"This Is A Test"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ohmin, Aug 13, 2021.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I meant for the UNvaccinated. If you choose not to vaccinate even tho it was freely available, and then spread to other people, then I feel like some liability on you is warranted.
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I wasn't trying to claim you said that, I was answering your question of: I find it strange that the number of deaths attributed solely to covid-19 is low and yet you claim confirmed deaths from vaccines is 0, does the same logic not apply for secondary symptoms in both cases?"

    The point is that VAERS data for deaths after vaccine have not been confirmed as causing deaths - they are on the order of "someone died of various causes after having gotten the vaccine." And there's been vaccine related side effects that have been observed to contribute to death.

    While COVID contributing to deaths is something that has been observed.

    At the same time, based on the number of people who die annually, and comparing it to the number of VAERS reports of deaths following vaccines, we have a number that is much smaller than what you'd expect based on the annual death rate alone: if ~3 million people die annually on average, then if 50% of people are vaccinated, then you'd expect somewhere on the order of 1.5 million deaths of vaccinated people even if the vaccine was a complete placebo and had no effects whatsoever.

    Additionally, we saw excess deaths spike after COVID, but not after vaccines - therefore, it's reasonable to believe that the major driver of the excess deaths is COVID (and its related impacts) and that vaccines are not driver for excess deaths.

    This is what makes the VAERS database unreliable as a data point for examining whether the vaccines are safe or not. In other words, my logic is not regarding secondary symptoms at all.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    My intention is less to argue semantics, and more to argue that the presentation of that section of the paper is a familiar tactic and one that does not show that the vaccines are unsafe.

    That section of the paper implies that the low rate of success for Phase III trials for certain types of vaccines to mean something negative, when all it means is that we haven't succeeded at a hard problem.

    In fact, as I pointed out, none of the paper actually shows any proof whatsoever regarding the safety of the vaccine, it only speculates that it COULD be unsafe.

    Sure, and the paper doesn't really help with that, does it? It just asks a bunch of questions no one, including them, can answer, and by inference, suggests that this means it is unsafe. The problem with this approach is that it is very easy to do this.

    This is exactly the tactic being used by the "auditers" of the election. Sure, it COULD be rigged for many, many reasons, but if you never show any proof that it is....

    Now, don't get me wrong. Asking questions is not a problem. Wanting answers and information is not a problem.

    The problem comes when those asking the questions don't appear to want answers, and when answers are provided simply move onto more questions without addressing or acknowledging the answers.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
  4. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    It was true, because I literally saw it. I didn't bother to look through the 60gb of images on my phone alone to prove it.

    Nothing has to be mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean a product can't also be extremely toxic


    And to play the devils advocate for you, I am consistent in that I also don't see a point in discussing your sources.
  5. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Honestly no, I may have seen it but if it was a wall of green text I probably just skipped it for something that was of more interest at the time.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  6. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Last edited: Sep 11, 2021
  7. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    Good. Let those people post gay porn in minecraft. Track down those people and arrest them, because you know damn well those are the type of sick bstrds that are molesting children. Pedophiles are murdered in prison. If you are a pedophile just do us all a favor and go play in rush hour traffic on the highway.
    Why would I put that poison inside my body. I mean they just found out that all the vaccines have Graphene Oxide, Parasites, and Stainless steel in them. Who wants to put that inside their body?

  8. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  9. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    I'm okay with banning people over death-threats, or directly inciting criminal activity (encouraging in clear and non-vague terms and/or offering to pay etc.). And even of a company forum banning ads from competitors and the like. The "you can ignore and they disappear" only applies to some forums, and only after you've registered and set up your account, it won't have any impact on anyone that isn't signed in or not registered but simply reading the forum itself.

    I do disagree with banning opposing political viewpoints, and that anyone saying: 'we should ban hate-speech' doesn't understand how nebulous that definition can be; since what some find hateful others do not, and vice versa. For example, some people hate heterosexuality (no-one on this forum that I've seen though), and others hate homosexuality (and still others would rather not form an opinion, or at least not a strong one). Then there's the "talking points" method.

    For example, in the US at least, there are a number of people convinced that saying: "All Lives Matter" is somehow racist. Those people are fools, and if some of them had their way, such a phrase would be censored or bannable. Yet, as written (and intended) it is the exact opposite of racism... heck, as written, it even values plant and animal (and the third kingdom, bacteria and stuff?) life.
  10. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    That was one heck of a leap in logic.

    I am not, nor have I hever, suggested that there is never valid evidence. This is why experiments are and should be repeated by others. If you hypothesis that, while on Earth, if you hold an apple in the air, and then let it go, it will fall towards the ground, that is a valid hypothesis. One that is very easy to test repeatedly. There may, however, be some instances where this does not actually happen, usually because a variable was changed. For example, if what you're holding isn't actually an apple, but a lighter-than-air baloon in the shape of an apple. However, when such an annomaly comes up, you can investigate and see what caused it.

    No doubt, humans are fallable, memory can fade or become distorted, but that doesn't mean that no evidence is valid.

    It does, however, mean that if there is a known quantity: For example, the US CDC itself claims that the test that has been used is UNABLE to tell the difference between Corona Virus and Influenza Virus... one can understandably question WHY the false positives are there... and, ideally, formulate a repeatable test to determine HOW MUCH rate of error is in the PCR false positives and/or false negatives.

    It is known that the PCR produces false positives, particularly when used at higher cycles.

    So the question is... what is the correct number of cycles. Of the old data set using the higher cycles, how much do we need to re-test (if possible) or discard? If the data set is corrupted due to a large amount of false information than should the data set be junked entirely? If that data is invalid, what are the proper means by which one can ascertain if policy decisions on that corrupted data were actually effective?

    I've heard, consistently, that the PCR test is flawed, since it's introduction. Indeed, one of the reasons why the initial batch of testing kits were thrown out is because they were believed to be contaminated and would have provided false positives (or even helped spread the disease). This is not the only issue, but the point is, if you're letting helium ballons go when you think you're letting apples go, you're going to have a drastically different result. If you aren't sure what you're letting go is an apple (or that you're on Earth), than the experiment itself becomes pointless, at least until you have set the proper variables and excluded the improper ones.

    John Magufuli, the deceased President of Tanzania (and a former medical doctor, as I understand) did some control tests using a fruit, and a goat (goats are not believed to be able to contract COVID, as I understand it, nor are they thought to be carriers for SARS2). Both tests came up "positive."

    So obviously the question is, is the flaw with the test proceedure? With that batch of testing equipment in particular? Or do we need to start feering Pawpaw fruits and Goats as carriers for this disease?

    The result itself is "evidence" and likely repeatable for anyone with the resources. If the test is repeated with different results, it may be indicative of a problem with Magufuli method etc. And likely more experiments will be needed to confirm that. But the apparent false positives from those control tests are still evidence... just not necessarily that goats are a resevior for SARS2.
  11. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    I think they are both equally flawed, actually. If you accept one, you should therefore accept the other barring confirmed evidence to the contrary. Right now, the establishment narrative is to accept one but not the other. But then if the COVID death rate is wrong, that impacts and corrupts the statistics being used to push policy and agendas. By what degree are those statistics corrupted? How will we find out?

    Rather than assume the current statistics are correct, they should be properly studied and confirmed using verified methodologies, or discarded for new, more accurate information if and when such is producable. Of course, if we had a reliable way to determine the rate of false positives/negatives, we could potentially "adjust" that statistics accordingly, though the test itself would still be bad for determining for example if someone should be quarantined (which, incidentally, a number of courts in other nations have so ruled already).
  12. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Agreed in principle, though there is still the question of how valid dying "with COVID" is as a statistic versus dying "from COVID" in terms of how disease is dealt with. There have been examples and explanations, even by Burkes and the like, that even if someone died in a car accident or after getting shot, if they were tested positive they were still lumped in with the others. It has also been policy to pay more money for COVID death cases, so there may be an element of fraud in some cases (this is merely speculation). According to the US CDC late last year, only 6% of all death certificates they had were actually from COVID only, every other death had, on average, 2-3 additional morbidities (causes of death). COVID may, or may not, be compounding these, or even bypassing them to cause death. Certainly the much lower (est. 94% or so versus 99% for most else) survival rate for the elderly suggests it compounds, and prior to widespread PCR testing, we had used a symptomatic-based diagnosis, so obviously there is an observation of people dying from COVID, but this is not necessarily reflected in the numbers accumulated.

    Anyway, you're finally starting to go towards showing evidence rather than merely arguing logic... so let's get into that shall we?

    This selection of studies focused on Antigen or Antibody tests, and molecular assays, as a means of confirming COVID PCR tests. The later (the assays) they couldn't get good data on for the purposes of their paper (doesn't rule it out, but their lack of data means my lacking data), and they noted a higher rigor for Antigen tests, what the numbers you have above are based on. However, the CDC has stated that antigen tests could result in false positives since the antibodies used to fight COVID are so similar to that of other Conona Viruses, including the Common Cold; and due to the nature of antibodies, do not necessarily indicate a current active infection (or may be too soon on the false negative side of things).

    If antibodies for the common cold are being used to "confirm" the accuracy of PCR testing for SARS2... that's seems flawed. Do you have more studies showing the accuracy of antibody tests and their ability to distinguish SARS2 specifically?

    The fact also remains that there has been no independent isolate produced to confirm that SARS2 is responsible for COVID etc. (I'm not saying it isn't), this is standard proceedure in virology, and is the main important step for creating standard vaccines (we have isolates of Influenza A and B for example). The lack of this isolate is one of the primary reasons why mRNA is being used, to "approximate" or be "very close to" the gene code provided by China to the WHO, and what is being used to identify COVID via PCR testing.

    Yet apparently the PCR test cannot distinguish between the Flu and SARS2... so either that gene data is flawed or incomplete... so where's the isolate to confirm it's picking up what it's supposed to pick up, and not merely the Common Cold or the Flu in addition to SARS2?
  13. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Preliminary data suggested that the vaccine granted immunity (as defined by: would not test positive once "fully vaccinated"). While the precise rate of efficacy claimed varied by the developer, additional data provided shows that this is not the case. One need only look at regions and nations with high rates of vaccination and see that their infection rate is as high or higher, Israel for example had >60% or so of COVID hospitalizations be people that were fully vaccinated.

    There are some claims (perhaps verified I haven't looked into it enough yet) that vaccinated persons have reduced symptoms, which would be good, but it still would go contrary to the idea that it is highly effective. Likewise it has been acknowledged that the vaccine does not stop transmission of the virus...

    There are also some claims that this issue of vaccinated people getting sick comes down to variants (particularly "Delta" and recently "Mu" has been discussed by some papers). However, there has been no discussion of the PCR test actually being able to distinguish between these variants (let alone anti-body tests). So there's no confirmation that the vaccine is only flawed against these variants and not the disease in general.

    Either way, this contravenes the preliminary data used to justify Emergency Use Authorization, and brings in question the US FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine.

    (Plus the pushback against potential therapuetics, like HCQ and Ivermectin, and others, which various studies have shown effective, but some have not. None te less, there is no information that tens of thousands of people are dying shortly after taking those medicines at appropriate dosages; nor of millions suffering unexplained injuries. Indeed, both are not only cheap, but often hailed for their relative safety compared to most pharmacueticals. As such, even if they aren't actually that effective... neither is the vaccine, and the vaccine is potentially more dangerous.)
  14. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    That is absurd. The vaccines are acknowledged to not stop transmission. Therefore there is no meaningful difference in terms of spread. Even if the vaccine was effective at blocking transmission this would still be absurd.

    First of all, there is no valid reason to assume everyone is constantly a carrier. It completely ignores natural immunity gained by those that have gotten infected. It ignores that some people cannot effectively use any vaccine due to immune stystem disabilities (AIDS, etc.). And again it makes the assumption that people will be ill AND transfer it to others but that it would not have transfered if they had gotten the vaccine.

    You have argued for segregation of those without vaccines, based on the POTENTIAL problem they might cause... it's the same argument given for Japanese Internment Camps in WW2. "Well, they MIGHT cause a problem, so we have to treat them differently."

    Certainly, if someone is confirmed to be ill, than there are times when a quarantine would be appropriate, but only for the duration of the illness (and administering a vaccine to someone that is currently ill is counter-productive at worst and redundant at best). Assuming someone should be liable for the death of another for unknowingly transferring a disease to them (how are you even going to prove it was them that passed it to them) is absurd.

    Intentionally... that's a different matter, and indeed intentionally making others sick is already a crime (though not always easy to prove with common air-borne illnesses).
  15. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

  16. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    You didn't research the background of the man who runs the website quackwatch. Stephen Barrett is an unlicensed psychiatrist who failed his certification boards and is paid off by big pharma, the FDA, and allopathic medicine to attack naturopathic medicine and chiropractors. Quackwatch is a biased website. Stephen Barrett is an AMA shill and completely supports anything big pharma wants to shove down our throats and brazenly attacks consumers in articles and in court. I like you man I just think you went for a quick (GOTCHA) comeback and experienced confirmation bias.

    Stephen Barrett gets paid to push articles that promote Aspartame a toxic sweetener that causes diabetes. You couldn't have fallen prey to a bigger shill for the American Medical Association.

    Read the article below and see how this shill gets a taste of justice.

    Last edited: Sep 9, 2021
    Ohmin and L33Ch like this.
  17. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    VAERS being an unreliable database is an understatement :D

    Ohmin likes this.
  18. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Guilty as charged on both counts ;) but that same bias also applies in regards to the alleged contamination of covid vaccines.

    Chromatography and a Mass Spectrometry analysis would provide better results and determine both the compounds and their volumes.

    Young also doesn't appear to hold the credentials to have any serious credibility on the subject.

    Graphene is a common nano-carrier used in modern medicines and it requires more than a few pics to support the other claims.

    Last edited: Sep 23, 2021
  19. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    I'd say it warrants further investigation though. There are plenty of times wherein discoveries are made by people outside of a field of expertise, especially if that field of expertise is relatively controlled/regulated by powers that have a poor track record of... not sure what the right phrase here would be, for lack of a better... "not being ****s?" to their consumer base.

    Pfizer, J&J, and many Chinese companies (and/or their knock-offs) have not exactly had the best track record in terms of selling pharmacueticals with full disclosure of risks and the like. They've just been big/wealthy/connected enough to generally remain intact and largely unharmed. If you make several billion in selling defective goods than a billion in settlments isn't much of a setback (to use a purely hypothetical example, I don't recall what the status or results of the latest lawsuits against those companies actually was).

    We are currently in an age where most major media companies do not share Sokolov's views on the matter of discourse, much to the detriment of us all. It is good to continue to follow up, and, particularly if one doesn't check their credentials and story... to not rely only on one source for coming to a conclusion on such complicated and, (in my view deliberately by others) muddled topics as this.
  20. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021

Share This Page