and unethical BS will people accept, how much money and power can be bled from the chaos?
Politicians and talk show hosts interpreting millions of pages of data, nurses going all social media political and emotional (there aren't that many doing this, but it only takes one or two to raise red flags and form bad impressions/opinions for people with skeptical natures) venting all sorts of emotions and anger all over social media using the most politically laced anecdotal wording they can find, while literally cursing the public about 'wearing a f*ing mask', illogical statistical comparisons (Such as comparing an uber rich state with less than 700,000 white collar citizens who are able to work from home in a cold state that is used to months of winter lock-downs to a poor 'sweltering agri/industrial' state with a population of almost 5 million (the majority of whom work on site in industiral plants or highly interactive face to face markets), bashing the poor state that has actually vaccinated well over 2 million in less time than it took the 'praised state' to hit 500k, and more), and political pundits from both sides calling each other idiots and morons are not good science.
All of this intentional emotional posturing and divide and conquer nonsense is so against research ethics 101...or at least it used to be.
People within the scientific community publicly breaking every 3rd rule of research ethics. I.E. Tossing out ethically/legally obtained data and observations for every reason BUT the validity of the data set itself (administering doses of meds over time and recording all the vital signs...not 'biased' data. Tossing the data over politics, and using a lot of money from conflicting interests to 'smear' a study and everyone involved in it IS biased). I.E. Thirty years ago, the researcher, while working deep within a culture that does not speak our language, doesn't trust easily, and has unique linguistic concepts for describing and understanding illness and suffering was taken out of context for saying something about 'demons in the body'! Nope...not even going to look at the data collected from over 6,000 observed cases because the 'media doesn't like the researcher and is going to do its best to destroy the researcher'. Not going to take into account that before one can treat a population, one has to earn enough trust and respect to GAIN ACCESS! Media said she believes in 'demons in the body'... so send that data to the shredder! Even saw active nurses spreading the hit pieces on the woman, having never looked at a single page of the data in her studies. Why? If the data is flawed, the administration of the meds, the recording of the vital signs, etc...cite it! Going after a single researcher 'personally' and never citing anything wrong with the data is not only unethical...it's detrimental to the field of science.
Observing it all and trying to make some sense of it can be a science though. What is astonishing is that the world has seen many pandemics. Governments, businesses, and communities have mobilized and beat them before...by simply beefing up supply lines and training personnel in administering the stuff and staying 'neutral and ETHICAL when it comes to the reality that people can and will believe all kinds of strange ideas' and simply getting the word out through LOCAL PHYSICIANS and good PR campaigns that vaccines and treatments are available...talk to your DOCTORS for informed opinions. Talk to more than one if you like.
Even the voodoo witch doctors have come around relatively quickly in the past (it's in their interest for their people to heal and thrive) and HELPED all efforts to contain and beat pandemics, and they will again this time if they are treated according to the research ethics 101 practices that have been around for centuries.
In the past...efforts to fight pandemics had the good sense to make contact with different cultures on friendly and amenable terms. Why is it so different this time? Why is the opening slavo, "Give us 100% authority and respect over nearly every aspect of your lives, or you are an 'idiot' who is just giving us more reason to FORCE this onto you, NOW! NO compromise, nothing else is important! Screw your culture, your livelyhood, your relationships. Our 'authority as 'this generation of experts' is all that matters! Morons....
Don't get me wrong...the bad researchers and loud mouths causing the most hostile dissension and mistrust are in the minority. Sadly, people propping them up and villifying observers of so much unnecessary BS are not.
Required vaccines that require various steps to 'opt out' are nothing new either. I've never met a school or university where I didn't have to provide records...or strong reasons why I might not have certain vaccinations to attend. We've had them before, but the difference was....the medical community was allowed to sort it out, and earn the TRUST of the public they were trying to serve.
When it comes to COVID-19, we all are part of a giant 'experiment', but this time we don't get the ethically required provisions to 'opt out' of the study. Trials, Geneva, Helsinki, etc....huge portions of it deemed null and void due to a state of 'emergency'. It's all a big 'test' to our systems, and our sense of ethics in research, business, law, and politics.



Debbie Chase
Brian Roland out side of the politics we are desperate people who just want to do the right thing. I haven’t had the vaccine yet but I am considering to get it, not bc of outside pressure just to protect myself, I am older and have had many many vaccines and no the good they provide. This one is political and rushed, don’t know the truth any longer.


• Trissy Knight
Brian Roland well said and have seen every aspect of this play out in clinical practice. May God bless us each and every one.


• Lyn OBannon
Debbie Chase don’t get dead before you’re too sorry you didn’t act. Seems every day there are stories of folks that waited too long and died due to inactivity or stupidity.

• Bruce Baxter
Debbie Chase
Humans have been using covid vaccine for 50 years on chickens.
What is this rushed nonsense?
Allan Wayne Crum
Gregory Morgan I guess we should practice accepting results before they are proven? Questioning something doesn’t mean you think you’re an expert, does it?



Benjamin NAchumi
Allan Wayne Crum If the overwhelming preponderance of evidence says that something is true, then continuing to question it, *without performing experiments or calculations* is counterproductive. Merely asking questions doesn't get anything done. Expert opinions are not just opinions; they are interpretations of the available evidence in the context of established scientific thought.


• Chet Zurawski
Benjamin NAchumi Like the inventor of mRNA saying we should not be taking the shots with mRNA and the inventor of the PCR test saying they should never be used to test for a virus you know the experts who invented the things!


• Benjamin NAchumi
Chet Zurawski because, the facts are that they work. And I don't think that you know what those acronyms mean.



• Brian Roland
Benjamin NAchumi
Overwhelming preponderance of evidence? You mean, like, a meme that compares a data set taken from a pool of roughly 700,000 cold climate white collar citizens (who don't even know they are part of, nor have they consented to being part of a 'study') who have vaccinated 400,000 work at home folks who dig in and literally live buried in snow a quarter of the year and compares it with a pool of 5 million hot climate blue collar citizens who have vaccinated over 2 million citizens while BLATANTLY disregarding the numerous differences between the two statistical groups, and 'making up' data that there is no possible way to have at hand (such as who wore masks 24/7 and who did not)?
How is all this 'evidence' possible without isolated control groups?
There are 'overwhelming numbers of opinions' for people to cherry pick enough anecdotal support for whatever they choose to believe. The 'evidence' is mostly circmstansial, and being spread by the most partisan money and power hording faces on the planet.
Why are 'media rock stars and politicians with both hands in big pharma pockets' spreading the word instead of nameless locals in lab coats?
There is an 'overwhelming preponderance of evidence' that that toilet paper causes cancer. Wait, no, it's roundup herbicide. No, wait, it's J&J Baby Powder. No, wait, it's the ingredients used in making plastic! No, wait.........it's whatever we can 'overwhelm' a jury into believing long enough to leverage a ton of money from set of pockets into another.
The 'overwhelming evidence' that people have been fed through the 'media' has been little more than 'intentionally confusing propaganda'. Which politician can be blamed for killing the most people or has ruined the most lives, blah blah.
What most people really want to know is: "What is in this drug/vaccine? Is it safe for ME to take it? What are the actual benefits and possible side effects? What does MY doctor have to say about it in regards to my body and health? Who is 'accountable' if this vaccine turns out to be harmful to me? If I still have to shut down my entire life after taking this and sit out yet another year of life, please explain why I should bother? How come people who 'are seeming to, and claiming to have followed the guidelines, and have been vaccinated' still getting sick, and what is being done about figuring out how/why it seems to work sometimes, but not others? Why is so much of the 'evidence' hidden from us, or very hard to find? Why is it 'ethical' to release information intended to force a population to behave in a certian way, but unethical to release the information that led to those conclusions on why the public must behave that way?"
Maybe it's just me...but I'd feel better about local health officials quietly earning our trust (they did with me, and I was vaccinated based on the odds conveyed to me by local physicians who have earned my trust over half a century, that it's not likely to 'harm me', even if it doesn't do a lick of good), than the constant media circus using words like, 'the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests...'


• Benjamin NAchumi
Brian Roland actually, I skimmed it. Look, you can go the The Lancet or JAMA or back through the original literature on mRNA vaccines, or just get the J&J or AZ shots. Why should you, if you still have to be careful? Well, there's being careful, and then there's running an above average risk of dying or murdering someone you know. But just going "Gahh, I don't understand biochemistry or statistics!" is not really productive.


• Brian Roland
Benjamin NAchumi
I don't dispute the argument that taking precautions to protect others is ethical, valid, and the right thing to do. I don't even need 'evidence' to support that logic.
There is a serious flaw in your presentation though. You've used the word 'murder'. Really? That kind of language is big part of the problem.
Suggesting that people who have valid and ethical concerns over how pandmics are announced and treated, and notice a complete lack of 'evidence' to show that the average consumer mask slows or stops the spread of COVID-19, or doesn't present other PROBLEMS or long term side effects to human health are 'murderers' if they do not comply with every 'suggestion' or 'mandate' are MURDERERS is quite a stretch.
There is no 'overwhelming properderence of evidence' to show that not wearing a mask is 'murder'. There are very few studies completed on the effectiveness of the average joe grabbing any ole mask (often nasty ones...not sure if someone else wore it before, no idea what it's made of, what fabric it's made of, what chemicals were used to make and treat it, etc.) reduces the transmission of the COVID-19 virus.
Similary, there is not yet evidence to prove the masks are harmful. But...one can form a rather coherent hypothesis that millions of people harboring collections of nasty masks and wearing them all the time could cause a lot of heath problems (and environmental/ecological ones as well). So, then, are the ones that kill a family member with a nasty mask 'murders' too?
It's kind of preposterous really. There are NO regulations on masks, how to wear them, what they can/should be made of, how they get cleaned, packaging, notta....but congress will turn right around and decide that 2/3rds of the materials used to make a respirator, or even your iPhone need to be 'banned'.
So...there is an 'overwhelming preponderance of evidence' that a PFR in various chemicles and plastics causes cancer and must be banned in the USA (not really, but it does scare people, and banning it would force people to use 'newer more expensive materials that the patents haven't exipred', and makes a lot more class action law suits against US manufacturers possible)....but there is also an overwhelming proponderence of evidence that as long as the masks come from 'China' instead of the USA, we don't care what they're made of...just grab one and put it on any ole way, and if you don't wear one, you are a MURDERER!
Grab a mask! Screen print it with pretty political slogans! Shun your neighbors if they do not do the same! Freaking 'murderers'! (sarcasm...and no, that is not a scientific attitude).


• Benjamin NAchumi
Brian Roland Not that the "murder" quip was really meant to imply "with malice aforethought," but consider this exercise: you have given grandma a dose of deadly virus because you chose not to wear a damn mask. How do you feel about yourself?



• Benjamin NAchumi
Brian Roland and actually, there's lots of evidence that (maybe you meant) PFOA causes cancer, and it should be banned, and the chemical industry should be regulated much more than it is.


• Brian Roland
I did a google for 'damn mask', and once did one for 'fu**ing mask'. They were both recommended by 'strong advocates of science, and one was even a health care worker!"
The search gave me a list of CPAP machines, two scuba masks, and a bunch of T-Shir…


• Benjamin NAchumi
Brian Roland I don't think you have a good grasp of the statistics here. There is no reasonable doubt that the vaccines are highly effective in preventing symptomatic illness, that it's even better at preventing serious illness, and even better than that at helping people avoid dying from this virus. This is not cherrypicked data.
The problem is that, obviously, data does not unite people, because they don't really care so much about the facts which don't fit their tribal identity.
No, your doctor couldn't promise that the vaccine would work for you, in particular, because even the best vaccine ever will not protect everyone all the time. But 90+% is stupendously effective on average.
So, yeah, the difference between us is that we disagree on what constitutes scientific evidence, but this is because I understand what constitutes scientific evidence and you don't seem to.



• Brian Roland
Benjamin NAchumi
You didn't submit scientific evidence. You submitted words suggesting there is an 'overwhelming preponderance of evidence' that the experts need not be questioned, and suggested questioning any of it is paramount to 'murder' and 'administering doses of a virus to grandma'.
You said 'wear a damn mask'. I've yet to identify that make and model of mask. Who makes the 'damn mask' and where can I buy it? Why is that the best one?
So, we go digging to try to find out exactly how many 'grandmas' (vaccinated or otherwise) tested positive for COVID died because a family member didn't wear a mask, and well, there is no such database.
What we do find are cases where grandma was comparatively healthy before the covid test, and a certified at home care provider came in all suited up wearing masks and gloves, and the patient, who already had loads of health problems and a tray of serious meds contracted the virus at some point and then died while trying to fight it all. We also can discover that she had annual bouts with pneumonia and other respiratory issues. Was the health care provider who did test positive for COVID a 'murderer' (we don't know if the Nurse caught it from the patient, or vice verse, all we know is they both had it, and none of the other family members in the home kicked back any postive tests)? Of course the nurse is not a murderer! However, there is so much MORE to the 'evidence' that is not being disclosed about how these things can spread, or how tests can MISS THINGS.
There are webs of who was infected and who was not. Questions about the testing...when tests showed positive results and didn't...webs of contact, and a whole lot more. Very little of it includes data on wearing masks, what types, how they were prepared and worn, etc. ESPECIALLY out in the 'wild' of individual homes.
Can't seem to find the infected family member that 'murdered grandma' for not wearing a randomly acquired germ/chemical/fiber culture across their face that'd been tossed around in all kinds of horrid conditions for multiple days.
The truth is, the evidence is complicated and hasn't even been gathered yet, let alone analyzed to the degree that we know 'not wearing whatever mask is in front of you with any ole type or process murders grandma'!
There are armies of lawyers and interests out to 'block' access to "the evidence" now, and well into the future. Still, the questions need to be asked, over, and over, and over.
2d

Edited
• Michael Metzler
Chet Zurawski Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, never said that PCR should not be used to test for a virus, he said that it was not suitable for determining if an individual is infectious, because it is highly sensitive and can pick up even small amounts of a virus. He said this with regard to HIV, and never commented on Covid-19, as he died prior to the pandemic.


• Benjamin NAchumi
Brian Roland are you asking me to provide you with links to reliable data? I doubt you'd accept them. The evidence for the efficacy of the vaccine is, for example, that upwards of 90% of new hospitalizations are of people that have not been vaccinated. There is not some vast conspiracy here, and just because you are unwilling to accept numbers from our CDC, the Canadian CDC, the Johns Hopkins covid tracker, the hospitals from which the CDCs draw their data, etc., does not make it so.
What kind of mask should you wear? Well, lessee, there have been some pretty good aerosol physics experiments showing that N-95s actually do what they are supposed to do.
Are there exceptions? Anecdotes about someone getting sick anyway? Sure.
The fact that you seem stuck on and completely mischaracterize the thought experiment I proposed to you suggests that you are just interested in hearing yourself talk.



• Brian Roland
Benjamin NAchumi
I'm not asking for links, and why wouldn't I accept them? I haven't projected attitudes based purely on a position of authority, or belittled individuals for having questions about ethics, or science itself.
What you just said about vaccine efficiency and N95 mask is perfect.
Nothing 'personal' or 'ethically charged' in the statement. Nothing 'politically sensationalized' about 'killing grandma' or 'administering doses of virus'.
Present the evidence. People will make better decisions. They have before, and they will again.
The part of this pandemic that is unprecedented is the source, frequency, and method of delivery for 'evidence'.
Answering the questions with an honest, "We don't know everything. Here's what we think we know and why. Here's how this course of behavior might help." tends to do the job.
What compounds the problems are, "Moron! Murderer! Why are you asking these questions? Something is wrong with you for being confused by all the propaganda! How dare you be confused by the same talking head saying one thing on Monday, and something else on Tuesday, plus all the stuff friends and peers spew by the hour!"
Let people ask the questions...thank them for the concern and present options. It's a request, I can't force people to communicate 'my way'. I can however, beg.

• Dawn Burleson Polan
Benjamin NAchumi so an expert has never been wrong? If it were true that an expert is never been wrong your point would be valid. But experts are wrong all the time. So your argument is therefore invalid.


• Benjamin NAchumi
Dawn Burleson Polan experts have been wrong, but no, the error rate for experts in science, where things are experimentally verified or debunked, is actually much lower than it is for people just blowing opinions on facebook.

• Chet Zurawski
Michael Metzler He mention HIV bit also says it can find anything and since we cycle more than it should be it will almost always find something! It does not tell you you're are sick he said that pretty plainly!

• Benjamin NAchumi
Chet Zurawski 1) there is no such thing as "mRNA and DNA" vaccine. 2)Malone helped come up with the general idea of using mRNA, but did not create the vaccine. 3) The study Malone refers to was retracted, which is what happens when researchers realize they screwed up badly. See, that's part of the way science works.

• Benjamin NAchumi
Chet Zurawski yes, and? The vaccine does not prevent mild infection. It is not a sterilizing vaccine. It makes it less likely, though, and it makes it much less likely that you'll die from covid. The risk of infection increases with viral load (being inside, at close quarters, maskless) and also with viral strain. Apparently, the Delta variant is extremely contagious, much more so than the previously dominant strain. The numbers I pay attention to are relative hospitalization and mortality rates: the total has been .004%/.001% for fully vaccinated people.

• Benjamin NAchumi
Brian Roland "Administering doses of virus"--what?
"Present the evidence. People will make better decisions."--the evidence has been presented. New evidence is presented daily--it's a hot topic! The problem is that wilfully ignorant people have an emotional stake in not accepting the evidence.
There is a difference between propaganda and PSAs, and there is a difference between what whoever says on the internets and what the research says. They've heard it, and they ignore it.
"Present options"--there are options. They are: get vaccinated/mask and isolate/run a risk for yourself and those with whom you come in contact.
Science is not a democracy. There are right answers, and there are wrong answers, and not every voice with the same redundantly ignorant question should be heard.


• Benjamin NAchumi
Chet Zurawski the usefulness of a test rests on two numbers: the sensitivity and the specificity. PCR is very sensitive in principle because it's a techinique designed to mass-copy sequences of nucleic acids, but that sensitivity takes a hit on average because of poor sampling technique and timing. Your concern seems to be related to the specificity, which is 99% for current PCR tests for covid. This percentage means that, out of 100 people without covid, the test would indicate one false positive.

• Chet Zurawski
The CDC says they do not work now and are stopping using them but not until the end of the year? https://www.cdc.gov/.../07-21-2021-lab- ... hanges_CDC...

CDC.GOV
Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing



• Chet Zurawski
Why did they hide and block the treatments of ivermectin and hyudroxychloroquie? Established and safe drugs for many decades? They blocked any Dr's that spoke of their success using these treatments that most had 100% success with. With these treatments and others I would bet these experimental Vax's do not get fully FDA approved. The WHO and thousands of other Dr's have repeated that there has been no record of any on getting COVID from asymptomatic people! I personally know 2 perfectly healthy people that died from the shot one a gym owner. Marvin Hagler and Henry Aaron they convinced to take the shot to show others it was safe and they died within 2 weeks. Eric Clapton was paralyzed from the shot. Many many miscarriages along with other deaths and horrible side effects have happen from this experimental shot that no one knows what will happen to those taking it down the road because there are not studies and it has not been around 60 years like hyudroxychloroquie


• Chet Zurawski
Benjamin NAchumi But you said they were all unvaxed? So all the ones in the hospital had to have more than mild symptoms per what you say as the CDC stopped testing vaxxed with mild or not symptoms https://www.cdc.gov/.../fully-vaccinated-guidance.html

CDC.GOV
COVID-19 Vaccination



• Chet Zurawski
If you want to get vaxxed and wear a mask you should others do not want to and that is their right their body' their choice! Many have died I know 2 and many others have had debilitating injurys here are some of their stories MSM will not show! Listen to these poor people! https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/.../helping%20people...

RONJOHNSON.SENATE.GOV
Helping People Be Seen, Heard and Believed After Adverse Vaccine Reactions



• Chet Zurawski
The last thing I'm gonna say is follow the money $$$$!! https://www.wsj.com/.../fda-ivermectin-covid-19...

WSJ.COM
Opinion | Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?



• Lorne Beaudette
Benjamin NAchumi do you mean bought and paid bureaucrats posing as scientists who are ever changing the narrative to fit the program? There are plenty of opposing oppinions from equally or better trained professionals if you are smart enough and indepent enough to look beyond the propaganda you are fed in the name of science. But hey, stand in line with your mask on and isolate yourself from life if it makes you happy. You won't be missed.


• Benjamin NAchumi
Lorne Beaudette Yes, pretty much the entire medical establishment, along with all virologists and epidemiologists, must be wrong, because some shadowy string-puller is paying them.

• Benjamin NAchumi
Lorne Beaudette I suspect that you don't really get how competitive academic research is. The incentives are to publish, and to argue with published studies, in order to get at the truth (and get tenure). The "unmuzzled" scientists you hear about outside of this process are, more often than not, the ones who are actually shilling for corporations. See, for example, the Tobacco Fight and the Climate Change "controversy".
I have a friend, a very competent physicist/engineer, who is currently challenging an accepted result, and this work implies a severe consequence for a big money industry. This is all happening out in the open in peer reviewed journals.

• Gene Ringley
Allan Wayne Crum questioning everything sometimes brings you closer to the truth.


• Lorne Beaudette
Benjamin NAchumi do you have access to peer reviewed journals or your own biology lab? If not you are just another sheep following the flock.

• Lorne Beaudette
Benjamin NAchumi right?

• Benjamin NAchumi
Lorne Beaudette yes, yes I do. But I also have a good education and the wherewithal to weigh the merits of secondary claims. In other words, having myself worked in the national lab system, I also take the word out of those labs seriously.

• Benjamin NAchumi
Lorne Beaudette when someone makes a claim, I look for the peer reviewed references. If there are none, and especially if they're presenting dramatic anecdotes instead of charts and plots, I move right on.

• Benjamin NAchumi
Lorne Beaudette Fine, whatever. Don't believe me on the facts I've expressed, however thoroughbred I say they are. After all, I don't have the desire to hunt out citations for you. The larger point is that I'm telling you not to believe people who c…

• Lorne Beaudette
Benjamin NAchumi I also tend not to believe people who think a modern education can be equated inteligence and don't realize how foolishly arrogant they truly are. Take your own advice and use some critical judgment.

• Chris Kuhn
Benjamin NAchumi I must respectfully disagree with your belief that "experts have been wrong, but no, the error rate for experts in science, where things are experimentally verified or debunked, is actually much lower". One only needs to look at history. How long did the experts say the earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, the sun revolved around the earth? Frontal lobotomies were considered by the medical community to be 'the solution' in the 40s and 50s and those who disagreed were virtually banished by the establishment. Look at all the drugs, pesticides (DDT for example), etc which were 'The Science', approved by all 'The experts. Now those things are banned and/or there are multitudes of lawsuits. Yet we are being asked to accept unproven, untested drugs without any proof of safety or efficacy. To make it worse, throw in untested tech with mRna. Then on top of that we have a government who is trying to cajole and force it's citizens to obey. Considering the fatality rate of the disease, there is more to consider.
So, to recap, today's 'experts' are tomorrow's laughingstocks. 2021 is not the end all of science


• Lisa Tilmant
Gregory Morgan any idiot who watches the news & listens to all the flip-flopping bs can figure out not any of this pandemic rhetoric makes sense



James Sluka
Lisa Tilmant might want to look up what the word “novel” means in the context of Covid. (Hint - it isn’t about a book)


• Lynette Hudson
Lisa Tilmant, yes it does not make sense if you are uneducated or an idiot....


• Brian E. Hendricks
Lynette Hudson You provide a prime example of why many people are reluctant to submit to injecting these experimental drugs. If you must resort to name calling then your argument is already lost.

• Bruce Baxter
Brian E. Hendricks
Experimental?
Drugs?
No.
These are vaccines approved for usage by the appropriate organisations.


• Lynette Hudson
Brian E. Hendricks, sweetie we have not been arguing. That is all in your mind. But since you are trying to argue, please get some sort of undergraduate degree in biology (with a course in Statistics), so that you are able to understand that the data clearly shows that there are several orders of magnitude of greater risk from covid than from the vaccines (and yes, I have a Masters in this).


• Brian E. Hendricks
Bruce Baxter Yes. Experimental. And Drugs. What part of those simple words are confusing to you? These experimental drugs did not go through the standard rigorous testing and trials that typical drugs are put through prior to FDA approval. That process typically lasts 10-15 years from the time approval is sought by the pharmaceutical company that makes them. These drugs were only "approved" on an emergency basis. All liability to the manufacturers was also waived so that they could be immediately used on humans. This means if a person has been negatively impacted by these drugs (including death) they have no recourse to hold the manufacturers or government accountable. If you wish to be a guinea pig for the pharmaceutical companies then good on you. Have fun with that, but stop trying to bully everyone into falling into lock-step with the propaganda. Many of us with questions and concerns about these rushed drugs are not "anti-vax" and have taken more vaccines than you ever will in your entire life.


• Brian E. Hendricks
Lynette Hudson "Sweetie" Aren't you so cute! Too bad your degree is not in English where you might have learned the actual definition of words. What part of "experimental drugs" do you disagree with?
#blessyourheart


• Bruce Baxter
Brian E. Hendricks
The part where you refer to a vaccine as a drug is the most confusing part.
The part where you you refer to a tested and approved treatment that is hundreds of years old as experimental also is of confusion.

• Joel Jameson
Bruce Baxter the fda still hasn't approved the vaccines.


• Teresa Beckman
Bruce Baxter
The covid vaccines are not yet licensed. They are not yet approved by the agency purposely appointed to vet vaccines. It would be safe to say the FDA are pretty much experts in this field at this point, and yet even during the extreme height of the pandemic they doubled-down on the reiteration that Emergency Use Authorization status was the only leeway they could grant the vaccines until they finish their trials. After personally reading the laws and regulations regarding EUA drugs, they are VERY clear on what is, and is not allowed to be done with them.
Congress has written acts about this- specifically for EUA vaccines. There are federal laws about this, too. There is a really concrete reason why the military didn't make it mandatory for service-members on day 1: Doing so with a normal vaccine is fine (there are TONS of mandatory vaccines we have to take), but doing it with one under EUA is a straight-up Federal crime. Here's what a business litigation lawyer has to say to businesses about whether or not they can force their employees to get a EUA vaccine under State law:
"State law often prohibits retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in a violation of federal law. Organizations that require Covid-19 vaccination in violation of federal law may face lawsuits under these state laws not only to block the policy but also for damages and attorneys’ fees. Such potentially costly lawsuits can be avoided by refraining from adopting policies that require vaccination or penalize members for choosing not too.
So... without FDA approval or licensing, how can the White House require COVID vaccines for all federal employees (and contractors), and recommend that all other employers require the vaccine of all their employees? Are they going to rescind or override ALL the laws, acts, and regulations governing this? Are they actually going to pass a law that does all that overriding? Or is a simple announcement going to hand-waive the due process here?
Think what you will about the vaccines, the pandemic, or the political parties, but circumventing all the protection measures and due process we have put in place for this exact scenario is what I have issue with here. This seems... criminal.

• Steve Barker
Bruce Baxter in fairness they only have emergency approval; not full approval. Much of the normal testing was bypassed. Doesn’t that make this beta testing?


• David Seithel
Bruce Baxter you’re completely ignorant about the nature of the covid so-called vaccines. They are nothing like tried and true centuries old vaccines.

• Joel Jameson
Bruce Baxter no, they've been given emergency use authorisation. It's not the same thing as FDA approval.

• Joel Jameson
Bruce Baxter Bruce Baxter the thing about people who share your opinion, is that you are quick to name call and speak down to people who share my opinion. It shows which side of this discussion cognitive dissonance resides. Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.


• Lynette Hudson
Brian E. Hendricks, millions of doses have been dispensed and huge amounts of data collected. The main covid vaccines are no more experimental than any other medication.

• Steve Barker
Lynette Hudson What other mRNA vaccines have been given full FDA approval?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
Post Reply

Return to “Covid 19 Pandemic - mRNA Vaccine Safety - Lockdowns”