Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
peacenlove could win this discussion. A convincing arguement.

And our "I am The Science" is suspended. You'd think
the Pratt would be able to moderate his responses being as how crucial it is for us all to benefit from his intellect and superior knowledge!

Select to expand quote

japie said..
And our "I am The Science" is suspended.

What did he get suspended for this time?

Select to expand quote

japie said..

D3 said..

snoidberg said..
I just can't wait for the liability protection to be removed from vaccine manufacturers.
Without this shield they will pay more in injury compensation than what they can possibly make in sales.
Hope no one has big pharma investments because it's going to freefall.

And what would be the follow on effects of this outcome?

What are you hoping the benefits to the wider population will be?

Surely that is simple. They will manufacture vaccines that are safe and effective.

More likely manufacturers stop producing vaccines. The threat of litigation and cost of insurance will make it unfeasiblle to make and distribute them.

For some people this will be considered a massive win for public health, believing that this will somehow prevent autism, chronic disease and allergies.

As Peacenlove states: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

Unfortunately, the costs from the infectious diseases that these vaccines prevent will sky-rocket as soon as vaccination rated decrease. Human and dollar cost.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
As Peacenlove state: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

I wonder how much of this food allergy stuff is real vs it's trendy to be " allergic to gluten"?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

As Peacenlove state: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

Looking back on my school years, I suspect that all those kids that we thought were weird were actually autistic or Asperger's, just undiagnosed because we didn't know about those diagnoses back then?

Select to expand quote

philn said..

D3 said..

As Peacenlove state: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

Looking back on my school years, I suspect that all those kids that we thought were weird were actually autistic or Asperger's, just undiagnosed because we didn't know about those diagnoses back then?

Yeah, pretty much unless you needed a carer or in a wheelchair it was assumed you were "normal".

We had plenty of kids who displayed behaviours consistent with developmental delays or other mental disorders.

Sure diagnosis plays a part. But generally I think there are more kids with allergies and way more fat kids now than there were decades ago.

Elon Musk is autistic. I wonder if a diagnosis and the label really helps or hinders someone's development..

Select to expand quote

japie said..

And our "I am The Science" is suspended. You'd think
the Pratt would be able to moderate his responses being as how crucial it is for us all to benefit from his intellect and superior knowledge!

Is a pratt the same as a prat? And if so, is it less offensive than an idiot?

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
Sure diagnosis plays a part. But generally I think there are more kids with allergies and way more fat kids now than there were decades ago.

Elon Musk is autistic. I wonder if a diagnosis and the label really helps or hinders someone's development..

Diagnoses can definitely help people access appropriate support if needed.

I wonder if the fact there are more people with allergies today, is that they were able survive their childhood?

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

japie said..
And our "I am The Science" is suspended.

What did he get suspended for this time?

I don't know. I was curious as to why he'd had no input so I had a look at his status.

He is a very naughty boy!

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

japie said..

D3 said..

snoidberg said..
I just can't wait for the liability protection to be removed from vaccine manufacturers.
Without this shield they will pay more in injury compensation than what they can possibly make in sales.
Hope no one has big pharma investments because it's going to freefall.

And what would be the follow on effects of this outcome?

What are you hoping the benefits to the wider population will be?

Surely that is simple. They will manufacture vaccines that are safe and effective.

More likely manufacturers stop producing vaccines. The threat of litigation and cost of insurance will make it unfeasiblle to make and distribute them.

For some people this will be considered a massive win for public health, believing that this will somehow prevent autism, chronic disease and allergies.

As Peacenlove states: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

Unfortunately, the costs from the infectious diseases that these vaccines prevent will sky-rocket as soon as vaccination rated decrease. Human and dollar cost.

That's a bit of a glass coffin scenario isn't it. We will find out if hygiene and potable water were responsible for the disappearance of polio and not the vaccines.

Select to expand quote

fangman said..

japie said..

And our "I am The Science" is suspended. You'd think
the Pratt would be able to moderate his responses being as how crucial it is for us all to benefit from his intellect and superior knowledge!

Is a pratt the same as a prat? And if so, is it less offensive than an idiot?

It's definitely less offensive than an idiot. Sort of a loveable type of clot. Or a pillock. Nong springs to mind.Cannot help with the spelling. I went with the spell checker. Whatever he is he provides lots of amusement!

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I wonder if the fact there are more people with allergies today, is that they were able survive their childhood?

87.2% of them survived.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

D3 said..

japie said..

D3 said..

snoidberg said..
I just can't wait for the liability protection to be removed from vaccine manufacturers.
Without this shield they will pay more in injury compensation than what they can possibly make in sales.
Hope no one has big pharma investments because it's going to freefall.

And what would be the follow on effects of this outcome?

What are you hoping the benefits to the wider population will be?

Surely that is simple. They will manufacture vaccines that are safe and effective.

More likely manufacturers stop producing vaccines. The threat of litigation and cost of insurance will make it unfeasiblle to make and distribute them.

For some people this will be considered a massive win for public health, believing that this will somehow prevent autism, chronic disease and allergies.

As Peacenlove states: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

Unfortunately, the costs from the infectious diseases that these vaccines prevent will sky-rocket as soon as vaccination rated decrease. Human and dollar cost.

That's a bit of a glass coffin scenario isn't it. We will find out if hygiene and potable water were responsible for the disappearance of polio and not the vaccines.

If the vaccine was ineffective, then polio rates would not be impacted by targeted vaccination campaigns in areas of the world where hygiene and potable water availability lag behind western standards of the 50s

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

japie said..

D3 said..

snoidberg said..
I just can't wait for the liability protection to be removed from vaccine manufacturers.
Without this shield they will pay more in injury compensation than what they can possibly make in sales.
Hope no one has big pharma investments because it's going to freefall.

And what would be the follow on effects of this outcome?

What are you hoping the benefits to the wider population will be?

Surely that is simple. They will manufacture vaccines that are safe and effective.

More likely manufacturers stop producing vaccines. The threat of litigation and cost of insurance will make it unfeasiblle to make and distribute them.

For some people this will be considered a massive win for public health, believing that this will somehow prevent autism, chronic disease and allergies.

As Peacenlove states: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

Unfortunately, the costs from the infectious diseases that these vaccines prevent will sky-rocket as soon as vaccination rated decrease. Human and dollar cost.

Perhaps they would stop producing unavoidably unsafe vaccines yes.

It's a false belief that vaccines were behind the dramatic decrease in disease during the 20th century. All the unbiased evidence demonstrates that at the time vaccines were introduced, the diseases like smallpox, polio and measles and TB had already been reduced 70-90% due to improved public health like clean drinking water, public sanitation, better general health care and less toxins like DDT in the environment. Even the US government public health entities have confirmed this. But the vaccine cult's ideas is powerful.

In fact when some new vaccines were introduced, like in the 1950's and 1970's, there were so many deaths and adverse events that they had to be withdrawn and completely redesigned!

But let's not allow the vaccine cult's beliefs to be tarnished by the facts.

No vaccine ever eradicated disease, ever.

By the way, I'm also a vaccine injury survivor, so is my brother, so is a good friend. My nephew's friend who was a totally healthy 17 year old "died suddenly" in his sleep four days after his third Pfizer shot. Dead. His family, who were ultra pro-vaxx before, are now activists against dangerous modern mRNA/Nano-tech vaccines. I know a family from rural Australia, who did not want the COVID Quaxx, but had no choice because they would have had to shut down the thriving tourist business. The man consented provided his GP signed a Stat. Dec. to confirm that the quaxx was safe and effective. The man, who had been healthy for over 20 years, died six months after his second Pfizering from advanced metastasising liver cancer. Certified by his oncologist mind you. Certified vaccine death.

These experiences are largely unique to the past five years of the military bioweapons defence program most erroneously believe was a public health response. To believe these numbers in my life experience alone are normal would be delusional, as I've never known as many cases in several decades prior.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
peacenlove could win this discussion. A convincing arguement.

Thanks for the vote, but i don't see this forum as competition nor as argument. Truth doesn't need arguing does it?

Some people can't handle the truth. That's OK, if they wish to argue on propaganda points and misinformation.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
Thanks for the vote, but i don't see this forum as competition nor as argument. Truth doesn't need arguing does it?

Hahaha,

Of course it's a competition. There is more than one truth and it changes over time. Even the definition of truth is debated. Everyone on this forum has a slightly different truth and we argue about it here. We try to outdo each other in a strange game to sway opinions ever so slightly and share what we have each read or believe.

That's why you are here: being all shouty and spewing out the right wing libertarian rubbish that the social media algorithms feed you each day. Your version of truth is then challenged or disputed by someone else's truth and they respond. If truth was a singular thing forums wouldn't exist because we would all agree.

Some arguments are better than others. A good arguement is entertaining, well structured, credible and contains supporting evidence.

I thought you presented a good arguement yesterday. Today, sadly, you haven't. But keep it up, it's entertaining nevertheless.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
peacenlove could win this discussion. A convincing arguement.

I'd be interested in which particular parts of his arguments you feel have a greater impact or resonance with you?

In his post, I saw him raise a bunch of valid concerns. But he did so my making statements that are factually incorrect and it's going to take time and effort to counter those statements. Brandolinis law comes into effect.

Food/nutrition/diet concerns? Just look at all the work governments are doing to encourage people to eat healthier and be more active, these programs even target kids to try encourage life long healthy habits.

Toxins in food and water? Our food industry is one of the safest and standards and regulations are constantly being scrutinised for iimprovement. Our water supplies are frequently rated best in the world.

Being forced to buy food in 3 aisles? What's the first section of any Coles, Woolies, IGA or even ALDI? Fresh produce

Can we as a society do better? Should we do better?
Definitely!

But blaming everything on vaccines and modern food production to the exclusion of any other cause is not a helpful stance.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

japie said..

D3 said..

snoidberg said..
I just can't wait for the liability protection to be removed from vaccine manufacturers.
Without this shield they will pay more in injury compensation than what they can possibly make in sales.
Hope no one has big pharma investments because it's going to freefall.

And what would be the follow on effects of this outcome?

What are you hoping the benefits to the wider population will be?

Surely that is simple. They will manufacture vaccines that are safe and effective.

More likely manufacturers stop producing vaccines. The threat of litigation and cost of insurance will make it unfeasiblle to make and distribute them.

For some people this will be considered a massive win for public health, believing that this will somehow prevent autism, chronic disease and allergies.

As Peacenlove states: " I never knew anyone with autism or a food allergy when i was in primary school. No one in the entire school of hundreds of children!"

Unfortunately, the costs from the infectious diseases that these vaccines prevent will sky-rocket as soon as vaccination rated decrease. Human and dollar cost.

Perhaps they would stop producing unavoidably unsafe vaccines yes.

Because of the nature of the human body and immune system, it is currently impossible for vaccines to made that will be perfectly safe for everyone.

Unfortunately there are people who claim that the tiny risk vaccines pose to individuals health is too great.
They invoke the Nirvana fallacy and would prefer no vaccines to vaccines that are incredibly safe and prevent millions of kids suffering diseases.

I ask Peacenlove a tricky question.
If it's true that vaccines cause what he claims, how many kids with asthma and allergies and autism would he accept to save a child's life from a vaccine preventable disease?

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

Thanks for the vote, but i don't see this forum as competition nor as argument. Truth doesn't need arguing does it?

Some people can't handle the truth. That's OK, if they wish to argue on propaganda points and misinformation.

Fabulous idea. For a start, here are a couple of approaches I use when making a decision on whether I am posting propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, malinformation or not:
Not just the boring old fact check routine, but it is the starting point.
Look at the source, is it an opinion or fact? Media sites often blur this line to make it difficult to be sure. If the sources are not listed/named it's time to get skeptical.
And then check the claim been verified by multiple independent trusted unbiased sources.
I look for an emotional appeal, such as anger or fear. This is a big red flag. For example, this is used frequently when discussing such things as, Immigration from the right and Nuclear power and GMO from the left.
Are discernable vested interests involved? Are they declared?
There are no doubt several other strategies I can use. I would be keen to read how other people separate the proverbial info wheat from the chaff.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

myscreenname said..
peacenlove could win this discussion. A convincing arguement.

I'd be interested in which particular parts of his arguments you feel have a greater impact or resonance with you?

In his post, I saw him raise a bunch of valid concerns. But he did so my making statements that are factually incorrect and it's going to take time and effort to counter those statements. Brandolinis law comes into effect.

Food/nutrition/diet concerns? Just look at all the work governments are doing to encourage people to eat healthier and be more active, these programs even target kids to try encourage life long healthy habits.

Toxins in food and water? Our food industry is one of the safest and standards and regulations are constantly being scrutinised for iimprovement. Our water supplies are frequently rated best in the world.

Being forced to buy food in 3 aisles? What's the first section of any Coles, Woolies, IGA or even ALDI? Fresh produce

Can we as a society do better? Should we do better?
Definitely!

But blaming everything on vaccines and modern food production to the exclusion of any other cause is not a helpful stance.

Not blaming it on any one thing, it's a range of actors working together, including vaccines that alter immune systems artificially, but, you can't explain the dramatic increases in non-communicable disease and neurological disease since these public health policies came into effect, can you?

My point is that for some reason (and it's obviou$ what that i$) we are not allowed to question vaccines nor are we allowed to sue vaccine manufacturers.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

I'd be interested in which particular parts of his arguments you feel have a greater impact or resonance with you?

You are correct, we are sharing opinions not the truth and peacenlove put forward a well written arguement that I found entertaining along with some 'hearsay' thrown in to support the various claims, that I tend to agree with: more processed food, more autism, more food allergies.

This is a forum and it's just a bit of fun.

Select to expand quote

fangman said..

peacenlove said..

Thanks for the vote, but i don't see this forum as competition nor as argument. Truth doesn't need arguing does it?

Some people can't handle the truth. That's OK, if they wish to argue on propaganda points and misinformation.

Fabulous idea. For a start, here are a couple of approaches I use when making a decision on whether I am posting propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, malinformation or not:
Not just the boring old fact check routine, but it is the starting point.
Look at the source, is it an opinion or fact? Media sites often blur this line to make it difficult to be sure. If the sources are not listed/named it's time to get skeptical.
And then check the claim been verified by multiple independent trusted unbiased sources.
I look for an emotional appeal, such as anger or fear. This is a big red flag. For example, this is used frequently when discussing such things as, Immigration from the right and Nuclear power and GMO from the left.
Are discernable vested interests involved? Are they declared?
There are no doubt several other strategies I can use. I would be keen to read how other people separate the proverbial info wheat from the chaff.

Fact checkers are corporate misinformation tools. That's why Twitter and Facebook ended up abandoning them and, there is no such thing as independent unbiased sources.

Corporations and social media make up most of the Blob. They got rid of fact checkers out of self interest.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

fangman said..

peacenlove said..

Thanks for the vote, but i don't see this forum as competition nor as argument. Truth doesn't need arguing does it?

Some people can't handle the truth. That's OK, if they wish to argue on propaganda points and misinformation.

Fabulous idea. For a start, here are a couple of approaches I use when making a decision on whether I am posting propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, malinformation or not:
Not just the boring old fact check routine, but it is the starting point.
Look at the source, is it an opinion or fact? Media sites often blur this line to make it difficult to be sure. If the sources are not listed/named it's time to get skeptical.
And then check the claim been verified by multiple independent trusted unbiased sources.
I look for an emotional appeal, such as anger or fear. This is a big red flag. For example, this is used frequently when discussing such things as, Immigration from the right and Nuclear power and GMO from the left.
Are discernable vested interests involved? Are they declared?
There are no doubt several other strategies I can use. I would be keen to read how other people separate the proverbial info wheat from the chaff.

Fact checkers are corporate misinformation tools. That's why Twitter and Facebook ended up abandoning them and, there is no such thing as independent unbiased sources.

First up I suspect Twitter and FB abandoned fact checking for the simple reason of profitability and decreased legal responsibility.
Myself, I don't think I have ever used a corporate fact-checker. I meant do your own research, that is, do your own investigation and fact checking. Yes, it takes time, but it's important to filter down to a trusted source. Still not sacrosanct, but a good starting point.
As such, "...there is no such thing as independent unbiased sources." is problematic. How do you decide who to trust to provide you with truthful content?

Select to expand quote

fangman said..How do you decide who to trust to provide you with truthful content?

peacenlove said..

fangman said..

peacenlove said..

Thanks for the vote, but i don't see this forum as competition nor as argument. Truth doesn't need arguing does it?

Some people can't handle the truth. That's OK, if they wish to argue on propaganda points and misinformation.

Fabulous idea. For a start, here are a couple of approaches I use when making a decision on whether I am posting propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, malinformation or not:
Not just the boring old fact check routine, but it is the starting point.
Look at the source, is it an opinion or fact? Media sites often blur this line to make it difficult to be sure. If the sources are not listed/named it's time to get skeptical.
And then check the claim been verified by multiple independent trusted unbiased sources.
I look for an emotional appeal, such as anger or fear. This is a big red flag. For example, this is used frequently when discussing such things as, Immigration from the right and Nuclear power and GMO from the left.
Are discernable vested interests involved? Are they declared?
There are no doubt several other strategies I can use. I would be keen to read how other people separate the proverbial info wheat from the chaff.

Fact checkers are corporate misinformation tools. That's why Twitter and Facebook ended up abandoning them and, there is no such thing as independent unbiased sources.

First up I suspect Twitter and FB abandoned fact checking for the simple reason of profitability and decreased legal responsibility.
Myself, I don't think I have ever used a corporate fact-checker. I meant do your own research, that is, do your own investigation and fact checking. Yes, it takes time, but it's important to filter down to a trusted source. Still not sacrosanct, but a good starting point.
As such, "...there is no such thing as independent unbiased sources." is problematic. How do you decide who to trust to provide you with truthful content?

Good question. Truth is usually self evident, but it takes a lot of discipline and reading to sift through the lies and propaganda.

Sometimes the truth is obvious, like for example - the truth is that there is zero evidence that "COVID-19" is of natural origin.

Do you accept the truth, or are you still stuck in the past propaganda created by the BLOB/deep state? Is it shameful that you bought the lies? I don't think it's shameful. I've bought plenty of well crafted lies in the past too. We all have. No self-respecting soul honestly believes they've never bought a good piece of false propaganda.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
Corporations and social media make up most of the Blob. They got rid of fact checkers out of self interest.

Actually most of the BLOB is the Deep State and corrupt administrations like the Biden crime syndicate. Social media was co-opted by the Deep state to run it's propaganda and Fact Checkers were set up by corporates and special interest groups / private funders to run disinformation protection against their corrupt systems.

So yeah corporations and social media appear to make up most of the BLOB from the outside.

Oh omniscient one, please tell me what lies I bought. Apart from the 'size doesn't matter' one. Obviously.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

Sometimes the truth is obvious, like for example - the truth is that there is zero evidence that "COVID-19" is of natural origin.

I do not know the origins of the COVID-19.
But there is some evidence that casts suggests it is of zoonotic origin. First, zoonotic transmission has happened before with SARS and MERS. Second, COVID-19 is very similar to the bat coronavirus, there were potential intermediate hosts and there was positive environmental sampling at Wuhan market.
The above is not proof of the origins of COVID 19 but it does present a viable pathway. At worst, it is circumstantial evidence, but it should not be discounted as untruthful.