According to ESPN, he took a shoulder to the chest and went into cardiac arrest...

[Little_General]

Have you forgotten so soon? It's all documented in the Covid thread. What the CDC, Dr. Fauci and rest of the leading agencies and Covid narrative said..., what the baked and spun bad science "studies" said to support the narrative, then what the true science said that went against the narrative and baked studies.

Then, best of all, when the truth became so preponderant that it could no longer be denied, even the CDC had to backtrack. Many publications redacted, and edited their misinformation that had spouted the Covid narrative's lies for many months to over a year. If you aren't aware of this, you shouldn't have a word to say in these thread.

It's super embarrassing for you all. You were left with a TREMENDOUS amount of egg on your faces, (yet you are still hard-soldiering on with your delusive efforts).

I see a lot of words but zero evidence.

 

[sjweagle]

It doesn't get much better on this board than watching these two double down into oblivion that they believe the evil vaccine was lying in wait in this guy's system and just so happened to make his heart stop at the very moment he took the hard hit to the chest. What an incredible display.

You alone make $9.99/month a bargain.

 

[DM8]

You alone make $9.99/month a bargain.

Can you give us some more detail on the proof you have that the vaccine stopped this guy's heart at the exact moment he took a hard shot to the chest? Did Fauci engineer the bioweapon to lie in wait until something like that happened to cover his tracks?

 

[Scuff]

Oh, this is incredibly easy. This claim: “Two hundred seventy-nine athletes and former athletes in the United States have died from cardiac arrests after taking COVID-19 vaccines, according to data from a recent peer-reviewed study" is a quote from an Epoch Times article (link to article) which refers to this:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sji.13242

That's a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed study. If you want to take another shot, by all means, I'm happy to demonstrate why it's wrong.

"letter to the editor" - he's vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor at Texas A&M University.

And once again, just pointing out - you went after the messenger, and skipped the message. Seems like the only button you know how to push.

 

[Little_General]

"letter to the editor" - he's vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor at Texas A&M University.

That’s great. It’s not peer reviewed research. And the letter is pay-walled, so we have no clue what it says. You’re putting faith into Epoch Times, which I’ve already shown you to be inaccurate.

And once again, just pointing out - you went after the messenger, and skipped the message. Seems like the only button you know how to push.

Yeah, I guess that’s all if you ignore everything I just said.

 

[au4life_rz]

I see a lot of words but zero evidence.

And alas, we've come full circle to the conclusion. You said it in your own words. You see "zero evidence" despite many things in the Covid narrative having been soundly proven to be wrong.

No amount or form of proof would be enough to ever convince you that there MIGHT be some negative aspects of the Covid vaccines, nor are you ever likely to admit that the ultra-deceptive, lying and wrong done to advance the Covid agenda was wrong. You ask for evidence, (hoping that it's suppressed enough to not be available), but will accept none, no matter how true it is. In your eyes, there is likely to always be "zero evidence", no matter how much is staring you in the face. It's truly sad.

Most who understand science and technology realize that it's NORMAL to have wrinkles, kinks and unforeseen consequences that require tweaks, tuning, and sometimes significant adjustments with new technologies. Yet you all ran around parroting the narrative, essentially saying that the vaccines had NO possibility of side-effects, and that is just crazy. So to sum it up, no matter how much evidence, qualified the opinion or how much truth involved, you will always see "zero evidence".

 

[Little_General]

And alas, we've come full circle to the conclusion. You said it in your own words. You see "zero evidence" despite many things in the Covid narrative having been soundly proven to be wrong.

No amount or form of proof would be enough to ever convince you that there MIGHT be some negative aspects of the Covid vaccines, nor are you ever likely to admit that the ultra-deceptive, lying and wrong done to advance the Covid agenda was wrong. You ask for evidence, (hoping that it's suppressed enough to not be available), but will accept none, no matter how true it is. In your eyes, there is likely to always be "zero evidence", no matter how much is staring you in the face. It's truly sad.

Most who understand science and technology realize that it's NORMAL to have wrinkles, kinks and unforeseen consequences that require tweaks, tuning, and sometimes significant adjustments with new technologies. Yet you all ran around parroting the narrative, essentially saying that the vaccines had NO possibility of side-effects, and that is just crazy. So to sum it up, no matter how much evidence, qualified the opinion or how much truth involved, you will always see "zero evidence".

More words, still no evidence for your claim. It’s almost like you don’t have any.

 

[au4life_rz]

More words, still no evidence for your claim. It’s almost like you don’t have any.

At least, none that you can see/are honest enough to acknowledge.

 

[00aubie]

So, here's the standard playbook in action.

Attack the messenger, not the message. I don't know who McCollough is, but if you're going to argue, address his information (assuming you can). Anyone can just claim the messenger is bad. You've been doing that most of this thread.

"letter to the editor" - he's vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor at Texas A&M University.

And once again, just pointing out - you went after the messenger, and skipped the message. Seems like the only button you know how to push.

Do you not see any irony in admitting that you don't know who he is, but accusing people who may be more familiar with his behavior of "attacking the messenger?"

You mention Baylor... were you aware that Baylor was successful in getting a restraining order against him? Is that normal? If you're going to cite Baylor as a credential, you should probably be aware of that.

Were you aware that he compared the vaccine to an "act of bioterrorism?" These are not exactly signs of sane behavior and might make one consider questioning the veracity of said "messenger." At least a little bit, right?

But let's be honest, you ultimately aren't concerned with the character of the messenger... that is far subordinate to locating anything from anywhere that will serve to reinforce your biases and narratives. Unfortunately, the advancement of said narratives, in this particular instance, has led some people to unnecessarily lose their lives... all under the guise of "asking questions" and "critical thought" by those ill-equipped to perform either.

 

[au4life_rz]

Do you not see any irony in admitting that you don't know who he is, but accusing people who may be more familiar with his behavior of "attacking the messenger?"

You mention Baylor... were you aware that Baylor was successful in getting a restraining order against him? Is that normal? If you're going to cite Baylor as a credential, you should probably be aware of that.

Were you aware that he compared the vaccine to an "act of bioterrorism?" These are not exactly signs of sane behavior and might make one consider questioning the veracity of said "messenger." At least a little bit, right?

But let's be honest, you ultimately aren't concerned with the character of the messenger... that is far subordinate to locating anything from anywhere that will serve to reinforce your biases and narratives. Unfortunately, the advancement of said narratives, in this particular instance, has led some people to unnecessarily lose their lives... all under the guise of "asking questions" and "critical thought" by those ill-equipped to perform either.

Do YOU see irony in having the media, leading authorities and folks in the general public like you all automatically, and instantly labeling him an "anti-vaxxer" the minute he raised any concerns whatsoever, that went against the narrative??? That was BEFORE he used any hyped rhetoric, and despite the fact that he had a VERY qualified opinion. Much more qualified that most everyone who canceled him.

 

[au4life_rz]

Do you not see any irony in admitting that you don't know who he is, but accusing people who may be more familiar with his behavior of "attacking the messenger?"

You mention Baylor... were you aware that Baylor was successful in getting a restraining order against him? Is that normal? If you're going to cite Baylor as a credential, you should probably be aware of that.

Were you aware that he compared the vaccine to an "act of bioterrorism?" These are not exactly signs of sane behavior and might make one consider questioning the veracity of said "messenger." At least a little bit, right?

But let's be honest, you ultimately aren't concerned with the character of the messenger... that is far subordinate to locating anything from anywhere that will serve to reinforce your biases and narratives. Unfortunately, the advancement of said narratives, in this particular instance, has led some people to unnecessarily lose their lives... all under the guise of "asking questions" and "critical thought" by those ill-equipped to perform either.

Do YOU see irony in having the media, leading authorities and folks in the general public like you all automatically, and instantly labeling him an "anti-vaxxer" the minute he raised any concerns whatsoever, that went against the narrative??? That was BEFORE he used any hyped rhetoric, and despite the fact that he had a VERY qualified opinion. Much more qualified that most everyone who canceled him.

Laws are being made to further wreck careers, and it sets up a precedent that whenever anyone has a dissenting opinion than the government, leading authorities and agencies etc., they can be muted, arrested or have their livelihoods stripped.

Nothing about the entire pandemic and COVID agenda was normal. We had people attacked, I believe a few may have been arrested, many with their licenses stripped, and NOT because they were advocating true lunacy, but simply because they said something...., ANYTHING, other than "the vaccines are great, modern miracles, should be taken because they are 100% safe and effective". No dissenting opinions were allowed. Not a single dissenting opinion was even considered if it might be valid. Did you and others notice that???

 

[Little_General]

Do YOU see irony in having the media, leading authorities and folks in the general public like you all automatically, and instantly labeling him an "anti-vaxxer" the minute he raised any concerns whatsoever, that went against the narrative??? That was BEFORE he used any hyped rhetoric, and despite the fact that he had a VERY qualified opinion. Much more qualified that most everyone who canceled him.

Nothing about the entire pandemic and COVID agenda was normal. We had people attacked, I believe a few may have been arrested, many with their licenses stripped, and NOT because they were advocating true lunacy, but simply because they said something...., ANYTHING, other than "the vaccines are great, modern miracles, should be taken because they are 100% safe and effective". No dissenting opinions were allowed. Not a single dissenting opinion was even considered if it might be valid. Did you and others notice that???

Laws are being made to further wreck careers, and it sets up a precedent that whenever anyone has a dissenting opinion than the government, leading authorities and agencies etc., they can be muted, arrested or have their livelihoods stripped.

This fact-free, citation-free post brought to you by @au4life_rz

 

[au4life_rz]

Do you not see any irony in admitting that you don't know who he is, but accusing people who may be more familiar with his behavior of "attacking the messenger?"

You mention Baylor... were you aware that Baylor was successful in getting a restraining order against him? Is that normal? If you're going to cite Baylor as a credential, you should probably be aware of that.

Were you aware that he compared the vaccine to an "act of bioterrorism?" These are not exactly signs of sane behavior and might make one consider questioning the veracity of said "messenger." At least a little bit, right?

But let's be honest, you ultimately aren't concerned with the character of the messenger... that is far subordinate to locating anything from anywhere that will serve to reinforce your biases and narratives. Unfortunately, the advancement of said narratives, in this particular instance, has led some people to unnecessarily lose their lives... all under the guise of "asking questions" and "critical thought" by those ill-equipped to perform either.

Do you understand the "act of bioterrorism" statement in context of his very qualified opinion??? Why didn't you establish the context for the rhetoric??? I think we know why.

There is no doubt, that if you took a very intelligent species, (let's say Vulcans like Dr. Spock off of Star Trek), and laid bare all of the facts from the Covid pandemic. They would wholeheartedly and roundly agree, that from a pure scientific and rational/logical point of view, this was likely the riskiest endeavor that mankind/humanity has EVER undertaken in the history of our species??? I mean, we took a very new/novel technology, that we didn't come close to having data on across the full life-cycle, and administered it to over half of the world's population, falsely comparing it to previous vaccine technologies, censoring all dissenting voices no matter how qualified.

You NEVER, EVER put all of your eggs in one basket, so that if something goes wrong, all is lost, and that's exactly what we did because so many weren't smart enough to recognize the HUGE risk as such.

 

[au4life_rz]

This fact-free, citation-free post brought to you by @au4life_rz

You're hiding behind a weak opaque "shield" about the size of a napkin, and it only highlights your intellectual dishonesty and lack of character. You seem to be caught up in a pissing contest, and you only care about "e-winning" as opposed to determining/establishing/discovering the TRUTH. You don't tend to think very scientifically and mathematically on most topics, so you tend to miss a lot of the deeper and less obvious critical, uber important points and factors.

Most importantly, you can try to impugn my two cents, but you certainly can NOT say that they are not rational and logical.

 

[Little_General]

Do you understand the "act of bioterrorism" statement in context of his very qualified opinion??? Why didn't you establish the context for the rhetoric??? I think we know why.

There is no doubt, that if you took a very intelligent species, (let's say Vulcans like Dr. Spock off of Star Trek), and laid bare all of the facts from the Covid pandemic. They would wholeheartedly and roundly agree, that from a pure scientific and rational/logical point of view, this was likely the riskiest endeavor that mankind/humanity has EVER undertaken in the history of our species??? I mean, we took a very new/novel technology, that we didn't come close to having data on across the full life-cycle, and administered it to over half of the world's population, falsely comparing it to previous vaccine technologies, censoring all dissenting voices no matter how qualified.

You NEVER, EVER put all of your eggs in one basket, so that if something goes wrong, all is lost, and that's exactly what we did because so many weren't smart enough to recognize the HUGE risk as such.

McCullough then highlighted a peer-reviewed study by Ronald N. Kostoff which concluded “that you are about five times as likely to die of the vaccine, then you are to take your risks with COVID-19 and die of COVID-19 [for those 65 and older].”​

​

“No wonder people aren’t taking the vaccine,” he said.​

​

“There was no age group were [the odds of taking the vaccine] were favorable. It was actually worse in those over age 65. It was worse for [the most vulnerable] over 65.”​

​

Therefore, McCullough emphasized, people who intentionally chose not to get the vaccine and were later hospitalized with COVID had “actually made a smarter choice.”​

​

“Their gut instinct was the right instinct, yet they have been castigated for not taking the vaccine,” he said.​

​

One big problem, though.... that peer-reviewed study was retracted:

RETRACTED: Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdr…

www.sciencedirect.com

"The article has been retracted at the request of the Founding Editor, Prof. Lawrence H. Lash, on the basis that there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable"

 

[Little_General]

You're hiding behind a weak opaque "shield" about the size of a napkin, and it only highlights your intellectual dishonesty and lack of character. You seem to be caught up in a pissing contest, and you only care about "e-winning" as opposed to determining/establishing/discovering the TRUTH. You don't tend to think very scientifically and mathematically on most topics, so you tend to miss a lot of the deeper and less obvious critical, uber important points and factors.

Most importantly, you can try to impugn my two cents, but you certainly can NOT say that they are not rational and logical.

I've done more actual science in the last 5 years than you've done in your entire life. You are clearly not qualified to critically evaluate scientific evidence, as shown on the post above.

 

[MatthewJ]

McCullough then highlighted a peer-reviewed study by Ronald N. Kostoff which concluded “that you are about five times as likely to die of the vaccine, then you are to take your risks with COVID-19 and die of COVID-19 [for those 65 and older].”​

​

“No wonder people aren’t taking the vaccine,” he said.​

​

“There was no age group were [the odds of taking the vaccine] were favorable. It was actually worse in those over age 65. It was worse for [the most vulnerable] over 65.”​

​

Therefore, McCullough emphasized, people who intentionally chose not to get the vaccine and were later hospitalized with COVID had “actually made a smarter choice.”​

​

“Their gut instinct was the right instinct, yet they have been castigated for not taking the vaccine,” he said.​

​

One big problem, though.... that peer-reviewed study was retracted:

RETRACTED: Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdr…

www.sciencedirect.com

"The article has been retracted at the request of the Founding Editor, Prof. Lawrence H. Lash, on the basis that there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable"

YOURE DISMISSING THE MESSAGE!!!

 

[stutsman23]

Do YOU see irony in having the media, leading authorities and folks in the general public like you all automatically, and instantly labeling him an "anti-vaxxer" the minute he raised any concerns whatsoever, that went against the narrative??? That was BEFORE he used any hyped rhetoric, and despite the fact that he had a VERY qualified opinion. Much more qualified that most everyone who canceled him.

Laws are being made to further wreck careers, and it sets up a precedent that whenever anyone has a dissenting opinion than the government, leading authorities and agencies etc., they can be muted, arrested or have their livelihoods stripped.

Nothing about the entire pandemic and COVID agenda was normal. We had people attacked, I believe a few may have been arrested, many with their licenses stripped, and NOT because they were advocating true lunacy, but simply because they said something...., ANYTHING, other than "the vaccines are great, modern miracles, should be taken because they are 100% safe and effective". No dissenting opinions were allowed. Not a single dissenting opinion was even considered if it might be valid. Did you and others notice that???

Who was arrested for offering an opinion? Honest question

 

[au4life_rz]

This fact-free, citation-free post brought to you by @au4life_rz

You say my comments were "fact-free", but is it not a FACT that not one single, dissenting opinion was ever considered during the entire 2 1/2 year period???

Any of you who disagree, please provide any dissenting opinion, thought, hypothesis from any PhD, Doctor, scientist, researcher, or common man that was ever even considered or given any airplay at all. Does that FACT not cause any of you to think that some level of collusion, censorship and extreme dishonesty may have been in play???

Have any of you ever seen an intelligent discourse or debate, where one side NEVER got to speak and even share their two cents of opinion on the topic??? Yet they had so many hypnotized, that other intelligent folks couldn't understand that it was happening. Just WOW. 😢

 

[Little_General]

You say my comments were "fact-free", but is it not a FACT that a single, dissenting opinion was ever considered during the entire 2 1/2 year period???

No, that's not a fact at all. This is some more good evidence you don't know how to distinguish fact from opinion.

Any of you who disagree, please provide any dissenting opinion, thought, hypothesis from any PhD, Doctor, scientist, researcher, or common man that was ever considered seriously and given any airplay at all.

Dissenting from what? Be concrete. Provide an example.

 

[00aubie]

Do you understand the "act of bioterrorism" statement in context of his very qualified opinion??? Why didn't you establish the context for the rhetoric??? I think we know why.

There is no doubt, that if you took a very intelligent species, (let's say Vulcans like Dr. Spock off of Star Trek), and laid bare all of the facts from the Covid pandemic. They would wholeheartedly and roundly agree, that from a pure scientific and rational/logical point of view, this was likely the riskiest endeavor that mankind/humanity has EVER undertaken in the history of our species??? I mean, we took a very new/novel technology, that we didn't come close to having data on across the full life-cycle, and administered it to over half of the world's population, falsely comparing it to previous vaccine technologies, censoring all dissenting voices no matter how qualified.

You NEVER, EVER put all of your eggs in one basket, so that if something goes wrong, all is lost, and that's exactly what we did because so many weren't smart enough to recognize the HUGE risk as such.

By all means, explain the "context" of the vaccine being compared to an "act of bioterrorism" for the rest of us then. I see that you no longer wish to cite his Baylor credentials now that you have learned of the restraining order against him.

You most certainly have put all of your eggs into the basket of anti-vaxxer quackery and batshit conspiracy theories. That's what has left you so desperate to latch on to any quack, crackpot or lunatic you can find on the internet/social media to validate your multi-year, personal jihad against this vaccine. That's what led you to start "asking questions" while Damar Hamiln was fighting for his life.

One would hope that your desperation to continue to feed this absurd narrative might be founded in guilt from the realization that the manure you helped to spread sent some to an early grave... but that seems unlikely given your constant attempts to spike a football that you have never had possession of.

It's sick. Simple as that.

 

[00aubie]

Do YOU see irony in having the media, leading authorities and folks in the general public like you all automatically, and instantly labeling him an "anti-vaxxer" the minute he raised any concerns whatsoever, that went against the narrative??? That was BEFORE he used any hyped rhetoric, and despite the fact that he had a VERY qualified opinion. Much more qualified that most everyone who canceled him.

Laws are being made to further wreck careers, and it sets up a precedent that whenever anyone has a dissenting opinion than the government, leading authorities and agencies etc., they can be muted, arrested or have their livelihoods stripped.

Nothing about the entire pandemic and COVID agenda was normal. We had people attacked, I believe a few may have been arrested, many with their licenses stripped, and NOT because they were advocating true lunacy, but simply because they said something...., ANYTHING, other than "the vaccines are great, modern miracles, should be taken because they are 100% safe and effective". No dissenting opinions were allowed. Not a single dissenting opinion was even considered if it might be valid. Did you and others notice that???

Don't start this shit where you respond multiple times to the same post again. It's not as if I'm going to take you seriously enough to read it anyway.

 

[au4life_rz]

Who was arrested for offering an opinion? Honest question

I said, "I believe" some had been arrested, as I remember seeing several articles here and there that it had been taken so far as to arrest folks for misinformation/a difference of opinion, but I didn't save them. I've googled a few, but you should do that on your own, to your own satisfaction, (as I've spent tons of hours finding things for the usual dissenters, and you only dismiss it off hand). I find that folks tend to trust things that they find and research for themselves, more.

I do NOT have time to verify these sources, but here's a quick google. Please sort them out and verify them for yourself, to your own satisfaction. There may be a honeypot/rotten egg or two from the quick search.

Morocco makes a dozen arrests over coronavirus fake news

Moroccan police have arrested at least a dozen people for spreading rumours about the coronavirus, including a woman who used her YouTube channel to say the disease did not exist, authorities said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

https://www.courthousenews.com/asia-arrests-hundreds-for-fake-news-on-virus/

Doctors fear California law aimed at COVID-19 misinformation could do more harm than good

Doctors who spread misinformation about COVID-19 could face disciplinary measures in California under a new state law.

www.latimes.com

Rush to pass ‘fake news’ laws during Covid-19 intensifying global media freedom challenges - ipi.media

By IPI Advocacy Officer Jamie Wiseman Few terms have become so engrained in global political discourse in the last half decade than that of so-called “fake news.” The widely used yet ill-defined phrase has become a messy shorthand enveloping everything from social media rumours, to online...

ipi.media

Coronavirus ‘Fake News’ Arrests Are Quieting Critics

In Southeast Asia, the coronavirus pandemic has provided a handy excuse for a clampdown on free speech.

foreignpolicy.com

More than 300 people have been arrested for spreading COVID-19 falsehoods

Some countries justify the arrests as a crack-down on the spread of misinformation, but some human rights advocates are warning these aggressive measures are aimed at silencing criticism and controlling the virus narrative.

www.poynter.org

Cambodia: HRW reports that authorities arrest 17 people related to spreading fake news on the Covid-19 & urges authorities to guarantee freedom of expression for Cambodians - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

www.business-humanrights.org

Police call for Bolsonaro to be charged for spreading Covid misinformation

Brazil’s federal police ask supreme court to charge president over bogus claims in October 2021 social media broadcast

www.theguardian.com

 

[Little_General]

I said, "I believe", as I remember seeing several articles here and there that it had been taken so far as to arrest folks for misinformation/a difference of opinion, but I didn't save them. I've googled a few, but you should do that on your own, to your own satisfaction, (as I've spent tons of hours finding things for the usual dissenters, and you only dismiss it off hand). I find that folks tend to trust things that they find and research for themselves, more.

I do NOT have time to verify these sources, but here's a quick google. Please sort them out and verify them for yourself, to your own satisfaction. There may be a honeypot/rotten egg or two from the quick search.

Oh, you don't have time to verify sources for the wild claims you make? Good thing you keep things incredibly vague so you never have to defend any concrete position on anything.

 

[au4life_rz]

By all means, explain the "context" of the vaccine being compared to an "act of bioterrorism" for the rest of us then. I see that you no longer wish to cite his Baylor credentials now that you have learned of the restraining order against him.

You most certainly have put all of your eggs into the basket of anti-vaxxer quackery and batshit conspiracy theories. That's what has left you so desperate to latch on to any quack, crackpot or lunatic you can find on the internet/social media to validate your multi-year, personal jihad against this vaccine. That's what led you to start "asking questions" while Damar Hamiln was fighting for his life.

One would hope that your desperation to continue to feed this absurd narrative might be founded in guilt from the realization that the manure you helped to spread sent some to an early grave... but that seems unlikely given your constant attempts to spike a football that you have never had possession of.

It's sick. Simple as that.

I've used the fact that he was so high up, so published and super respected for many years as proof of the great wrong that was done during the pandemic. No one had a problem with him until he gave his uber qualified opinion that happened to go against the Covid narrative. Anyone who didn't conform was silenced/canceled.

He is a doctor who was FAR more published, had FAR more achievements etc. than most doctors, and @DM8 and your crew has repeatedly said that if a doctor offers ANY opinion, it must be true and that we should all automatically open wide and swallow it whole because it is unerring and 100% perfect. So why the difference for this well respected, high achieving doctor who I believe headed the cardiology department for the Baylor medical system. Why does that false edict only apply to doctors who are pro-vaccine??? Things that make smart people go hmmmm.

Lastly, I've never bought into any of the anti-vaxx quackery. I've said many times that me and my family have taken pretty much every vaccine that's out there. However, there ARE very key distinctions and differences between this new/novel treatment and previous vaccines. In addition, I did NOT start the silly pissing match that took place in that thread. I clearly sat it out, and you are a blazing hypocrite for not being fair and calling out your buddies who clearly DID run all around that thread swinging at anything that moved. If you were genuinely concerned about Damar Hamlin, you'd have certainly called them on their behavior.

 

[Little_General]

However, there ARE very key distinctions and differences between this new/novel treatment and previous vaccines.

Here's either a lie or a clear misunderstanding. The vaccines are not "treatments". So is this your lack of understanding or an intentional misrepresentation?

In addition, I did NOT start the silly pissing match that took place in that thread

Yeah, you did. You made an ignorant comment without understanding the context of the situation and never once apologized for doing so. But that's your MO. Spread disinformation, talk circles around it until everyone is worn out, bail.

 

[stutsman23]

I said, "I believe", as I remember seeing several articles here and there that it had been taken so far as to arrest folks for misinformation/a difference of opinion, but I didn't save them. I've googled a few, but you should do that on your own, to your own satisfaction, (as I've spent tons of hours finding things for the usual dissenters, and you only dismiss it off hand). I find that folks tend to trust things that they find and research for themselves, more.

I do NOT have time to verify these sources, but here's a quick google. Please sort them out and verify them for yourself, to your own satisfaction. There may be a honeypot/rotten egg or two from the quick search.

Morocco makes a dozen arrests over coronavirus fake news

Moroccan police have arrested at least a dozen people for spreading rumours about the coronavirus, including a woman who used her YouTube channel to say the disease did not exist, authorities said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

https://www.courthousenews.com/asia-arrests-hundreds-for-fake-news-on-virus/

Doctors fear California law aimed at COVID-19 misinformation could do more harm than good

Doctors who spread misinformation about COVID-19 could face disciplinary measures in California under a new state law.

www.latimes.com

Rush to pass ‘fake news’ laws during Covid-19 intensifying global media freedom challenges - ipi.media

By IPI Advocacy Officer Jamie Wiseman Few terms have become so engrained in global political discourse in the last half decade than that of so-called “fake news.” The widely used yet ill-defined phrase has become a messy shorthand enveloping everything from social media rumours, to online...

ipi.media

Coronavirus ‘Fake News’ Arrests Are Quieting Critics

In Southeast Asia, the coronavirus pandemic has provided a handy excuse for a clampdown on free speech.

foreignpolicy.com

More than 300 people have been arrested for spreading COVID-19 falsehoods

Some countries justify the arrests as a crack-down on the spread of misinformation, but some human rights advocates are warning these aggressive measures are aimed at silencing criticism and controlling the virus narrative.

www.poynter.org

Cambodia: HRW reports that authorities arrest 17 people related to spreading fake news on the Covid-19 & urges authorities to guarantee freedom of expression for Cambodians - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

www.business-humanrights.org

Police call for Bolsonaro to be charged for spreading Covid misinformation

Brazil’s federal police ask supreme court to charge president over bogus claims in October 2021 social media broadcast

www.theguardian.com

That’s a pretty damning “I believe” without having at least a couple verifiable examples to share and discuss. But thanks for the links.

 

[au4life_rz]

McCullough then highlighted a peer-reviewed study by Ronald N. Kostoff which concluded “that you are about five times as likely to die of the vaccine, then you are to take your risks with COVID-19 and die of COVID-19 [for those 65 and older].”​

​

“No wonder people aren’t taking the vaccine,” he said.​

​

“There was no age group were [the odds of taking the vaccine] were favorable. It was actually worse in those over age 65. It was worse for [the most vulnerable] over 65.”​

​

Therefore, McCullough emphasized, people who intentionally chose not to get the vaccine and were later hospitalized with COVID had “actually made a smarter choice.”​

​

“Their gut instinct was the right instinct, yet they have been castigated for not taking the vaccine,” he said.​

​

One big problem, though.... that peer-reviewed study was retracted:

RETRACTED: Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdr…

www.sciencedirect.com

"The article has been retracted at the request of the Founding Editor, Prof. Lawrence H. Lash, on the basis that there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable"

But WHEN was the peer reviewed study retracted??? Was it Dr. McCullough's critique that helped fuel the retraction???

Your simpleton-soup won't work on us my man. That's what I've been saying all along. That MANY of the articles, faked, baked and spun "studies" and bad science that you all held up as "fact", have been quietly retracted, redacted or surreptitiously edited once the TRUTH made it's way out, against ALL odds. Those colluding to suppress the truth and push their deceptive narrative were failed to contain all truth, (thank God).

Your offering above regarding the retraction only further bolsters what some of us were trying to tell you all long ago, when you thought such peer reviewed studies were iron-clad FaCt.

 

[au4life_rz]

I've done more actual science in the last 5 years than you've done in your entire life. You are clearly not qualified to critically evaluate scientific evidence, as shown on the post above.

If you have done any science at all, it certainly isn't reflected in your posting. Furthermore, you don't know WHAT I do every day, nor what I've done, because you won't hear me out here doing anything but attempting to point you to the logic and rationale in my posts.

In my humble opinion, "res ipsa loquitur" should rule the day.

 

[Little_General]

But WHEN was the peer reviewed study retracted??? Was it Dr. McCullough's critique that helped fuel the retraction???

It was retracted in May of 2022, so no, but really good attempt here. Here's some more information on why it was retracted:

The focus of the paper is on a critically important public health issue. As such, it is essential that the presentation be accurate and balanced. Additional external review of this paper following publication concluded that it demonstrates inappropriate bias in multiple ways.​

​

The use of key terminology, specifically the key terms “inoculation” and “vaccination” diverges from common use and are incorrect, indicating clear evidence of bias.​

​

Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.​

​

Want to stop bullshitting now? Of course not.

Your offering above regarding the retraction only further bolsters what some of us were trying to tell you all long ago, when you thought such peer reviewed studies were iron-clad FaCt.

This is, quite literally, the definition of confirmation bias.