Remove this Banner Ad

Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 4.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
He literally washed his hands of the whole thing and left it to the states.
Or are you choosing to forget that part?
So the states done all the work securing the doses and the Federal done nothing?

I haven't forgotten how nothing happened for a long time, but I also remember when something did happen and it has put the country in a better position than most others despite the slow start.


Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I accept your comment that he may not be alone in his concern, I am sure others would share his views but I am also sure that many many more are not concerned, so why believe this man is correct and the others are wrong?

It's not especially about wrong and right per se. It's about seeking to openly understand and apply the full extent of what is happening as accurately as possible.

Without that transparent breadth of consideration inappropriate actions can be taken, and possibly for dubious reasons. Like mandating a vaccine that, whilst inhibiting symptomatic impacts, doesn't effectively curtail the epidemic, and doing so because politically something has to be done that looks like something is being done. And then doubling down in that direction because the will and courage needed to change direction is lacking. That is problematic enough without even getting into the issues of corporate profit manoeuvrings and associated downplay of possible longer term vaccine impacts.
 
So the states done all the work securing the doses and the Federal done nothing?

I haven't forgotten how nothing happened for a long time, but I also remember when something did happen and it has put the country in a better position than most others despite the slow start.


Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
Ah, putting an order in for the vaccines was leadership was it?
**** me dead, don’t you remember WHY he had to scramble?

Governments rely on-such short memories!
 
On that version of the document they are listed at the end under category headings. There's about 14 pages of them. A later version is footnoted in line but its a download document, not web-view.
Yes I see that now, hundreds but unclickable which is useless to me, including the Ivermectin in India ‘proof’ which so many antivax ivermectin lovers quote but which has been disputed now as there were many other factors involved.
Gee he even threw in another anti vax talking point… the foetal cell line.
It appears to me a disjointed but meant to impress list of all the anti vax stuff he could find.

Anyway you are entitled to your views and I am sure you and Janus will become gread buddies when he returns. He is definitely right on your wave length.

As for me, I have read a lot of this alternative stuff. I am not a scientist, nor am I really that good these days at critiquing or reviewing studies, my uni days are long gone, but I have sent Spartacus’ page to a couple of virologists whether they will read it and respond I don’t know. They are good at sorting the wheat from the chaff.
 
I return here in the hope of finding an original voice, some wit and wisdom, perhaps even a glowing jewel in the pile of dung. And today, Wallumi, you have not disappointed!
We have a clique, we have a new clique.
 
Those things are massive if true, which studies have indicated they are and no studies have disproven. It is a smoking gun as the complete opposite is being touted publicly and undertaken medically.

The current response principle is to try to stop infection entirely via vaccination and severe methods of quarantine/isolation. Both of these mechanisms are very evidently not working. Doubling down on them will not work any better, yet that is what we are poised to do.

The key alternative principle is to prevent Covid19 infection from progressing past minor, hence the emphasis on early intervention methodologies. Once the disease reaches a critical level all hell breaks loose inside the body as the cellular structures forming the blood vessels are variously destroyed. The medical response to this has been directly adding to fatalities by applying treatments that increase the oxidative process causing rampant cell destruction.

Only a very small percentage of people get hit hard with this virus and a large proportion of these are identifiable by their personal risk profiles. It seems a far better course to seek and apply treatment methodologies that assist the immune system to cope with the virus, thus reducing risk outside of the main at-risk cohorts.

Elevated strategies can then be better targeted at that high risk cohort rather than at everyone, including kids who have next to f'all chance of any impact from the virus. Those strategies would include a top to bottom renovation of our shoddy privatised aged care system.

This document provides a mind-melting summary of how the virus actually works.
This basic understanding is really important.
The document goes on with things you'll regard as tin hat territory. Just ignore them. I don't accept them as gospel, but neither can I prove them not to be true. The available facts would seem to make them technically possible. The salient question is 'would people in power actually do these things?' Would billionaires put their own self-interest ahead of social and other individuals' well-being? Hmmm. Let me think...

The movie “Dark waters” answers that question


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well he wasn’t, but I deleted it as you’ve invoked Godwin’s Law and I ain’t going down that rabbit hole with someone as special as you.

I haven't invoked Godwin's Law. From Wikipedia:
Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[10] Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin's law, claiming it does not articulate a fallacy; but rather intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

I made no hyperbolic comparison with Hitler. Indeed I noted an apparent virtue he embodied and proposed such merit not be renounced simply due to that association. The point made upon that extreme example is to view the merit of a position separate from the supposed character of the person presenting it. The opposite view is to head in the direction of Godwin's Law at the extreme end.

And on a general note, please refrain from abusing Godwin's Law.
 
I haven't invoked Godwin's Law. From Wikipedia:
Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[10] Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin's law, claiming it does not articulate a fallacy; but rather intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

I made no hyperbolic comparison with Hitler. Indeed I noted an apparent virtue he embodied and proposed such merit not be renounced simply due to that association. The point made upon that extreme example is to view the merit of a position separate from the supposed character of the person presenting it. The opposite view is to head in the direction of Godwin's Law at the extreme end.

And on a general note, please refrain from abusing Godwin's Law.

Oh, so you used the Hitler myth of his vegetarianism with zero intent at hyperbole.

ok
 

Remove this Banner Ad

This woman has to do jail time for what is an attempt to falsify the public records and place the general public at risk.

Just to clarify the exact matter, how do you feel about the idea of having to have these shots two, three or even four times every year to maintain personal protection against severe symptoms and yet this still doesn't greatly reduce rates of infection and transmission? Is there a point where your assessment of personal risk might incline you toward not participating in this process? However if your income was at risk because of your sincerely made decision to opt out, would you entertain a 'work around' solution?

I'm just trying to explain the motivating forces acting within this so called crime.
 
Ah, putting an order in for the vaccines was leadership was it?
fu** me dead, don’t you remember WHY he had to scramble?

Governments rely on-such short memories!

Of course I remember. But the current situation really isn't that bad is it? Like are we all going to ignore the fact that since then we've become one of the better counties in the world and doing better than a lot that we were compared to initially?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 
Oh, so you used the Hitler myth of his vegetarianism with zero intent at hyperbole.

ok

If his vegetarianism is a myth then it is a broadly embraced one. Let's adjust my original premise to ask whether one's belief in Hitler's vegetarianism would preclude their similar choice. This example reasonably illustrated a principle central to this matter which is unduly centred on character assassinations rather than objective assessment. You're making the rabbit hole here.

Got any more hairs to split?
 
Why cant we all just agree that the leaders of the world got together in 2019, they invented covid, developed a fake vaccine just so we can be injected with a microbe sized self powering super computer which reports everything we do back to our all powerful leader of the world- Scomo.

Konichiwa virus was invented, the vaccine is real.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Just to clarify the exact matter, how do you feel about the idea of having to have these shots two, three or even four times every year to maintain personal protection against severe symptoms and yet this still doesn't greatly reduce rates of infection and transmission? Is there a point where your assessment of personal risk might incline you toward not participating in this process? However if your income was at risk because of your sincerely made decision to opt out, would you entertain a 'work around' solution?

I'm just trying to explain the motivating forces acting within this so called crime.
The slippery slope is your logical fallacy.

We have actually no idea yet that we will require boosters 2 3 or 4 times per year.
At this stage we will require a 3rd dose 6 months after our 2nd.
This is not the first vaccine type ever requiring a 3rd dose.
Some vaccines already requiring 3 doses for adequate immunity are HPV, Hib, Hep B.
The flu vaccine requires a yearly dose.
 
Lol equating VW deliberately and calmly cheating test results, with science under extreme pressure figuring a new way to generate a protective immune response for a member of family of bugs we never managed to have a vaccine for previously, using a literary technicality worthy of the very worst kind of lawyers and pedants

Appalling and disingenuous. Especially considering there are also “method traditionelle” vaccines now.

Think what you like. Fact is though both served to manipulate and conceal public interest outcomes.

The new products gain a status as vaccines that is not afforded to therapeutic drugs. That status required redefinition of the standards, just as VW made their diesels appear 'clean' by redefinition of on-board monitoring standards. The only real difference was VW's relatively limited power to enforce that new definition.

This relates directly to vaccine efficacy, and not to their mRNA configuration and issues contingent particularly to that. mRNA status may particularly correlate to lack of efficacy, or it may not.
 
The slippery slope is your logical fallacy.

We have actually no idea yet that we will require boosters 2 3 or 4 times per year.
At this stage we will require a 3rd dose 6 months after our 2nd.
This is not the first vaccine type ever requiring a 3rd dose.
Some vaccines already requiring 3 doses for adequate immunity are HPV, Hib, Hep B.
The flu vaccine requires a yearly dose.

Israel is highly vaccinated and the source of one large and substantive study indicating the vaccines' efficacy depletion over disturbingly limited time frames. The third shot booster schedule is already beginning and formal talk is active regarding a fourth.

There is no objective basis for assuming the recorded diminishment in the efficacy of all of the vaccines will not be ongoing.
 
Israel is highly vaccinated and the source of one large and substantive study indicating the vaccines' efficacy depletion over disturbingly limited time frames. The third shot booster schedule is already beginning and formal talk is active regarding a fourth.

There is no objective basis for assuming the recorded diminishment in the efficacy of all of the vaccines will not be ongoing.
And no objective basis for the opposite wouldn’t you say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top