"This Is A Test"

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

  1. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    You're nested quotes make it difficult to respond to you as I'd like... It doesn't seem intentional on your part so I'm curious.

    That said:

    Which is why I don't rely on him and him alone to know that the 2020 election was stolen; or even that China has been clearly involved in some shenanigans in the US (and elsewhere). As I've said elsewhere and don't need to repeat for the sake of getting off-topic; there are multiple sources pointing to problems with the 2020 election, both with regards to physical fraud and potential digital fraud/hacking of voting systems.

    Among other things, graphene oxide was not the only material allegedly found, also other metals and at least one parasite.

    Further, it would appear that a (controversial of course, everything is) study in Spain found graphene oxide in vaccines as well. So it's not just one source making the claim.

    Interestingly, and potentially unrelated, Health Canada issued a recall of masks in April this year in response to having found they contain graphene (which has no discernable positive use in such masks).

    Finally... how biocumulative is graphene oxide? How much of it is necessary to cause health problems? Surely these sorts of follow-up questions are important.

    To help with the first one... it's not clear, but it appears that certain types of anti-bodies are able to breakdown GO: but the best I could find was articles in 2018 on this, and they were at the time still unsure what the byproducts would be, and how harmful they are. For my part, I know very little about Graphene Oxide, but the direct substance is not as biocumulative as, say, Mercury (which incidentally is also used in some vaccine shots... for some reason); but I don't know about it's byproducts.

    Ultimately, a "1%" solution of graphene (which seems very high I'm not sure why you picked it) is not likely necessary to cause problems... but it would require more information; and I know very little about the substance myself.

    From a brief search trying to find information on biocumulation and biodegradation... Graphene oxides are claimed to have "excellent antibacterial properties" according to a paper in 2019, and for the last three years has been looked at as a potential vehicle for nano-technology... which might explain it's use in mRNA vaccines. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/graphene-oxide

    The validity of this claim is yet to be confirmed, and of course it would not mean it can't by toxic to cell structure in the process. There are plenty of things with strong anti-bacterial properties which should not be put into a human body even at low dosages. (and anti-bacterials are not always also anti-virals)

    What's interesting is that it's considered a "wild claim." But given that the methodology to check this has been published along with the findings... the only thing holding people back from independent investigation is access to sample materials and equipment... yet such things could be made available to the public to ausuage people's concerns. Given how strongly the vaccination is being pushed, this seems like it would be a worthwhile endeavour.
  2. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Ultimately you need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff or waste valuable time chasing "wild claims"
  3. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    I agree in principle. However, many have not been taught the difference, or indeed, have been taught that wheat is chaff and chaff is wheat.

    That someone other than Oswald killed JFK was taught to many to be a "wild claim." Those that believe otherwise were "conspiracy theorists" and indeed the CIA and others intentionally pushed that term to have negative connotations and associations with "crazy" people.

    Yet the physical evidence itself shows a very high propability of at least a second shooter, if not that Oswald simply could not make the shot as described in the "official" narrative.

    Much the same has been happening (with far less success IMHO) with regards to where COVID came from (a lab in Wuhan, the wet market, pangolins, etc.) While what little evidence was able to be gathered is less than conclusive, it still points to the lab theory. Created in conjunction with funding and approval from Dr. Fauci and his subsidiaries; modifying SARS1. The bat and pangolin theory have no evidence to support them, and the wet market theory didn't pan out (and China tries to push against this these days anyway, again with varied success in other nations).

    Yet, particularly initially, this theory was thrown out completely by most media outlets and "official" or "authoritative" medical positions in various governments. It was considered a "wild" or "outrageous" claim that COVID could be some modified virus accidentally, let alone possibly intentionally released into the general population.

    Meanwhile, anyone that questions masks, vaccines, or lockdowns is likewise generally derided... even though there are many and very valid questions behind these strategies of dealing with the virus.

    There is a saying when it comes to grand schemes: "refuge in audacity." (From Tacitus) Which is to do something so outrageous others will refuse to believe it was actually done at all based purely on their inability to comprehend that someone would do it. Or that they must have done it for some other reason than the actual one.

    Despite consistent evidence most major media (and tech) companies (including Reuters) clearly pushing in favor of particular narratives, there are many that find the concept so outrageous (something that would only happen in Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China!) that they reject this principle, and thus embrace the pushed narrative as if it must therefore be true, because saying otherwise would be a "wild claim" to to be disregarded.

    And thus to them, chaff (propaganda) looks like wheat (good information), and wheat looks like chaff.

    Even for those that have realized this problem, it is still difficult to not dismiss wheat as chaff (and there's still a lot of chaff outside of major media and tech companies, don't get me wrong on that point).

    Multiple, independent from each other, sources have claimed to find graphene in at least some of the vaccines... that seems worthy of looking into further, even if just to disprove it and move on to other things. Finding one thing that says: "they are wrong" (even acknowledging that contrary source is flawed) and leaving at that is... not good practice in threshing.

    At least not in my view. But then again you may well have far more limited time than myself, for all that I know. And there are other things that may be a higher priority to look into (certainly the graphene thing for me is not that high on the list personally, but I have no reason to reach any solid conclusion on the matter as a result of my lack of information on the subject). I wouldn't turn away more information from @profhulk or the like on the matter even if it's not a high priority.
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
  4. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    So, specifically for the Reuter's "factcheck" you linked to.

    They provided no meaningful information. Essentially, all they did was question the findings of Dr. Madrid (didn't bring up anyone else that found similar findings), questioning his sample.

    Then they reiterated the stated ingredients list published by the producer of the drug.

    They did NOT perform their own microscopy examinations. They did not find conclusive fault with Madrid's process. They did not cite anyone else that performed such examinations on other samples to disprove them. They cited "experts" that disagreed with the finding but that in itself is meaningless if they don't perform a test themselves, it's just an opinion, not a "fact."

    Yet their "factcheck" draws a specific conclusion of "false." But they didn't disprove the claim.

    This is a form of propaganda. It's also interesting because it rarely goes the same way, with the same "standards" when it goes against prevailing narratives. When was the last time you saw Reuters issues a "fact check" declairing it "false" that masks are somehow an effective prophylactic, despite there being a dirth of evidence that they function as stated?

    Or the simple fact that the manufacturers of the masks themselves straight up tell you it won't stop you from getting COVID?
  5. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    Fact checking doesn't work like you think it does. If you want to say that vaccines have graphene based on that work from Dr. Madrid, you'd be wrong, because the author itself states that his procedure is non conclusive and that his sample was obtained by irregular means. It's the responsibility of the people making the claims to prove or disprove things, not on the reuters' fact check team. What reuters is disproving, even, it's not the work itself, but the claim that said report states that vaccines have graphene in them, which is not stated anywhere on it, that's the "fact" that is being disproved.
    Also I don't know if you have the ability to read the report in spanish, but if you read it, you'll find it a lot more conservative than saying "vaccines have graphene". The report states clearly that a person requested the analysis of a solution that he sent to the laboratory, so you have a person that is against vaccines or has spread misinformation previously, sending a dubious sample to a laboratory, asking them to look for graphene in it (as opposed to say, determine if the ingredient list is accurate), and even then the conclusions are that the presence of graphene cannot be discarded nor confirmed.
    What motivates this person to ask specifically for presence of graphene? a hunch? he inspected the sample itself? he has insider information?
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It's interesting that he places so much faith on this thing... even tho it's highly questionable in both source and metholodogy, and yet the vaccine (and vaccines in general) are so mistrusted despite the literal mountains of data we have about their safety.

    Seriously, with ALL this attention on vaccines by so many people on both sides... it's a random person sending in their own samples that shows a problem? A problem that others aren't able to reproduce?

    Hell, I am sure you could go get a sample of a vaccine and get it tested and get your own copy of the data.


    I am honestly not even going to bother replying to him directly anymore. It's a lost cause.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2021
  7. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    It works exactly the way I think it does.

    The answer to: "is there graphene in the vaccines" would, by the information reuters put out, be: "nonconclusive." Because that's the only data they checked. To give "False" or "True" would be incorrect in this instance. Yet they went with "False."

    I put far less importance on this point than you seem to imply. I simply say it's worth investigating further.

    So why didn't Reuters do at least that?

    Except that others did reproduce it? As I said, it's not just one person that found evidence of Graphene in vaccines. Maybe it's a number of isolated incidents. Or perhaps a problem with a specific production facility rather than the entirety. I don't know, but it would seem to be worth doing more tests... so why not encourage others to conduct them themselves and see that there isn't really a problem?

    That's your right. Indeed, while I was particularly angry with you a short while ago, I thought about putting you on ignore. Turns out you can't for admins. In the end I figured it wasn't worth it however.

    But you can of course choose to ignore me if you wish. However, if you have no interest in conversing with me (at least on this topic), if you've given up on trying to convince me... that means you're "evidence" isn't nearly good enough. It means you don't care to produce that evidence. Or was it simply never really there in the first place?

    You claim I put so much faith in an inconclusive study... which I really don't. Yet you put your faith in the promises and words of others without any real science to back it up. If you're unable or unwilling to produce the evidence that I "NEED" to take something or wear something for the good of all... than you forfeit any claim to being able to force me other than your own petty authoritarian desire for control. And simply put, I have absolutely no reason to respect that. Nor does anyone else.

    None the less, I wish you well.
  8. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    You missed the part where I spelled it for you. The answer is not to "is there graphene in the vaccines?" the answer is to "Vaccines have graphene because this article says so" and that is false. And again, checking for graphene specifically is weird and the health authorities of countries around the world were supposed to check whether or not the vaccines were safe, if you don't trust the US agency, you can trust the European or South American ones.
    Sokolov likes this.
  9. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    It doesen't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this (Bologna-19 is the biggest trojan horse ever). My brother is a nurse and he has watched several other nurses go into comas or experience anaphylactic shock, gurian barre syndrome, and other side effects. That is in his ward in the hospital alone. Nurses would rather quit than take this. Global numbers are astounding. My uncle who took this bullsht shot now has to under go open heart surgery. Estimates are somewhere around 14000 people have died from the shot worldwide.

    For a good idea on how fkng insane this is just look at how many deaths it took to pull the swine flu vaccine off the market in 2009. 26 deaths and they pulled it.

    Of course you won't listen to me so here are a list of assorted medical professionals who are warning you not to take this MRNA injection.


    If you don't like that video here is a funeral director maybe you want to listen to him.....


    It is becoming obvious that the people in charge have lost their minds and have committed Menticide on their constituents. For those that are not vaccine damaged and spiritually awake you will need to join a parallel structure and get a garden, your own water supply and leave the city. Satanic retards will be satanic retards.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
    Ohmin likes this.
  10. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Not surprising that these are the same "medical professionals" who have been spreading misinformation about COVID-19 are now spreading misinformation about the vaccine. As for the funeral director - I also remember him, he was the guy criticizing the lockdowns for making it harder for his industry.

    "Estimates" of 14k deaths - is that the self reported unverified VAERS database again?

    Keeping in mind these are "people who died after receiving the vaccine." The problem with something like this is when someone takes the vaccine, they are on the lookout for ANYTHING - there's a confirmation bias happening here. And we have to remember that things NORMALLY happen, vaccines or not.

    Let's look at the number of deaths per year in the US: ~2.9 million per year for a mortality rate of ~900 deaths per 100,000 population.

    How many people have received at least one dose of the vaccine in the US? 206 million.

    So that means that, at NORMAL death rates, we should expect that in a year that 185k of the people who have taken the vaccine will die... and it'd be perfectly normal from a statistical standpoint - so how can "14k people have died" after getting the vaccine be "proof" of anything at all?

    It'd be like claiming that <Icefang> is underpowered because there are 140 games in which it was in a deck and the player lost the game. That number is virtually meaningless without context (how many people played Icefang, what is the win % with and without the rune, can we look at whether it was deployed, what about the player's rankings, etc.) and by itself proves nothing even if it was true (instead of just an unverified number).

    So "14k deaths from the vaccine!" sounds scary but then you look at it in detail and realize that it's not "from" the vaccine, only temporally correlated, and the number is far less than you'd expect from the normal death rate anyway, which is, of course why people who use these sort of numbers tend not to go into very much detail about it.

    Anyway, when they can prove any of it with actual evidence related to the vaccine instead of just spreading fear with anecdotes and misleading numbers, let me know.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Just to clarify, you are talking about the 1976 swine flu here, not the 2009. Number of alleged deaths vary from 25 to 32 depending on who you ask but none were found to be directly be linked to the vaccine.

    Anyway, it's true the vaccine was pulled, but it wasn't because of deaths.

    Rather, the vaccine was pulled because of some prevalence of Guillain-Barré syndrome (362 people out of 45 million doses OR 10 cases extra per 1 million doses) AND the fact that the swine flu never reached pandemic levels so there was basically no need for it - the 1976 Swine Flu killed ONE person and resulted in hospitalized 13 out of 200 reported cases in the United States.


    Honestly, the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine story tells you that it really doesn't take much for the relevant agencies and medical community to want to stop vaccination (especially when there's little risk from the thing it's immunizing people from) rather than the idea that they like forcing it on everyone regardless of the risks and benefits.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  12. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    With regards to Guillain-Barré syndrome, it is a pretty serious condition and is being thoroughly studied as the underlying cause is unknown (whether vaccine related or not).

    Studies have shown that those who suffer from flu-like illnesses are at a higher risk of GBS, and that vaccinated individuals may actually have reduced incidence of GBS as a result of avoiding such infections in the first place.

    But so far there's no good evidence directly linking GBS and vaccines in general (1, 2), but for the 1976 Swine Flu, that vaccine was found be a good candidate for a causal relationship in regards to GBS, according to a 2003 review by the NIH (3):


    2: "Our review indicates that, with rare exceptions, associations between vaccines and GBS have been only temporal. There is little evidence to support a causal association with most vaccines. The evidence for a causal association is strongest for the swine influenza vaccine that was used in 1976–77. Studies of influenza vaccines used in subsequent years, however, have found small or no increased risk of GBS."
    (Reminder that the increased incidence rate for the Swine Flu vaccine of 1976 was 1 additional case per 100,000 doses)

    3: (Interesting note here is that the incidence of GBS among vaccinated military personnel for the 1976 Swine Flu did not show an increase in incident rate. The increase was only observed in the general population.)

    Specifically with regards to the COVID-19 vaccines, up to June 2021, there were relatively few reports of GBS with regards to the mRNA vaccines (I only know of two single confirmed cases, one of which was from a patient who already had a history of GBS), and a total of 98 cases for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine out of ~13 million (note that this counts incidents up to 42 days after administration of the vaccine).

    So, doing the same calculation for the above for deaths, we first need the normal incidence rate of around 2-3 GBS cases per 100,000 normally. This means that the J&J vaccine has about a 3x rate of GBS than you'd normally expect - which, unlike the death count, makes the incidence rate of GBS for this vaccine somewhat meaningful, but less than the rate of the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine.

    Given this, the fact that your brother has allegedly seen multiple cases of GBS in his hospital ward alone, they must be really unlucky considering that even in a hospital of 10,000 vaccinated nurses, you'd have a very low chance of finding even a single case of GBS (vaccine induced or otherwise), even if they all took the J&J vaccine which is where the overwhelming majority of GBS cases have been reported (when the truth is less than 5% of doses have been the J&J vaccine).
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  13. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    I meant H1N1. Not like I care that much all vaccines are poison. The entire idea of vaccination is nonsense developed by Edward Jenner and further developed by Louis Pasteur.

    Vaccines create autism more than they create immunity.
    Ohmin likes this.
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Oh yeah? The same H1N1 vaccine that was never pulled, given to 80 million Americans in 2009 and 2010 and continues to be available? The vaccine that is now even available in nasal spray form?

    That vaccine?
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2021
  15. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    I take it you didn't actually read the article or even look at it's headline then?

    It goes on of course, but the point is, in part, encapsulated in the headline claiming: "COVID-19 Vaccines do not contain graphene oxide". That headline is inherently false, because they simply don't KNOW one way or the other. Nothing in their article conclusively proves it one way or the other. They say (understandably perhaps) that the original Spanish findings were inconclusive... but that's it. The "source" they go to to say it's NOT in there is the ingredients list put out by Pfizer. Asking a company: "did you put a potentially deadly toxin into your product?" Is generally not going to get a conclusive answer in most cases.

    On what is surely an unrelated note: the former President and CEO of Reuters is also a board member of Pfizer: https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1409509557311881219 according to his own bio page. And they aren't the only ones to have connections to large pharmacuetical companies, including Pfizer. Members of the FDA have direct connections to Pfizer and Moderna, etc. (Might explain why they seem to sideline J&J more often, but that's speculation).


    I don't follow the logic on this. Why would European or South American ones be more trustworthy? Are they somehow going to not be under the same or potentially greater level of influence from the same pharmacuetical companies and political pressures from China and the US? I'm not so focused on the US I don't see what else is going on in this world, or fail to recognize the international nature of the problem I'm pointing out.

    European nations, and in general any of those stemming from it (So, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, etc.) have in many cases been WORSE than the US on certain things regarding this Pandemic. Australia and New Zealand especially. Canada recently decided it would fire it's federal employees which use the affirming slogan: "Let's Go Brandon!" that was popularized by NBC following a NASCAR event and interview with a driver of that name. Which goes to show how much China's methodology is influencing that fair nation at this time.

    No, there's no particular reason to trust government agencies. Nor foreign agencies above that of domestic.

    If the US agencies, or others, want me to take a jab then they must convince me it is in my best interest to do so. Not try to force it on me through extortion or blackmail or bribes. Not to simply say: "trust us we knot this is good for you." But to SHOW it.

    And thus far, according to these self-same agencies... there is no statistically significant reduction in viral spread in areas where mask mandates have been employed. According to the CDC (lacking basic protocals like looking at control subjects, providing methodology, etc.) there was a less than 2% reduction in spread from mask mandates over 100 days. This means well over 98% of the virus was still spreading. This is a statistically insignificant amount, and does NOT justify mask mandates. "It's not working" doesn't mean you keep trying it over and over. Indeed, trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is often said to be the definition of insanity.

    Likewise, with the so-called vaccines. There has been no measured significant drop in viral spread in areas with high rates of vaccines. Sure, some of that is because of relative outliers, like Israel, but if anything that actually proves the point. That Israel, despite an over 60% vaccination of it's population, can have such a high degree of viral spread in it's populace (and not at all limited to just those unvaccinated) shows that the compound(s) in question simply do not work as advertised. Yest Israel and other nations keep insisting we must take it. Why?

    Shouldn't we trust the science over the authorities? And let us not, as Fauci seems to encourage, conflate the authorites and "officials" in scientific fields for the science itself. We've had that sort of thing before and it almost always fed into supporting a narrative of the controlling elite rather than the good of the people. See: Galileo et al.

    On a related note, there ARE some places which have had statistically lower spread. Indeed, Africa, which was beleived to likely be ravaged by COVID given it's poorer living conditions and access to medical care (supposedly), has many nations with greatly below average infection rates. And those nations were primarily those that were found to be issueing Ivermectin (according to a Japanese Study by it's inventor) as a prophylactic against parasitical infestations. Those same nations also have generally no vaccine mandate and/or rather low vaccination rates. Yet this drug, a prize-winning one used by humans around the world, has been derided by our own FDA as "Horse-worm paste" and the like.

    Likewise, HCQ had verified false studies put out claiming it was dangerous, despite doctors "on the front lines" seeing it be effective in many instances. Meanwhile the much more expensive Remdesovir was approved for use... and found to be largely ineffective and more harmful to patients than HCQ. Regeneron is still not widely available, despite it's apparent success in treating the President when he was apparently infected.

    It should be noted that, at least in the US, the FDA could not have granted any of the vaccines an Emergency Use Authorization if any thearapuetics had been given approval for use against COVID.

    This one, yes: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFlu/vaccine-experts-urge-calm-h1n1-shot-pulled/story?id=9168135

    That one that was indeed pulled.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  16. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Do you have specific examples of these same people "spreading misinformation"?

    Because the main culprits spreading misinformation on "the Wuhan Virus" that I recall were, the CCP, the WHO, the US CDC (and others), the Lancet (corrected), and the major Media Companies in the US and around the world (which often ignored any corrections or did not advertise them, and continues to spew forth propaganda).

    So why do you trust those organizations again?
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  17. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    And yet you and Chickenpox2 and others insist on using the "temporally correlated" COVID death statistic. Constantly, and to justify authoritarian measures to require people to take medicine they don't want or beleive they need. Even the CDC recognized that only 6% of the death certificates they recieved had ONLY COVID as cause of death. And Birx and others acknowledged the "temporal" nature of the statistic.

    500k might sound like a lot, but when you see that ti's only "temporally correlated" and the number is far less than you'd expect... it makes a difference.

    Same with COVID then. No? Why this insistance on upholding double-standards? Oh to be sure people have died from COVID, and to be sure people have died and been permantly injured from Vaccines (and not just recent ones). The numbers might not be perfect, but then there's this problem one set of data being suppressed, and another amplified by media and tech companies. You recognize that free flow of information and discussion is a GOOD thing. Yet these other groups and companies with greater influence and power in today's society disagree. What happens to the public information when censorship occurs? Distortion of information on all sides.

    The media (visual, audio, or written), is a lense. It can help focus on information and provide more detail than one might see otherwise. But a lense can distort information, or provide too great a focus on one thing and make it more difficult to see another.

    You're assuming then that political and economic interests haven't shifted in the last 45 years. Or how much resistance to vaccines was in the public square in general.

    45 years before 1976 we had California and others places embracing Eugenics and the forced sterilization of criminals and the mentally disabled. We had a US that largely wanted to stay out of wars since the previous one was so nasty. Etc.

    Things can change a lot in half a century, though often cycles repeat.

    In school, we're taught that those that answer "wrongly" are to be punished and held back. Yet the one that determines whether an answer is "right or wrong" is generally the teacher (the "authority" in a classroom, from whome all knowledge stems), or whomever else is setting the curriculum. If the teacher, etc. are corrupt, or at least have a specific agenda they want to push, the objectively "right" answers can suddenly become "wrong" and vice versa.

    These agendas can change with the teacher, or with new developments even if the teacher does not change. If the teacher is pressured for example, and feels like they might lose their job anyway, they might change their attitude and push their agenda on their students even harder. Or if a teacher feels that they now have the backing of the school board and are above complaints from others, they might do the same either way. Their lack of pushing that agenda might not be because they didn't hold it, but rather because they did not feel the need, and/or empowered, to push it as much as they wanted to.

    And different teachers, different authorities, will have different perspectives on how hard "too hard" is as well, even if they share the same agenda.

    You seem to not mind tens of thousands dying if it means a vaccine, with unproven effectiveness and unknown long-term effects, is foisted on the people. This seems wrong to me. I don't hate you or anything as a result of this. I want you to live a full and happy life free of fear and worry. But please stop supporting evil things. For your own sake if nothing else.
  18. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    Not gonna do a detailed response.
    You are right in that the reuter's headline is misleading, I haven't noticed that. the first line of the article "Online reports that COVID-19 vaccines contain graphene oxide are unfounded." would've been a much better headline. Other than the headline though, the article is on point for the reasons I already described and having read myself the report from Madrid.

    About trusting European or south american agencies it's not about being better or worse, it's about them being in a different circle of influence with respect to economical powers in principle. A clear example of this is the approval of the Russian vaccine by south american agencies and not by european ones. This suggests that these agencies do not share a common agenda at least.
    Also, is my understanding that lobbying in the united states is a common practice that really affects the application of power towards the rich. It's like this in every part of the world of course but it's at least a crime outside the US. This also affects "negatively" if you may, the approval of vaccines by these agencies.
  19. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    That the Madrid report is not conclusive? Sure, but it also ignores (or was written prior to and not subsequently updated for) similar findings by others, which had fewer problems in relation to methodology than the Madrid sample finding; and was the catalyst of even bringing up the Madrid finding itself.

    However, being "non-conclusive" doesn't mean there is no cause for alarm in and of itself (only that more investigation is warranted). The "fact check" offers nothing but something for people like you to point to, and it is inherently misleading.

    Further more, I've studied journalism. There are a few well-known rules about proper writing for articles.

    First, that most people only ever read the headline. Those that read further, don't always read the entire article, either stopping after the first paragraph or so, or skipping to the end in some cases, etc.

    This means that for both the writer, and the editor, the headline and the first paragraph or two are the most important to convey the story. Ideally, you give a summary first, then flesh out details later in the article. This articles DOES follow that formulae, with the caviat of having a "true/false" "conclusion" at the end.

    If one reads only the beginning or the end, one would be under the assumption that any possibility of graphene being in vaccines was throughly disproven... which it was not. The only thing that the article shows is that the person claiming the find does not state it is conclusive, let alone conclusive for all vaccines everywhere. No other factual information is given, outside of the claimed ingredients list by a party with a conflict of interest. Everything else given in the article is opinion, not facts.

    Does the finding prove conclusively that graphene is in vaccines? No. Nor does anything else in the article disprove it. Do you not see a problem with this being touted as some sort of definitive "fact check"?
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  20. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    I don't see you calling out the people that without any factual evidence stated that vaccines had graphene in them. What do you think of them?

Share This Page