...
Sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know more about this issue than the authors of this article, who work for the largest non-profit biomedical research organization in the United States.
...
In other words, he works at a place which exists so the multi-billionairs can enjoy their hobbies tax-free. Said patrons have a nasty propensity to gravitate toward eugenics and de-population for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
the reason for, what you call 'getting triggered' is simple
many people on this forum in many topics form 'ideas' and 'hypothesis' and make 'ICO prospectuses' but initial they word it as fact/sustainable project. helpful info. but then later go back and say that they are not doing harm, its only an idea/hypothesis
they lack actually doing real research to back up their info. instead they just search quotes that sound like it supports their idea. but dont actually critically think if their ideda is fact or fiction.
I lack the ability to ignore everything but a single ' corp/gov approved' storyline no matter how ridiculous it might be. Little thing called 'Occam's Razor' interferes. I wouldn't say I envy people who don't have a problem doing it even though I'm sure it makes your life a lot less mentally demanding. its like flatearthers. instead of actually experimenting and realising the earth is curved. they just google any quote that suggests its flat. and then use them niave quotes or mis represent the quote to entangle it into the fiction of their idea
Flat earth is a psy-op created for lazy idiots to use when they are losing an aurgument. Nobody believes it. ..
as for putting numbers to it. and answering why covid19 is more serious than 2002's sars.. the answer is simple R0
2002s sars only had a transmission rate of near 1
this means in a 14 day period with all the people you come into contact with your probably only going to pass it onto 1 person
with the 2019 varient its more like 3
now if you know anything about pyramid scams and odds and ratios' and multiplication (all math/numbers games) you would know simple stuff like
fortnight: 1 2 3 4 5 6
2002: 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.8
2019 2.6 6.8 17.6 45.7 118.8 308.9
(simple note: the 6th fortnight 4.8/308 numbers are not numbers of people dying/severe. thats numbers of people getting it. the numbers of severe/ symptomatic/critical are much lover)
over 12 weeks alot more people are getting 2019
and no. dont even try t say that R0 is just some myth pulled out of my ass.. its actually a thing
the other thing is that when someone gets the symptoms (smal amount who actually feel it) with 2002 it was 2 days from infection. and those people usually call into work and have a few sick days and stay in bed
however 2019 varient is not noticed for 5-7 days meaning overall they touch more people, they visit vulnerable people thinking they are fine and so pass it on without knowing.
the third thing is the virus. although it is sars/corona base. it is not the exact same as 2002. this 2019 one can cause pneumonia. meaning its stronger than 2002 in all the ways i explained in this post.
You bring up some irrelevant and simplistic concepts that everyone already knows and accepts why? How many brownie points do you think you deserve for this rather pathetic exhibition?
Hey, anti-vaxers, here is a challenge for you: I will publicly support you, if you will be the first to step up and declare that much though we may wish otherwise, we need some more dead kids in each generation—to prevent unlimited mass suffering and potential extinction in all the generations yet unborn.
I need not reach the question of how bad the side effects of vaccines are or aren’t. Of course, all medicines have side effects. Whether vaccines are benign except in a few rare, unfortunate cases, or causing widespread injuries about which The Truth is suppressed by The Medical Establishment, the answer is irrelevant to me.
[...] I don’t need to know medicine: I know history. People used to have eight, ten, or even twenty (yes, literally, twenty) kids with the knowledge that some would die, and others would survive... tvbcof, want to take up my challenge here, where I can’t use self-mod powers to “censor” you? Stop being a wimp. Speak up for The Truth! Glad to do it Mr. 'we need dead kids': You guys crow all day long about being ' evidence based' and ' data driven', right? Well then, how about a vaxxed vs. non-vaxxed study to get some numbers? It's actually a very simple study. Could at present be done to a statistically valid level by just evaluating existing data which is contained in secret databases. There is one catch: - The study protocols need to be negotiated in public, the negotiations have to include individuals who are not tied to corp/gov and who respected by us realskeptics, and there needs to be auditable assurance that the protocols are adhered to. Such a study will never happen. The corp/gov bodies who hold all the power at present have said plain and simple that they will NEVER do such a study. It fairly obvious to me that the reason is that they know exactly what they will find and they have no interest in finding it. They would find the same thing this study found, except probably a lot worse.
Edit: Just in case people don't get it, in order to calculate the number of 'dead kids', (and kids who are simply given life-long neurological disorders, autoimmune diseases, etc) we need the numbers that can be expected from the different vaccine regime options we have to choose from. We are sitting at a point where 1 in 2 children are on perscription meds already, or some crazy thing like that. Autism has gone from 1/10,000 when I was a kid to something like 1/40. Not having things like the vaxxed vs. un-vaxxed study allows corp/gov to say ' we have no information' that vaccines can cause blah, blah, blah. Some people, including myself, strongly suspect that we are FAR past the point where the number of 'dead kids' is worth protecting people from things like chicken-pox, mumps, etc which hardly ever killed anyone. And, in fact, probably contributed to healthy 'herd immunity' back when they were allowed to run their natural course. But without proper studies these kinds of cost/benefit scenarios cannot be computed. We now know that the CDC does NOT have the 'mountains' of studies showing no association between vaccines and health outcomes because www.icandecide.org sued them. In fact they could not produce ANY valid ones which were responsive to the FOIA request. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJUjnY_FGNQ |
|
|
|
Dietmar Hopp, a german billionaire is holding more than 80% of the CureVac shares. He made crystal clear, that he won't sell the firm to the US. He also made clear that a vaccine should be produced for everyone, not only for one country. There are rumours that the US Government offered 1 billion dollar for CureVac. In addition to that the German government was super pissed and announced: "Germany is not for sale". All newspapers and TV stations reported on the topic today.
...
He might come around. Does Herr Hopp own any race horses? |
|
|
|
unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd. The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people?
common sense its not like corona picks a person based on age common sense its that the older a person is the less healthy they are going to be naturally for instance heart issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50 for instance diabetes issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50 for instance COPD issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50 even just ware and tear of 40years of working from 20-60 puts a strain on the body of 60+ i know you will say not every 50+ person is unfit. but in the same instance not everyone over 50 is dying. only 15% of over 80 are corona will hit everyone 90% will just have the sniffles(wont get reported/tested) over 9% maybe more severe(will get reported/tested) under 1% will die/need intensive care and resuscitation again its not that corona is specifically targetting certain people. everyone will get it as for the pattern between having severe symptoms vs patients who had other vaccinations previous years this again is not targetting of people who had a vaccine.. but vaccine given to vulnerable people as standard so its the commonality of a vulnerable health underlying condition. not specifically a age target and not a vaccine target again third time old people are naturally and normally have more preexisting conditions do to normal and natural ware and tear A plausible (if completely obvious) general idea for sure, but how does it match up with the actual observations of SARS-cov-II infections relative to other infections which debilitate via similar biological mechanisms? I mean, most of these pulmonary centric infections kill in a pretty similar way. An outlier was the 1918 (non-)Spanish flu which was noted to impact the younger crowd in an atypical manner. When Lord Kelvin said “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
I don't think that by 'express in numbers' he mean pull some number out of your ass and type them onto a keyboard. That is clearly what you did since there remains a great deal of error margin with the denominator in the mortality rate equation. Not to mention the strain tracking which is likely important given the differences noted geographical region.
...
i hope you can start to want to do real research from the point of view of human health. and NOT due to some conspiracy theory you want to push
You might step back and ask yourself: " Gee, why am I having such visceral 'triggered' response to any idea which is outside of a particular yet poorly defined mainstream-approved norm???" When I did this years ago I was able to expand the hypotheses which I was able to entertain greatly and as a consequence vastly improve my (already natively high) analytical abilities. That has payed dividends in a myriad of ways. Now it must be said that I have never really been able to satisfactory answer the question as posed in spite of putting a lot of energy into it. I was able to develop a ton of hypotheses about it but nothing really rises to the fore. I strongly suspect it is a thorny multi-variate problem. |
|
|
|
"A small town in northern Italy has reportedly stopped all new coronavirus infections as part of a successful experiment." What is the name? "Professor Crisanti warned that that for every patient that shows symptoms for COVID-19 there were about 10 who don't." If that is the case immagen the number who already recoved It seems to affect politicians and celebrities a lot more, homeless people in the sewers seem fine. Have they too many bacteria on them that even viruses avoid them? Can you read? Imagine how many people are walking around unknowingly infecting others. This is a pretty good illustration of why a 'lethal' weaponized biological agent is not a very good one. Difficult to deploy. A much more effective one only shows on 1 in 10 people which helps it move around an entire population. Another thing that people get all hung up on is ' well, the country which deployed it will be catch it too.' That might have made sense 50 or 100 years ago in a more simple and 'innocent' world. With our current 'borderless' and 'globalized' world the 'enemy' tends to be a class of people more than it is a geographical population. At least that is how it is conceived of by those who have the resources to develop and deploy such things. Naturally these people are in no hurry to disabuse the 'useless eater' classes of their antiquated notions. |
|
|
|
What is the policy of the bodies governing licenced medical doctors here? There is no jurisdiction in the world I am aware of which legislates against a physician identifying himself or herself as a physician, online or otherwise. The question is whether a licensed doctor can operate anonymously on-line using licensure as a claim to authority and without a disclaimer about the applicability of the advice given. One would think that most medical associations would frown on their members doing so, but I guess I am wrong about that, eh? I'm not going to defend the study. It seemed a bit shoddy to me Then why did you bring it up? Because in spite of bending over backward to 'conclude' that everyone should take their flu shots, they apperently found it impractical to hide the _significant_ data showing that the vaccine has an unusual interaction with coronavirus specifically. Again, that was back when 'coronavirus' was nothing more than a sniffle so it WAS a rational conclusion from the data they presented that everyone should get their flu vax. Things change. I read it again fairly carefully and I saw no specific mention of 'coronavirus' being treated any differently in sample selection than any of the other non-influenza viruses. I never said it was. I think their entire analysis (of all the viruses mentioned) is fundamentally flawed by excluding all non-vaccinated participants who developed more than one infection. Actually that's about all you said. As such, I asked you where in the study did you get the idea that the study was flawed specific to coronavirus. Apparently you didn't. Apparently it sounded like a good way to bolster a pre-concieved idea (e.g., that all vaccines are always good for everybody and everything.) It would have worked better if there was a specific defect in the paper which you could point to upon which your critique could rest. In case you missed it, it's the _differential_ between coronavirus and the myriad of other non-influenza viruses which is important when trying to gauge the cost-benefit of taking the flu vaccine when SARS-cov-2 coronavirus is about. If there are no identifiable sample selection defects which impact coronavirus specifically then this differential would seem to exist as a valid concern irrespective or what other flaws the study might contain. SARS-cov-2 is (supposed to be) super deadly it seems extra important to take all steps to mitigate it. It seems we have found some common ground. Lest it be forgotten, my interest in this study was in the unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd. The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people? One (of many) things is that they get the flu vaccine at a much higher rate. The season influenza vaccine is also given to all children under 5 in many jurisdictions around the world, and yet we are seeing very few infections and (as far as I am aware) no deaths in this age group. One of the critiques I had of this study (or I should say, reasons to perform follow-up studies) was that the sample group was associated with active duty military personal. This group has a ton of problems one of them being that they are handy to experiment on (as happened to me when I was in.) One very interesting little tid-bit I took from the study was this: ... The same study did find a significant association between parainfluenza and influenza vaccination, but the association was in opposite directions when comparing children and adults. ...
The differences between an immune system when it is in 'training stage' vs. 'trained stage' is generally of interest to me. Anyway, I do agree with the idea that 'more study is needed'. Hopefully some entities who are not reliant on corp/gov for funding will pick up the ball here though they have only a tiny fraction of the funding of their counterparts. |
|
|
|
...
I care not about your thoughts or feelings regarding my medical qualifications or occupation. You can believe what you like about me - it matters to me not at all. Given my aforementioned propensity for privacy, I'm not about to dox myself by uploading a copy of my graduation certificate or medical license to satisfy the whims of some conspiracy nut.
Might I suggest that if you are going to keep your credentials secret you do the same for your vocation? Why don't you just let your content speak for itself? I actually don't know the precise details of the ethical rules governing medical doctors. They are significantly more strict and formalized then most professions, no? I hardly ever see anonymous people running around on random message boards claiming to be medical doctor who are not scammers. In fact I don't know that I ever have. What is the policy of the bodies governing licenced medical doctors here?
Now, on to the paper. You have done what the vast majority of quacks do when "examining" scientific literature - start with a preconceived notion, search for a quotable sentence or paragraph which supposedly supports that notion, and not actually read the paper from which the quote has come from.
First of all, some limitations of the study:
People with both influenza and non-influenza positive specimens were excluded from the analysis. In other words, anyone who had both flu and coronavirus was excluded, whereas anyone who didn't have the flu but did have coronavirus was included. The latter group is predominantly comprised of individuals who were vaccinated, skewing the results against this group.
Individuals who gave multiple specimens were excluded from the analysis. This is essentially the same error that we just discussed. Unvaccinated individuals who had both flu and coronavirus were excluded from the analysis, while vaccinated individuals who did not have flu but did have coronavirus were included, again skewing the results further.
I'm not going to defend the study. It seemed a bit shoddy to me, and also a bit desperate to conclude that flu vax was the bomb (as they almost always are.) I read it again fairly carefully and I saw no specific mention of 'coronavirus' being treated any differently in sample selection than any of the other non-influenza viruses. Nor did the n-values for coronavirus or metapneumovirus seem out of range for the other non-influenza infections examined. Frankly the above sounds a little like something you wishfully pulled out of your a...oh ya...be polite. Anyway, maybe you could point me to where coronaviruse was identified as being specially (and invalidly) treated in sample selction or analysis? As we have all seen over the last few weeks, not all coronaviruses are the same. The behavior of one cannot be generalized to the behavior of them all.
SARS-cov-2 is (supposed to be) super deadly it seems extra important to take all steps to mitigate it. Lest it be forgotten, my interest in this study was in the unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd. The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people? One (of many) things is that they get the flu vaccine at a much higher rate. I never said anything remotely like 'it has to be the flu vaccine'. I mearly took interest in a study which showed some interesting things about the relationship between the flu vaccine, coronavirus, and other non-influenza viruses. It was the violent reaction to any questions here, and the censorship, which raised my eyebrows. Next, the results. Additionally, the laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination. Emphasis mine. The laboratory data. This includes individuals who were colonized with coronavirus or metapneumovirus, but were not infected or unwell. Colonization with a wide variety of viruses and bacteria is both exceedingly widespread and entirely normal. Seems like you are at best saying that the study sucked due to invalid sample selection (which I would tend to agree with for other reasons.) I would say that you need to squint pretty hard at the words "the laboratory data" to even make that assertion. And again, please show me where in the study it singles out coronavirus and metapneumonavirus for special and invalid treatement. If it's in one of the footnotes (which I did not study in detail) where you find your case, which one? The minute differences among the vaccine effectiveness of all three control groups does not support the virus interference concept. No virus interference. Both the unadjusted and adjusted models did not show significant evidence of virus interference No virus interference. The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination No virus interference. Those 'no virus interference' statements seem from my read to be only valid when 'averaged' across the entire pan set. Specific differences between coronavirus and most of the rest seem to have been observed and noted. So, to summarize:
Absolutely no evidence of virus interference.
Skewed data by removing a bunch of non-vaccinated individuals who had coronavirus.
Even then, coronavirus colonization (and not necessarily infection) was associated with (but not caused by) vaccination.
You have a different definition of 'absolutely no' than I do. But surely you'll be happy to have further research on the fairly important topic. I'll keep my eyes open for you.
And of course they had the obligatory 'further research necessary'. After researching these things for a while, 'further research necessary' usually translates to 'do a study designed to not find this pesky association.' This is one of my favorite quotes ever, because it perfectly sums up the disconnect between actual science and pseudoscience quacks. Science - let's do further research and see if we can contradict our findings, because only then can we absolutely sure of our findings. Pseudoscience - we've found a single quote which backs up our pre-conceived notions, let's not only stop looking but ignore everything to the contrary. Glad you got a kick out of it, but I mentioned it because almost all of the funded research is done by those who desperately want vaccines for all (or more accurately, the funding that goes along with this result.) They are, in my observation, very prone to scientific fraud of various types. That's why I am so skeptical of most of these studies. |
|
|
|
You're missing the entire point of the study's findings, completely steamrolling over its words so you can continue pressing the same belief you had before you ever heard of the coronavirus. That's what makes you a conspiratard. For completeness in this post [emphasis mine]: Conclusions
Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.
"Associated with" does NOT mean "contributes to." You badly want to mean it the same thing because then you don't have to learn anything or adjust your rigid belief system. Well, it obviously doesn't mean 'protection' as evidenced by the context. So what does it mean, Mr. 'Former Medical Specialist'? This is a pointless discussion. Obviously you'll never give an inch here in terms of attempting to be reasonable, so I'm out.
Most people don't want to tangle with me twice. (self-identified Doctor) Oileo sure as hell didn't! Here's a tip for you to use going forward: Try to be right. It makes life a lot easier.
Now poor put-upon Dr(?) Oileo is boo-hoo about people not using 'his' space 'appropriately' and has locked his thread. Perhaps he does not have time to waste deleting trash left by idiots whose ignorance is exceeded only by their rudeness? Real doctors are busy. Especially now. And in that context, your peremptory demand that he spend time dealing with your narcissistic tantrum is peculiarly repulsive. You are seriously criticizing a doctor for locking a thread to prevent trolling during a time of, um, a shortage of doctors pretty much everywhere!? WTF? I never even bothered to look at the quack's posting history until now. Jesus Lorda Mercy! Spends all day hyping some 'privacy' coin mixer and 'helping' people make 'secure wallets.' One thing they guy ain't is a 'busy doctor' at least if you mean busy practicing medicine. Maybe we found cypherdoc after all? He used to spend all day on bitcointalk while supposedly doing eye surgery. There is no way I would trust a 'privacy mixer' product pumped by someone of his ilk. Another bitch move on your part. FYI, Dr. o_e_l_e_o also has high technical competence in Bitcoin privacy matters. I didn't bother to evaluate they guy's technical competence on comp-sci issues because I am simply interested in other things at the moment, so I won't shit-talk it. I will say that they guy seems shady as hell as far as I am concerned. I can't help but notice that you (a sock puppet of his? Part of the same intel group nest?) are pumping the same 'coin mixer' out of the 'goodness of your heart' alone. Hmmmm... |
|
|
|
Avoiding serious challenges (like a published study by the U.S. military showing, with statically relevance, that flu vax contributes to coronavirus infection) by deleting with the self-moderation power is hardly 'serious discussion.' Just as clearly it is censorship.
That's not what the study concludes. The study concludes this: Examining 6120 people with respiratory viruses other than influenza and pan-negative results who submitted a respiratory specimen for laboratory testing to the DoDGRS team, those who received an influenza vaccine had a decreased risk of having other respiratory pathogens identified compared to the unvaccinated group. The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. Further research is necessary to help character virus interference and validate or refute the validity of the test-negative design for influenza vaccine effectiveness. You're taking one component of the study results and running away with it to come to conclusions which buttress your pre-existing beliefs. That's why oeleo considered your reply to be "not serious discussion." Even you should be able to see that the paragraphs above are a dance around the finding that the flu vaccine was associated with a higher rate of coronavirus infection. They did this by leaving the finding out of the paragraph and talking about other things like how great the flu vax is (as required.) And of course they had the obligatory 'further research necessary'. After researching these things for a while, ' further research necessary' usually translates to ' do a study designed to not find this pesky association.' It should be noted that at the time of the data, nobody (except possibly a few people within the biowarfare development groups) had heard of SARS-cov-II' so 'coronavirus' indicated just a minor cold. Even if people were more susceptible to it because of the flu vaccine, the 'benefits outweighed the costs'. They allude to this principle time and time again, and especially in the paragraph that you cherry-picked. Fast-forward to early 2020 with practically the whole world in lockdown because of a 'killer coronavirus.' You have to be pretty dense to think that the cost-benefit hasn't changed. For completeness in this post [emphasis mine]: Conclusions
Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.
|
|
|
|
...
Philippines reports Avian flu H5N6 has jumped into humans.
...
I would consider that to be more of a threat than covid-19, and I've been half expecting something like this to pop up for a month or two now. Sure enough, sort of, accd to this: https://dailytimes.com.pk/578491/china-philippines-detects-bird-flu-outbreak/Maybe Duterte will be getting the message that he needs to bring back the VFA with even more concessions than the last one had, and consider carefully from whence The Philippines gets their deployed 5G hardware. Displeasing Mike Pompeo could have negative ramifications. It will be interesting to note what 'gain of function' this H5N6 might have acquired since 2017. |
|
|
|
...
I doubt that either you or the noob above you I know that I hit just the right spot when it’s too chicken to say my name. Actually it's more that you are to irrelevant for me to bother enough with to scroll down and find your name. You cannot make a legibly formatted post either. ...
Indeed, it is difficult to pin-point a single irrational statement by you, just as it is difficult to pin-point a drop of water in a sea. I picked two: Your accusation that people who use forum features provided by the forum administration are somehow “leeching” off of forum administration; and your cries of “censorship” because Dr. o_e_l_e_o does not allow arrant nonsense to be dumped in a thread that he created for serious discussion.
...
Riding on someone else's successful forum and taking over a 'personal space' on it via self-moderation is clearly leeching. Avoiding serious challenges (like a published study by the U.S. military showing, with statically relevance, that flu vax contributes to coronavirus infection) by deleting with the self-moderation power is hardly 'serious discussion.' Just as clearly it is censorship. These are rational arguments. Try again. I may get around to addressing some of your other nearly illegible babble in due course. If I'm feeling charitable at least. |
|
|
|
Pharmaceutical drugs has increased the life expectancy. You cannot blame them for killing people.
I'm sorry but that isn't true. The current generation is the first one t have a life expectancy that is shorten than the previous one. My comment is based on personal observation as well. I have a lot of elderly friends, and I discuss their medication with them, so it is based on practical observation, and not on Big Pharma propaganda. How many lives have been destroyed by statins? ... Nadia, like most normies, totally lives under a rock. Big Pharma 'settles' and 'forced' to pay fines for fraudulent studies and killing people all the time. Of course with their lobbying power the 'fines' tend to be a tiny fraction of the profits they made from their malfeasance. They just treat it as a cost of doing business. It's a dog-n-pony show they play with their revolving-door friends in the 'regulatory' agencies so they can make the dopes think that the FDA, CDC, etc are actually worth having around. Just a brief 'first link' search in mainstreamland uncovers tons of examples. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/purdue-pharma-offers-10-12-billion-settle-opioid-claims-n1046526 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements https://www.fiercepharma.com/regulatory/merck-reaches-830m-settlement-long-running-vioxx-litigationThey have a really sweet deal with vaccines which are special. On these they have legal immunity so the 'safety studies' tend to be a few days or weeks rather than the years it takes to massage and falsify data for their other products. The Billions that are paid out in 'vaccine court' when people are killed and maimed (and manage to get through the nearly impossible process) come straight out of the taxpayer's pockets. |
|
|
|
Another one: Note that it is professional ethics for a doctor to post a disclaimer about medical advice unless he/she is taking a person on as a patient.
Here we have a guy who claims to be a medical doctor but operates anonymously under an alias and doesn't post their credentials. It's kind of dangerous to take medical advice from someone who operates in that manner. The internet is full of stories about people who did so and paid the price.
His advice isn't very sound either since he censors information that the seasonal flu vaccine tends to make it easier for a person to catch coronavirus.
For all anyone knows this guy is just an orderly or a nurse who dreams of being a doctor as he scrubs down bed frames and picked up some medical jargon around the water cooler. Any jackass can copy/paste the 'official' material that he posts to convince people the he is a medical doctor.
Now poor put-upon Dr(?) Oileo is boo-hoo about people not using 'his' space 'appropriately' and has locked his thread. Or claimed to. Taking his ball and going home so to speak. Of course 'appropriately' means echoing standard medical/industrial complex tripe that one can get anywhere, and doing it without anyone challanging the garbage. In other words, speaking from some self-appointed position of authority on-high and never having to defend one's position. Poor whiny self entitled little bitch has probably never run across a 'free' platform and is all flustered. BTW, Dr(?) Oileo is a a banner spammer of course. Supplementing his income as a hospital bed washer perhaps? Probably not. Most likely he is trying to lure in dupes to a flawed product (over and above the pharma industry's wares.) There is no way I would trust a 'privacy mixer' product pumped by someone of his ilk. You can thank me latter for my analysis on this one. |
|
|
|
That's known as 'Stockholm syndrome' my friend.
Its known as "common fucking sense," something that you are sorely lacking. I doubt that either you or the noob above you can pin-point a single thing I have said that was 'irrational on almost any post on this board. It's not surprising that you don't even try. You can find a ton of stuff I said that didn't follow 'authorized' thought patterns at the time I said it. I know that to you guys and other normies that some sort of a thought crime, but that is basically your problem. The trouble for U.S. boot lickers is that not everyone in the world has such a slavish devotion Trump and his corp/gov team that they will ignore basic science just because it was published in China or whatever. Obviously the U.S., and by extension the Western orthodoxy, is trying to blame Chinese bat soup for all of the troubles in the world and support their sponsors in Big Pharma so the years of conditioning that they invested in pumping into your soft heads is going to make you recoil at any questions which don't line up with the Western propaganda. Don't worry...It will pass...if you live long enough. |
|
|
|
You would take the advice of an anonymous guy on the internet who claims he is a doctor and posts standard industry fliers to 'prove' it, but fails to post any credentials and fails to use disclaimers as is the norm for the professional?
The position statement from the European Society of Cardiology is to continue taking anti-hypertensive therapy as prescribed by your doctor, which I would agree with.
Its not just him. But yes, the way he addresses certain issues comes from an area of recognizable expertise. As an ex-medical professional myself, I know he is not just gaslighting people by throwing out a bunch of technical terms and hoping nobody questions them. So an anonymous self-proclaimed 'doctor' can produce a link to a medical/industrial complex trade lobby group and it's good enough to convince you of his credentials? I mean just wow. BTW, I'm not saying that Dr. Oily's jargon is pure babble. I'm mostly just that many people can produce it with a little effort. Especially copy/paste enthusiasts. I guess by using this technique you can save some money and time waiting in the clinic...on your journey through chronic illness, bankruptcy, Alzheimer, and death.
I haven't seen a doctor in years - even though I probably should - but thanks for your concern. I was diagnosed at an early age with hypertrigylceridemia and my last physician did prescribe me some bullshit medication for that where the side effects probably outweighed the benefit (not a statin, I would have been happy with that), and then she cut me off when I lost my job and wouldn't accept medicaid patients. It was a shitty experience but probably to my benefit. So while I don't necessarily trust doctors, I don't take an adamant stance of going against their advice as a rule of thumb. That's known as 'Stockholm syndrome' my friend. |
|
|
|
...
I would absolutely take the advice of a qualified medical professional (or group thereof) regarding this issue 100 times before I took the advice of a paranoia-driven armchair expert once.
...
You would take the advice of an anonymous guy on the internet who claims he is a doctor and posts standard industry fliers to 'prove' it, but fails to post any credentials and fails to use disclaimers as is the norm for the profession? I guess by using this technique you can save some money and time waiting in the clinic...on your journey through chronic illness, bankruptcy, Alzheimer, and death. |
|
|
|
I have seen the OP post a lot of dis/misinformation about the coronavirus. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.
Outstanding advice! Everyone should take everything from anyone 'with a grain of salt.' I can promise that I don't have the power to insert fake studies into pub-med though. What I mostly do is to present ideas and links to information which a lot of people have not heard of. This is not because the information isn't out there, but it can be hard to find because there is a mainstream narrative which is heavily promoted and information that doesn't conform to the mainstream narrative is quashed. People who don't go out side of a particular box [which is most people] simply have no access to it. And people are conditioned from pre-school through grad school to NOT auto-generate new ideas for themselves. Sharp eyed viewers might note that a lot of things which were fringe conspiracy theories in the not to distant past have been allowed into mainstream-land eventually. The 'cost' of keeping them out indefinitely outweighs the 'benefit' of keeping them hidden. Anyway, being able to recognize them early can make a person healthy, wealthy, and wise. I'm always glad to see that happen, and especially in cases where my efforts clearly had something to do with it. |
|
|
|
...
In our modern age of globalism, viruses, bacteria and disease travel at a rate never before seen, however, so too does information.
This is the great equalizer and moving into the coming days, as the masses truly begin to wake up to the new reality that they now find themselves living in, information is going to be vital.
The ability to learn, inform yourself and get the latest, breaking news in regard to a global pandemic is almost instantaneous.
This allows people to react quicker, respond faster and take the required steps in helping slow down the spread of COVID-19, where as in previous crisis, the spread of information occurred at a much slower rate.
This rapid spread of information means that people are much more conscious of the decisions that they make, that could possible affect others adversely in these precarious times.
Additionally, it allows people to apply this knowledge in a very powerful way to others around them.
This is where the true power of social awareness comes into effect...[/size]
...
This is a big stepping stone toward the 'singularity' that [those who run] the technocrats dream of. The censorship on media for the 'coronavirus' started before the infection did. You are not going to be sequestered in your hovel and absorbing information. You'll be sequestered in your stack-n-pack apartment absorbing corp/gov propaganda 24/7 with no information which will be at all 'empowering' to you. After a few months of lockdown in the aforementioned conditions many many people will be ready to get their ' neural lace' which is needed to 'live' in the brave new world of cyber-utopia and leave their earthly body behind. Helps save Mother Gaia from evil humans too dont-cha-know. |
|
|
|
The standard procedure states that you are allowed to buy food, go to hospitals or even work when in quarantine like the current one. Unless your government goes nuts and tries to become a dictatorship, you will be fine. What good does being "allowed" to buy food do you if there is none to buy because the supply chain shut down, or because it is prohibitively expensive? will continue working, at least at a national level and will not shut down. It is also illegal to massively pump up the prices of basic and needed items for humans. Well how nice for you!   |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
