Remove this Banner Ad

Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 4.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lol,
US conservatives upset by BigBird.
Previously outraged by issues with MrPotato Head and Dr Zeuss Books.
What an infantile party they are
 
A more significant question is whether it's a good idea, when you have no medical qualifications, to do your own research instead of listening to medical experts? The answer is no.

What qualifications are needed to understand such distinct findings as the ones presented in this published medical paper?

A number of papers have contributed to this meta-analysis finding, which continues to be absent from the mainstream medical 'news' as it continues to dismiss and vilify cheap early intervention drugs whilst now suddenly touting the expensive corporate one.

Papers are also being written analysing the clinically incorrect basis of this ongoing dismissal of early treatment options that also just happen to be non-corporate.

I clicked a few random studies and most of them came up with no result, e.g. not statistically significant that the treatment was effective.

Maybe you're just not trying hard enough:

Or maybe it is because finding such information is made too hard:

Notably to this same grubby end, a prominent journalist was banned from Twitter for posting Pfizer's actual study results. Perhaps they were meant to be kept quiet to better enable 'authorities' to correctly instruct people like you on their meaning, or to simply ignore them?

How about these cranks at the Indian Bar Association. What would a National legal body know about anything, hey?

To believe this sh*t you have to believe that governments around the world are actively surpressing these "highly effective" treatments in some sort of global vaccine conspiracy.

I have no certainty as to the mechanisms of Govt. on such things. Why did a large group of Govts actively furnish and maintain a lie to support the invasion of Iraq? Why are a number of them active or acquiescent in the current legal distortions that are imprisoning a journalist for effectively reporting Empire war crimes? Note that not all Govt's across the world have shared in these duplicities, just as not all are indulging negative campaigns against Ivermectin et al.

These treatments are LESS EFFECTIVE, and less tested than vaccines which are already out.

When the clinical trials conclusively prove what is an effective treatment, that's what people will get. That's how medicine works.

The facts, as linked above in small part, show that early intervention treatments have been tested in clinical operation and have been found to be effective. What is lacking is due and equitable awareness of that situation.

Following the apparently converse facilitation of information management, significant issues are beginning to arise around the testing, safety and efficacy of the vaccine cohort.

Studies of extensive data from the US (CDC), Israel and Singapore are similarly identifying vaccine failure at preventing Covid19 infection and transmission.

Mirriam Webster and the CDC have this year both changed their definition of 'vaccine' to enable the current products to fall under it.


Traditionally the keystone attributes of a vaccine is the prevention of disease infection and transmission. Compounds that only mediate an individual's range and severity of symptoms are called medicines and/or drugs. By traditional terms, these 'vaccines' are only drugs. This limitation greatly undermines the rationality and the ethics of mandating their universal application. This deficiency is not changed by a semantic manipulation of the definition. If given a full understanding of the risk profiles involved, do you think perhaps this guy might have chosen differently:

The capacity for such vaccine 'leakage' to promote more virulent strains of disease was an accepted medical position back in 2018. It seems this has also been 'redefined'.

Myocarditis in young and/or healthy males is just one, albeit an apparently predominant and very serious one, of a large number of risk profiles directly relevant to the vaccines and their mandate, yet these are simply not being given due public ventilation. If these new vaccines are unable to provide herd immunity, as is becoming rapidly evident, and there are effective prophylactic and early intervention methodologies, there is absolutely no basis for repressing such discussion of individual health risk profiles and choices.

What does 'vaccine' testing actually aim to test? Apparently the trial test objectives are somewhat unclear:

The vigorous intent toward vaccinating young children is especially alarming.


Also who are these looney posters that pop out of the woodwork in the middle of the night and are never seen before or after, but just are really passionate about horse paste?

Resorting to opportunistic and essentially irrelevant ad hominem simply highlights the deeply induced emotional state of your 'argument'. Perhaps redraft your user name to 'Sh*tscared'?
 
What qualifications are needed to understand such distinct findings as the ones presented in this published medical paper?

A number of papers have contributed to this meta-analysis finding, which continues to be absent from the mainstream medical 'news' as it continues to dismiss and vilify cheap early intervention drugs whilst now suddenly touting the expensive corporate one.

Papers are also being written analysing the clinically incorrect basis of this ongoing dismissal of early treatment options that also just happen to be non-corporate.



Maybe you're just not trying hard enough:

Or maybe it is because finding such information is made too hard:

Notably to this same grubby end, a prominent journalist was banned from Twitter for posting Pfizer's actual study results. Perhaps they were meant to be kept quiet to better enable 'authorities' to correctly instruct people like you on their meaning, or to simply ignore them?

How about these cranks at the Indian Bar Association. What would a National legal body know about anything, hey?



I have no certainty as to the mechanisms of Govt. on such things. Why did a large group of Govts actively furnish and maintain a lie to support the invasion of Iraq? Why are a number of them active or acquiescent in the current legal distortions that are imprisoning a journalist for effectively reporting Empire war crimes? Note that not all Govt's across the world have shared in these duplicities, just as not all are indulging negative campaigns against Ivermectin et al.



The facts, as linked above in small part, show that early intervention treatments have been tested in clinical operation and have been found to be effective. What is lacking is due and equitable awareness of that situation.

Following the apparently converse facilitation of information management, significant issues are beginning to arise around the testing, safety and efficacy of the vaccine cohort.

Studies of extensive data from the US (CDC), Israel and Singapore are similarly identifying vaccine failure at preventing Covid19 infection and transmission.

Mirriam Webster and the CDC have this year both changed their definition of 'vaccine' to enable the current products to fall under it.


Traditionally the keystone attributes of a vaccine is the prevention of disease infection and transmission. Compounds that only mediate an individual's range and severity of symptoms are called medicines and/or drugs. By traditional terms, these 'vaccines' are only drugs. This limitation greatly undermines the rationality and the ethics of mandating their universal application. This deficiency is not changed by a semantic manipulation of the definition. If given a full understanding of the risk profiles involved, do you think perhaps this guy might have chosen differently:

The capacity for such vaccine 'leakage' to promote more virulent strains of disease was an accepted medical position back in 2018. It seems this has also been 'redefined'.

Myocarditis in young and/or healthy males is just one, albeit an apparently predominant and very serious one, of a large number of risk profiles directly relevant to the vaccines and their mandate, yet these are simply not being given due public ventilation. If these new vaccines are unable to provide herd immunity, as is becoming rapidly evident, and there are effective prophylactic and early intervention methodologies, there is absolutely no basis for repressing such discussion of individual health risk profiles and choices.

What does 'vaccine' testing actually aim to test? Apparently the trial test objectives are somewhat unclear:

The vigorous intent toward vaccinating young children is especially alarming.




Resorting to opportunistic and essentially irrelevant ad hominem simply highlights the deeply induced emotional state of your 'argument'. Perhaps redraft your user name to 'Sh*tscared'?


****ing lol

1636421199120.png
 
What qualifications are needed to understand such distinct findings as the ones presented in this published medical paper?

A number of papers have contributed to this meta-analysis finding, which continues to be absent from the mainstream medical 'news' as it continues to dismiss and vilify cheap early intervention drugs whilst now suddenly touting the expensive corporate one.

Papers are also being written analysing the clinically incorrect basis of this ongoing dismissal of early treatment options that also just happen to be non-corporate.



Maybe you're just not trying hard enough:

Or maybe it is because finding such information is made too hard:

Notably to this same grubby end, a prominent journalist was banned from Twitter for posting Pfizer's actual study results. Perhaps they were meant to be kept quiet to better enable 'authorities' to correctly instruct people like you on their meaning, or to simply ignore them?

How about these cranks at the Indian Bar Association. What would a National legal body know about anything, hey?



I have no certainty as to the mechanisms of Govt. on such things. Why did a large group of Govts actively furnish and maintain a lie to support the invasion of Iraq? Why are a number of them active or acquiescent in the current legal distortions that are imprisoning a journalist for effectively reporting Empire war crimes? Note that not all Govt's across the world have shared in these duplicities, just as not all are indulging negative campaigns against Ivermectin et al.



The facts, as linked above in small part, show that early intervention treatments have been tested in clinical operation and have been found to be effective. What is lacking is due and equitable awareness of that situation.

Following the apparently converse facilitation of information management, significant issues are beginning to arise around the testing, safety and efficacy of the vaccine cohort.

Studies of extensive data from the US (CDC), Israel and Singapore are similarly identifying vaccine failure at preventing Covid19 infection and transmission.

Mirriam Webster and the CDC have this year both changed their definition of 'vaccine' to enable the current products to fall under it.


Traditionally the keystone attributes of a vaccine is the prevention of disease infection and transmission. Compounds that only mediate an individual's range and severity of symptoms are called medicines and/or drugs. By traditional terms, these 'vaccines' are only drugs. This limitation greatly undermines the rationality and the ethics of mandating their universal application. This deficiency is not changed by a semantic manipulation of the definition. If given a full understanding of the risk profiles involved, do you think perhaps this guy might have chosen differently:

The capacity for such vaccine 'leakage' to promote more virulent strains of disease was an accepted medical position back in 2018. It seems this has also been 'redefined'.

Myocarditis in young and/or healthy males is just one, albeit an apparently predominant and very serious one, of a large number of risk profiles directly relevant to the vaccines and their mandate, yet these are simply not being given due public ventilation. If these new vaccines are unable to provide herd immunity, as is becoming rapidly evident, and there are effective prophylactic and early intervention methodologies, there is absolutely no basis for repressing such discussion of individual health risk profiles and choices.

What does 'vaccine' testing actually aim to test? Apparently the trial test objectives are somewhat unclear:

The vigorous intent toward vaccinating young children is especially alarming.




Resorting to opportunistic and essentially irrelevant ad hominem simply highlights the deeply induced emotional state of your 'argument'. Perhaps redraft your user name to 'Sh*tscared'?

3E0C0B96-BDD2-4C67-A2FC-F6ABE529CF22.gif
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

******* lol. Now do correlation with highest education level.

Actually that is exactly one of the indicators LGA data analysis encompasses at the broad level. At least that's what my 'education' tells me. :p

There is a strong correlation between highest education level attained, socio economic status and where people live within metropolitan areas.

The point is, and what matters in relation to this issue, is that the government, both federal and state, should be putting greater effort on reaching those who the data shows are highly resistant, for whatever reason, to getting vaccinated.

And of course everyone thinks they are more intelligent than the next guy, regardless of where they got educated and to what level, so appeals to authority (medical or not) are not a guarantee of results in getting wide spread community action even if it is based on the most credible and evidence-based research.

What works in Burnside (where the highest vaccination rates are in SA) does not necessarily work in Playford (the lowest) or Port Adelaide-Enfield. So surely greater involvement of local government in vaccination campaigns would make good sense as would putting far greater resources into community level action?

Having the eloquently and perfectly coiffed and colour themed Dr Nicola Spurier as the front line promoter for covid action might appeal to the blue rinse set that frequent Burnside Village but imho probably has a negative impact on the streets of Elizabeth.
 
Last edited:
What qualifications are needed to understand such distinct findings as the ones presented in this published medical paper?

A number of papers have contributed to this meta-analysis finding, which continues to be absent from the mainstream medical 'news' as it continues to dismiss and vilify cheap early intervention drugs whilst now suddenly touting the expensive corporate one.

Papers are also being written analysing the clinically incorrect basis of this ongoing dismissal of early treatment options that also just happen to be non-corporate.



Maybe you're just not trying hard enough:

Or maybe it is because finding such information is made too hard:

Notably to this same grubby end, a prominent journalist was banned from Twitter for posting Pfizer's actual study results. Perhaps they were meant to be kept quiet to better enable 'authorities' to correctly instruct people like you on their meaning, or to simply ignore them?

How about these cranks at the Indian Bar Association. What would a National legal body know about anything, hey?



I have no certainty as to the mechanisms of Govt. on such things. Why did a large group of Govts actively furnish and maintain a lie to support the invasion of Iraq? Why are a number of them active or acquiescent in the current legal distortions that are imprisoning a journalist for effectively reporting Empire war crimes? Note that not all Govt's across the world have shared in these duplicities, just as not all are indulging negative campaigns against Ivermectin et al.



The facts, as linked above in small part, show that early intervention treatments have been tested in clinical operation and have been found to be effective. What is lacking is due and equitable awareness of that situation.

Following the apparently converse facilitation of information management, significant issues are beginning to arise around the testing, safety and efficacy of the vaccine cohort.

Studies of extensive data from the US (CDC), Israel and Singapore are similarly identifying vaccine failure at preventing Covid19 infection and transmission.

Mirriam Webster and the CDC have this year both changed their definition of 'vaccine' to enable the current products to fall under it.


Traditionally the keystone attributes of a vaccine is the prevention of disease infection and transmission. Compounds that only mediate an individual's range and severity of symptoms are called medicines and/or drugs. By traditional terms, these 'vaccines' are only drugs. This limitation greatly undermines the rationality and the ethics of mandating their universal application. This deficiency is not changed by a semantic manipulation of the definition. If given a full understanding of the risk profiles involved, do you think perhaps this guy might have chosen differently:

The capacity for such vaccine 'leakage' to promote more virulent strains of disease was an accepted medical position back in 2018. It seems this has also been 'redefined'.

Myocarditis in young and/or healthy males is just one, albeit an apparently predominant and very serious one, of a large number of risk profiles directly relevant to the vaccines and their mandate, yet these are simply not being given due public ventilation. If these new vaccines are unable to provide herd immunity, as is becoming rapidly evident, and there are effective prophylactic and early intervention methodologies, there is absolutely no basis for repressing such discussion of individual health risk profiles and choices.

What does 'vaccine' testing actually aim to test? Apparently the trial test objectives are somewhat unclear:

The vigorous intent toward vaccinating young children is especially alarming.




Resorting to opportunistic and essentially irrelevant ad hominem simply highlights the deeply induced emotional state of your 'argument'. Perhaps redraft your user name to 'Sh*tscared'?

I could go through these one by one but your mind is made up.
 
Actually that is exactly one of the indicators LGA data analysis encompasses at the broad level. At least that's what my 'education' tells me. :p

There is a strong correlation between highest education level attained, socio economic status and where people live within metropolitan areas.

The point is, and what matter, is that the government, both federal and state, should be putting greater effort on reaching those who the data shows are highly resistant, for whatever reason, to getting vaccinated.

And of course everyone thinks they are more intelligent than the next guy, regardless of where they got educated and to what level, so appeals to authority (medical or not) are not a guarantee of results in getting wide spread community action.

What works in Burnside (where the highest vaccination rates are in SA) does not necessarily work in Playford (the lowest) or Port Adelaide-Enfield. So surely greater involvement of local government in vaccination campaigns would make good sense as would putting far greater resources into community level action?

Sacking Hinkley and putting something in the press release about getting vaccinated should do the trick.
 
Greetings Dr. Feel.
Do you perchance live with Mr. or Ms. Think who you can trust to help with your aversion to unfamiliar information?

Horses, water, etc.

Hey bro, i'm vaccinated and I didn't die. My partner who is pregnant and got vaccinated during the pregnancy is also alive and didn't die, baby has gone whole pregnancy without issue. Has anyone checked on Smallpox recently, vaccines clearly don't work.

Thank you for listening to my TED talk.
 
What qualifications are needed to understand such distinct findings as the ones presented in this published medical paper?

A number of papers have contributed to this meta-analysis finding, which continues to be absent from the mainstream medical 'news' as it continues to dismiss and vilify cheap early intervention drugs whilst now suddenly touting the expensive corporate one.

Papers are also being written analysing the clinically incorrect basis of this ongoing dismissal of early treatment options that also just happen to be non-corporate.



Maybe you're just not trying hard enough:

Or maybe it is because finding such information is made too hard:

Notably to this same grubby end, a prominent journalist was banned from Twitter for posting Pfizer's actual study results. Perhaps they were meant to be kept quiet to better enable 'authorities' to correctly instruct people like you on their meaning, or to simply ignore them?

How about these cranks at the Indian Bar Association. What would a National legal body know about anything, hey?



I have no certainty as to the mechanisms of Govt. on such things. Why did a large group of Govts actively furnish and maintain a lie to support the invasion of Iraq? Why are a number of them active or acquiescent in the current legal distortions that are imprisoning a journalist for effectively reporting Empire war crimes? Note that not all Govt's across the world have shared in these duplicities, just as not all are indulging negative campaigns against Ivermectin et al.



The facts, as linked above in small part, show that early intervention treatments have been tested in clinical operation and have been found to be effective. What is lacking is due and equitable awareness of that situation.

Following the apparently converse facilitation of information management, significant issues are beginning to arise around the testing, safety and efficacy of the vaccine cohort.

Studies of extensive data from the US (CDC), Israel and Singapore are similarly identifying vaccine failure at preventing Covid19 infection and transmission.

Mirriam Webster and the CDC have this year both changed their definition of 'vaccine' to enable the current products to fall under it.


Traditionally the keystone attributes of a vaccine is the prevention of disease infection and transmission. Compounds that only mediate an individual's range and severity of symptoms are called medicines and/or drugs. By traditional terms, these 'vaccines' are only drugs. This limitation greatly undermines the rationality and the ethics of mandating their universal application. This deficiency is not changed by a semantic manipulation of the definition. If given a full understanding of the risk profiles involved, do you think perhaps this guy might have chosen differently:

The capacity for such vaccine 'leakage' to promote more virulent strains of disease was an accepted medical position back in 2018. It seems this has also been 'redefined'.

Myocarditis in young and/or healthy males is just one, albeit an apparently predominant and very serious one, of a large number of risk profiles directly relevant to the vaccines and their mandate, yet these are simply not being given due public ventilation. If these new vaccines are unable to provide herd immunity, as is becoming rapidly evident, and there are effective prophylactic and early intervention methodologies, there is absolutely no basis for repressing such discussion of individual health risk profiles and choices.

What does 'vaccine' testing actually aim to test? Apparently the trial test objectives are somewhat unclear:

The vigorous intent toward vaccinating young children is especially alarming.




Resorting to opportunistic and essentially irrelevant ad hominem simply highlights the deeply induced emotional state of your 'argument'. Perhaps redraft your user name to 'Sh*tscared'?

Meanwhile other papers go analyse the research done in those papers and identify questionable processes
 
I could go through these one by one but your mind is made up.

That reply fits the frame of psychological projection. Indeed it seems it is you that has a set view toward the completeness and accuracy of everything you hear via authorised channels. This is despite the dubious past records of such channels and the proliferation of evident facts and eminent persons that are challenging this ordained narrative in quite disturbing ways.

Could you go through just one of these items for me, if only to demonstrate that your response wasn't just a glib deferral. Tell me how it is ok to redefine the term of vaccine, and how it might be ok to mandate frequently recurring doses of this redefined product given that it does not prevent disease infection or transmission.
 
That reply fits the frame of psychological projection. Indeed it seems it is you that has a set view toward the completeness and accuracy of everything you hear via authorised channels. This is despite the dubious past records of such channels and the proliferation of evident facts and eminent persons that are challenging this ordained narrative in quite disturbing ways.

That reply looks to me to be the work of someone who hasn't interacted with a human being since the Leyland P76 won Wheels Car of the Year.

Pretentious Pompous Puerile Poppycock.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Meanwhile other papers go analyse the research done in those papers and identify questionable processes

There is no doubt that the research is insufficient. What is troubling is the apparent avoidance of such adequate trialling given the extent and character of available clinical indications. Some formal study trials done early on, and heavily promoted for their failure, were on late stage severe infection.

An active program of dismissal is being broadcast despite a lot of clinical papers (the ones noted as inadequate in your linked paper) indicating success. The circumstances in India seem quite compelling. The negative hysteria is a likely contributor to the lack of well-constructed study.

The salient question here-in is why are such potential methodologies being left so unclearly resolved in the looming face of 'forever' jabs?
 
That reply fits the frame of psychological projection. Indeed it seems it is you that has a set view toward the completeness and accuracy of everything you hear via authorised channels. This is despite the dubious past records of such channels and the proliferation of evident facts and eminent persons that are challenging this ordained narrative in quite disturbing ways.

Could you go through just one of these items for me, if only to demonstrate that your response wasn't just a glib deferral. Tell me how it is ok to redefine the term of vaccine, and how it might be ok to mandate frequently recurring doses of this redefined product given that it does not prevent disease infection or transmission.

What's it like being you?
 
Port supporter who has a BigBall post count of 200-odd since July 2004?

It’s a conspiracy i tells ya!

My post count and continuity of presence on this forum has something to do with my character? Just a tad xenophobic don't you think?

Why must a regime of incorrectly narrow response action arising from possibly multiple threads of both interlinked and entirely discrete threads of arse-covering, opportunism, be deemed a global conspiracy? Evidently because doing so enables avoidance of the various and particular points involved in the debacle. Screaming 'conspiracy theorist' is akin to pulling a back-to-front balaclava over your head.
 
Now this is the content equivalent of someone coming into the ring with the metal chair and the commentators yelling louder and louder.

stone-cold-steve-austin-steel-chair.gif
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

My post count and continuity of presence on this forum has something to do with my character? Just a tad xenophobic don't you think?

Why must a regime of incorrectly narrow response action arising from possibly multiple threads of both interlinked and entirely discrete threads of arse-covering, opportunism, be deemed a global conspiracy? Evidently because doing so enables avoidance of the various and particular points involved in the debacle. Screaming 'conspiracy theorist' is akin to pulling a back-to-front balaclava over your head.

Imagine accusing others of being scared but believing in a global vaccine conspiracy 🤣
 
My post count and continuity of presence on this forum has something to do with my character? Just a tad xenophobic don't you think?

Why must a regime of incorrectly narrow response action arising from possibly multiple threads of both interlinked and entirely discrete threads of arse-covering, opportunism, be deemed a global conspiracy? Evidently because doing so enables avoidance of the various and particular points involved in the debacle. Screaming 'conspiracy theorist' is akin to pulling a back-to-front balaclava over your head.
What?
 
That reply looks to me to be the work of someone who hasn't interacted with a human being since the Leyland P76 won Wheels Car of the Year.

Pretentious Pompous Puerile Poppycock.

I interact quite well and quite often, but the process is always hard when conceptual boundaries are being tested, and perhaps more so when some critical examination is put upon the responses arising from those difficulties.

Sorry for trying to explain things a bit differently rather than just resonate with the crowd.
Go PortZ!
Feel better now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top