Since nutildah considers the situation resolved, I suppose I will be leaving my trust list as it stands. Thanks for the reply.
I thought your view on trust was that it should be reserved for trade-oriented issues. Leaving trust feedback for opinions was something you were thoroughly against. iCEBREAKER also left a negative trust for Evan Duffield, the developer of DASH, which I think renders his judgment pretty unsound. But that's just my personal opinion. I also have a negative trust left by somebody who neg trusted Vitalik Buterin. Maybe I can attract someone who neg trusts Satoshi next. That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much. |
|
|
|
Thanks tranthidung for posting this. Hhampuz had a good point about not leaving "back and forth" trusts, so I won't do that going forward. The situation seems to be resolved. And thanks to everybody else for coming to my Reputation thread.
Since nutildah considers the situation resolved, I suppose I will be leaving my trust list as it stands. Thanks for the reply. |
|
|
|
Just as predicted the Socialists and Commies roll in and try to take credit for everyone elses work and hijack the group and redirect it toward implementing Marxist ideologies. They are parasites and can build nothing of their own. I saw the exact same shit happen to Occupy in the US. Before you know it, it will be yellow vest consensus by hand sparkle (because clapping can trigger people). Communists and Socialists LAARP as revolutionaries, but the real result is they help maintain the status quo.
Well it turns out a lot of people supporting the yellow vests resisted Socialist infiltration for the most part except for a lot of posers committing antisemitic crimes to try to cast all of the yellow vests as racist... So the new brown shirts have now resorted to labeling the entire yellow vest movement as racist since they will not bow to their Marxist overlords. Check out these Canadian socialists... https://youtu.be/wtbWkdv7_o0?t=299 |
|
|
|
I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.
I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed. It counts as a lot. https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f525% of women were employed. Does maintaining a home and a family count as work? If so I am willing to wager that number would be closer to 80% |
|
|
|
Sorry, you are confused. They explicitly explain in the paper they are testing for ACTUAL measles, but this strain used for the vaccines no longer exists in the wild. The vaccines induce ACTUAL measles, just a less virulent strain as a direct result of vaccination resulting in a reaction that is often indistinguishable from the more virulent strain. That is how inoculation works. You are offered a controlled minimal infection to allow your immune system an opportunity to produce antibodies for it so it is resistant to infection when it encounters a more virulent strain. Often these are not live viruses, in this case it appears to be an actual live virus according to the text of the paper.
Thats an argument of semantics. If you are given a minimal controlled infection, and the traces you test positive for are that dead virus, that does not mean you have the disease. Otherwise, anyone that was tested right now that had received the vaccine previously would by your definition have actual measles. I have not read all of the side effects of every vaccine to be able to tell you definitively that inflammation from your body's immune system overreacting to the dead disease is the cause of the allergic reactions that can occur, and are sometimes read as false positives, such as the case of the study we have been discussing, but that is what I'd expect to find with proper research. At the very least, I would not expect to find anything that stated that the measles vaccine gives you a mild case of the measles until you fight it off. That was the case with flu mist , but thats because for some reason you inhale a weakened rather than dead strain of the virus. It was never offered to those with any risk factors, because it could legitimately give you a weakened version of the flu if your immune system couldn't suppress it before it got a chance to recuperate. Except we aren't talking about all of those other situations. We are talking about this paper and this study, which clearly says they are testing for a version of measles transmitted via vaccine. |
|
|
|
It was allowed by the forum rules.I even asked via PM a mod for permission to buy an account for a friend and got a positiv reply.
There were no info on the forum rules that account buys are discouraged at that time.
If you are on a forum and if you don't know if something is allowed where do you check if you can proceed or not ?Forum rules ?
Scamming people is allowed by forum rules as well. I think it was pretty well established that account selling was untrustworthy by 2014ish? if I had to take a random guess. Pretty sure it was listed in the original post of the unofficial forum rules thread. Its not something that was agreed upon recently. Forum rules aren't decided by community morals, but if it makes you feel any better, your negative trust doesn't mean too much to me as I don't find account selling that untrustworthy. You don't seem to have much business history anyway though, I'd value that over your other ratings if you had any. No comment on the merit stuff, I don't care about any of it in the slightest, so my opinion holds no weight on that. Amazing how this pattern keeps revealing itself isn't it? Theymos doesn't want to implement hard rules. The rules remain unwritten. The forum creates its own arbitrarily and selectively enforced patchwork of rules also unwritten, a user comes along and would otherwise be "law abiding" if these were published rules, they get their reputation destroyed never ever being aware these rules exist. These rules may be obvious to people like you who frequent the forum more, but they are not immediately obvious by any means. In fact the importance of promulgating laws is considered so important in most legal systems, that if a defendant can prove sufficient notice of the existence of a law was not given, they are not responsible for the legal violation. This also demonstrates itself in the legal precedent of ex post facto law. If I commit an act that is legal today, and a law is passed against that act tomorrow, I can not be held responsible for violation of the law because I had no possible way of knowing it was to become a crime. How do you expect a party to agree to a contract that is unwritten and ever changing? These precedents exist because they prevent abusive or destructive uses of the legal system. The idea that people here have to perpetually follow a arbitrary and selectively enforced unwritten patchwork of rules is asinine. |
|
|
|
Is it? I was on DT1 earlier today until one of your pet muppets suddenly decided my judgement could not be trusted by sheer coincidence I am sure.
It's not a coincidence. I don't trust your judgement, don't think you should be on DT, and voted accordingly. What is it about that that's baffling to you? As I said, excluding you was overdue, and the fact that I did so just now is only relevant in your mind because....who knows. Your dedication to pursuing personal vendettas over building a trust list that serves the forum over your own personal interest has been duly noted. I just think it is sad you still harbor all this resentment over having your own behavior checked 4 years ago. Maybe you can regale us all with more tales about how I abused the trust system by leaving you a neutral rating over it. |
|
|
|
RIP BITCOINTALK.
 Once upon a time, gold firstly used as mean of asset storage. Once upon a time, bitcoin created by Satoshi Nakamoto. Once upon a time, bitcointalk forum created. Gold has still been here, and will be here for ages. Bitcoin has still been here, and will be here for ages. Bitcointalk forum has still been here, and will be here for ages. Some times gold has a titanium core Some times Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash Bitcointalk is not what it used to be either It might still exist but it will continue to degrade from a historical institution to 4Chan with an extensive research library. |
|
|
|
Except they are explicitly testing the genotype of the vaccine induced strain. It says so right in the abstract as well as the text of the paper. "During measles outbreaks, it is important to be able to rapidly distinguish between measles cases and vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary outbreak response measures such as case isolation and contact investigations. We have developed a real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) method specific for genotype A measles virus (MeV) (MeVA RT-quantitative PCR [RT-qPCR]) that can identify measles vaccine strains rapidly, with high throughput, and without the need for sequencing to determine the genotype. We have evaluated the method independently in three measles reference laboratories using two platforms, the Roche LightCycler 480 system and the Applied Biosystems (ABI) 7500 real-time PCR system. In comparison to the standard real-time RT-PCR method, the MeVA RT-qPCR showed 99.5% specificity for genotype A and 94% sensitivity for both platforms. The new assay was able to detect RNA from five currently used vaccine strains, AIK-C, CAM-70, Edmonston-Zagreb, Moraten, and Shanghai-191. The MeVA RT-qPCR assay has been used successfully for measles surveillance in reference laboratories, and it could be readily deployed to national and subnational laboratories on a wide scale." "During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees (3). Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (R. J.McNall, unpublished data). In contrast, only 11 of 542 cases genotyped in the National Reference Center for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in Germany were associated withthe vaccine virus." As you can see they are specifically detailing the positive identification of the vaccine induced strain of measles. In the bolded parts all hinge on your misinterpretation of the paper, and if you will see they do in fact positively identify the vaccine induced measles strain you will notice each of your arguments fails to hold merit. Speaking of Doctors, here is a real one with more details on this specific topic: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/03/05/measles-vaccine-reactions.aspxYou test the genotype of the strain of the measles virus to determine whether its a false positive (IE residual from the measles vaccine) or an actual case of the measles. They are not positively IDing cases of the measles. Of the 194 cases sequenced, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences means that it was a side effect reaction, not the actual measles. Sorry, you are confused. They explicitly explain in the paper they are testing for ACTUAL measles, but this strain used for the vaccines no longer exists in the wild. The vaccines induce ACTUAL measles, just a less virulent strain as a direct result of vaccination resulting in a reaction that is often indistinguishable from the more virulent strain. That is how inoculation works. You are offered a controlled minimal infection to allow your immune system an opportunity to produce antibodies for it so it is resistant to infection when it encounters a more virulent strain. Often these are not live viruses, in this case it appears to be an actual live virus according to the text of the paper. |
|
|
|
There are a few places where the scare quotes could be meant to show sarcasm or something I suppose. It is not good practice, but I'll give a few of those occurrences the benefit of the doubt as you suggest. I'll focus on specifics then.
From this paragraph for full context,
"In other words, measles outbreaks were occurring among children who were already vaccinated with the measles. If you do the math, nearly 38% of the genetic sequences that were conducted on supposed “measles” cases turned out to identify measles strains that originated in the vaccines themselves. Thus, more than one out of three cases of measles in the United States was actually a reaction from a measles vaccine, not “wild-type” measles."
Measles outbreaks were not occurring among children already vaccinated, the children would get a rash or whatever, and it would sometimes be seen as a false positive. Doctors do not report a case of the measles before its confirmed, anymore than they report flu statistics to people on people that come in with sore throats to get checked for the flu, only to find out its strep. By saying that the cases tested positive for non-wild type measles, they are claiming that cases tested positive for vaccine induced measles. Not that the tests confirmed that the patients did not have the measles, with the traces left behind from the vaccination, not from the disease itself.
"Notably, the lying lamestream media never attributes measles outbreaks to measles vaccines. In every case, without exception, measles outbreaks are blamed exclusively on “anti-vaxxers,” even when more than one-third of measles outbreaks are actually caused by the vaccines themselves, as this breakthrough science now proves."
As before, an outright lie. That is not a conclusion made in the study they are referencing.
"Measles vaccines, truthfully stated, are creating their own demand for more vaccines by causing measles outbreaks in children. Naturally, the entire vaccine establishment and fake news media complex refuses to report the truth about any of this, pretending that measles outbreaks are only occurring among unvaccinated children. This is how outbreaks that are caused by vaccines end up getting blamed on “anti-vaxxers,” resulting in wholesale censorship of vaccine awareness content by Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest and other tech giants that universally function as the propaganda arm of Big Pharma and the CDC."
Once again, that is pretty straightforward in claiming the vaccine causes measles outbreaks. That was not mentioned a single time in the report that they are citing as proof.
Just because little Johnny got a rash, that doesn't mean they got the measles. What the article is addressing is Johnny getting a rash, going into the doctor, and the doctor saying, Oh! That looks like the measles, lets test you! The study was about how to make the tests more efficient and quick, so Johnny's worrying mother wouldn't have to sit there for 8 hours in quarantine while they waited for lab results to confirm that it wasn't the measles. What occurred 38% of the time was not that he had the measles from the shot, but it was confirmed that he did not have the measles, and was just having a reaction to the vaccine. I'd imagine the other 62% of the time, they just saw the rash and said, ah yeah, thats a rash from the vaccine, here have some benadryl.
Everyone that has ever received the measles vaccine would test positive for "non-wild" strains of the measles. By the Natural New's perspective, we all have the measles right now. Except they are explicitly testing the genotype of the vaccine induced strain. It says so right in the abstract as well as the text of the paper. "During measles outbreaks, it is important to be able to rapidly distinguish between measles cases and vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary outbreak response measures such as case isolation and contact investigations. We have developed a real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) method specific for genotype A measles virus (MeV) (MeVA RT-quantitative PCR [RT-qPCR]) that can identify measles vaccine strains rapidly, with high throughput, and without the need for sequencing to determine the genotype. We have evaluated the method independently in three measles reference laboratories using two platforms, the Roche LightCycler 480 system and the Applied Biosystems (ABI) 7500 real-time PCR system. In comparison to the standard real-time RT-PCR method, the MeVA RT-qPCR showed 99.5% specificity for genotype A and 94% sensitivity for both platforms. The new assay was able to detect RNA from five currently used vaccine strains, AIK-C, CAM-70, Edmonston-Zagreb, Moraten, and Shanghai-191. The MeVA RT-qPCR assay has been used successfully for measles surveillance in reference laboratories, and it could be readily deployed to national and subnational laboratories on a wide scale." "During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees (3). Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (R. J.McNall, unpublished data). In contrast, only 11 of 542 cases genotyped in the National Reference Center for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in Germany were associated withthe vaccine virus." As you can see they are specifically detailing the positive identification of the vaccine induced strain of measles. The criticisms of the bolded parts all hinge on your misinterpretation of the paper, and if you will see they do in fact positively identify the vaccine induced measles strain you will notice each of your arguments fails to hold merit. Speaking of Doctors, here is a real one with more details on this specific topic: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/03/05/measles-vaccine-reactions.aspx |
|
|
|
Why pass up an opportunity to reignite old conflicts though right?
Keep DT moving! It would be nice if you could keep your list free of manipulation though... (with the amount you complain about it too) don't make others point it out.  What manipulation? You feel free to craft any fairy tales you like and point out the speck in my eye while ignoring the plank in your own. |
|
|
|
I now know that I will find all naturalnews sources invalid. I don't blame people for misinterpreting, but knowingly misleading people is inexcusable. Yeah, after all why would a doctor who runs his own lab know anything about medicine right? The mainstream media are reliable and trustworthy, and anyone who doesn't repeat what they say is misleading. The answer is right in your quote but you want it to not be true. Indistinguishable is a very choice word. Its not about medicine, its about integrity. As a person in a role of research, you have moral and legal obligations to accurately represent your findings. If natural news is affiliated with real doctors, and they gave the information to write the article, they should lose their license to practice medicine. There is a difference between making a claim that is incorrect, and maliciously lying about a claim as what was done here. The mainstream media is also garbage at medical studies, I refuse to acknowledge any of them, because they don't follow the proper guidelines either. What they like to do to skirt responsibility for their claims, is to accurately tell the details that they do report on, but leave out anything that they don't have time to report on. They don't tell you that their sample sizes are 10 people, or any other data bias. I should make a correction, I was mistaken, the owner of the website is not a doctor, but he does run his own lab. Lets look at the headline, which I am sure is the center of your criticism because the actual text of the article seems to be very carefully written, but feel free to quote any inconsistencies you spot. "Genetic sequencing science breakthrough just proved that measles “outbreaks” are caused by the measles vaccine" If you notice here the word "outbreaks" is in quotes, which clearly indicates the sentence is communicating some of what are called outbreaks are in fact vaccine reactions, which as you stated directly from the source, are indistinguishable from measles if not for using their methodology to determine this. The sentence does not use exclusive language such as "all" or "every", and as far as I can see is 100% factually accurate. Please do explain using specific quotes if you feel otherwise. What I see is you misinterpreting this statement and expecting them to be accountable for your own misinterpretations. |
|
|
|
Theymos has stated you can leave trust to offset other's trust, so you are well within your right to leave him negative trust until he stops manipulating his list. You are itching to get into it again so bad you haven't even noticed this has already been resolved for hours. Why pass up an opportunity to reignite old conflicts though right? |
|
|
|
You can apply your standards anywhere and anytime you want. That's the difference between what you'e proposing (hard rules) and what I prefer (users choosing to include/exclude other users based on how they value their judgement). You're suggesting want to take away my freedom to decide whom to trust, you filthy communist  . I don't want to take anything away from you. Feel free to keep iCEBREAKER in your trust list. If only you could refocus all that energy you spend on trying to look cutesy into making a logical argument... The standards I advocate for would not prevent you from doing anything, you would just face consequences from other DT users as a result if you refused to follow those standards. Such a totalitarian I am demanding people be treated innocent until proof of guilt can be produced! Such Communist! WOW! Welp, it's already something like that, albeit it's your own trust list facing them consequences. Forget the hypocrisy of not following your own "standard". If you can't be bothered to set up a responsible trust list even under the current extremely lax guidelines, you can't be trusted to be in DT. Is it? I was on DT1 earlier today until one of your pet muppets suddenly decided my judgement could not be trusted by sheer coincidence I am sure. Again, I am perfectly open to reviewing his inclusion but, you insist my trust list is flawed and I am unable to maintain it. Last I checked I was more trusted around here than you even if you are part of the brown nosing human centipede trust mob. |
|
|
|
Miss. Show Hide you sound like a broken record. Again! 2 3 5 times in this thread! Huh. Look at that they aren't on DT2 any more. Amazing how that works.
I wonder what is the reason for that. Sure about that? They were on my trust lists for a long time and I was not aware of any of this so I removed them.
Talking about DT system on daily basis but doesn't know that they have scammers in trust list  If it is worth to mention, I didn't know it was you until few minutes ago, as I didn't check who had them in their trust list. I noticed erwin45hacked on Quickseller's trust wall yesterday and xetsr on Game-Protect's trust wall earlier today. That happens some times when you have been around almost a decade. Occasionally people get their account hacked. Also I was on the DT1 for oh like 10 hours since 2014 before it was brought to my attention so, I would say that is pretty quick response time. |
|
|
|
Aren't we glad to have TECSHARE in DT, what with the new "standards*" he's advocating?
Well, everyone is free to cast a vote on that with their exclusions, which I just did. As I explained in the other thread, it was long overdue. I haven't trusted TECSHARE since he stalked me (thread, PM, and finally in a neutral trust when I blocked his PMs) after I didn't feel like engaging in a debate which his inflated ego found necessary to win. He's aggressive and arrogant and I don't think he exhibits sound enough judgement for me not to exclude him. And you just magically decided this the day of my inclusion into the DT1 did you? Why not earlier? Oh right it is not about the exclusion, it is about making sure I am perpetually marginalized to satiate YOUR OWN ego. You can apply your standards anywhere and anytime you want. That's the difference between what you'e proposing (hard rules) and what I prefer (users choosing to include/exclude other users based on how they value their judgement). You're suggesting want to take away my freedom to decide whom to trust, you filthy communist . I don't want to take anything away from you. Feel free to keep iCEBREAKER in your trust list. If only you could refocus all that energy you spend on trying to look cutesy into making a logical argument... The standards I advocate for would not prevent you from doing anything, you would just face consequences from other DT users as a result if you refused to follow those standards. Such a totalitarian I am demanding people be treated innocent until proof of guilt can be produced! Such Communist! WOW! |
|
|
|
No, Lauda has not given CryptopreneurBrainboss a negative rating. She has given R0ach a negative rating. However, if you want to become a white knight for realr0ach, please go ahead. I'm popping the popcorn, now.The stuff he posts on this forum would have gotten him banned on the vast majority of social media platforms. Him being allowed to continue to post here is a testament to how liberal bitcointalk is when it comes to letting people express their views. Did I say Lauda negative rated CryptopreneurBrainboss? I don't know R0ach from a hole in the ground, and I am not white knighting for anything other than principles. This is not a question about how liberal this forum is, it is a question of this negative rating being abusive. I don't think people should be able to negative rate people just because they don't like something that they said, as I have explained before I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to be the standard for negative rating. He may be a racist asshole, but that doesn't make it open season on him for trust system abuse. Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about... I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion. |
|
|
|
Given that Nutilda actively supports this kind of trust rating for everyone else, I don't see any issues here. I would be happy to reconsider my position if Nutilda can explain why this rating is invalid though.
Aren't we glad to have TECSHARE in DT, what with the new "standards *" he's advocating?
* - doesn't apply to TECSHARE or his trust list. I already said I would reconsider my stance if Nutilda can explain why this rating is invalid. Of course that would require them to admit their own hypocrisy... Funny how my standards should apply when it serves your brown nosing pals, but not any other time I bring it up, but I am the hypocrite right? LOL. |
|
|
|
They were on my trust lists for a long time and I was not aware of any of this so I removed them. Funny how you and Pharmie are aching for more conflict. I can assure you the last thing I am looking for is conflict. Thank you for addressing the situation. I addressed the situation long before you rolled in to take credit for it. Speaking of that, interesting timing to exclude me isn't it The Pharmacist?
It might be funny to you, but it was overdue. I think you have lousy judgement when it comes to matters of the trust system, which is why you were booted off DT the first time you were on it. Funny as in suspect, not as in entertaining. You are a little puppet desperate for approval from the trust overlords. Just admit it. I don't buy that you suddenly decided just now you don't approve of my judgement. Me resolving a disagreement with another member to put me back on DT1 was too much of a win for me for you and your little stalker buddies to tolerate without a reply wasn't it? After all you have to maintain the illusion that my efforts are demonstrating no progress now don't you? I had removed you from my exclusions because I though you were beginning to demonstrate that in spite of disagreeing with people you were able to put logic above emotion. I guess I was wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
