This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Here's your Mask Protocol  (Read 39344 times)

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 671
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #570 on: July 25, 2021, 06:32:12 PM »
There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.

That's only true when the "vaccine" in question actually works. Funny, people were vaccinated against measles, for the most part measles disappeared. Because that's a real vaccine.

Not the case with flu or covid, because those aren't real vaccines.
The China vaccine for Wuhan flu, Sinovac, is a real vaccine that contains inactive virus.
However we can't get it here.

Zelen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #571 on: July 25, 2021, 06:48:01 PM »
So you're exaggerating the number of reports of death (unless there was a sudden 4000+ reports in the last few days before your post) and suggesting that there are tens of thousands of deaths after vaccination that were either unnoticed by every healthcare provider or where the healthcare providers blew off the FDA requirement.

You could easily find fact checks that rebut your claims, if you were actually motivated by an interest in facts.

This is actually one of the weird things that is happening regarding the reporting of VAERS data. The CDC published an update a few days ago with the ~12,000 figure, and then later edited the page again reverting it to the previous version. There's a lot of speculation about why that happened. I haven't heard/seen a definitive explanation.

Either way it's definitely true that VAERS is a very poor system for actually tracking vaccine side effects. From a scientific standpoint it's honestly very disappointing there isn't a more rigorous system for tracking side effects from vaccines. It seems clear to me this process is purposefully designed to be insufficient to protect pharmaceutical companies from liability.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 4346
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #572 on: July 25, 2021, 07:03:36 PM »
Either way it's definitely true that VAERS is a very poor system for actually tracking vaccine side effects. From a scientific standpoint it's honestly very disappointing there isn't a more rigorous system for tracking side effects from vaccines. It seems clear to me this process is purposefully designed to be insufficient to protect pharmaceutical companies from liability.
There is. Phase 4 testing, which happens after the vaccine has been released to the general public, is traditionally called "post marketing surveillance" for a reason. It involves checking whether there's any difference in results between a controlled clinical environment and the real world, and looks for any long-term or particularly rare side effects. Companies are required to follow up with everyone who has been injected. This is mandatory, and required for every vaccine.

Until now. The covid vaccines are exempt from this requirement. They haven't just scaled back phase 4, which would be reasonable because so many people have been jabbed that it would be difficult to follow up with them all. Instead, they've completely gotten rid of it, and they're not doing any formal phase 4 follow up at all. The best tool we have for seeing what happens after a vaccine has been released into the wild has been blinded.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2021, 07:09:00 PM by Pat »

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 4346
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #573 on: July 25, 2021, 07:32:34 PM »
This is actually one of the weird things that is happening regarding the reporting of VAERS data. The CDC published an update a few days ago with the ~12,000 figure, and then later edited the page again reverting it to the previous version. There's a lot of speculation about why that happened. I haven't heard/seen a definitive explanation.
Hadn't seen that, but I found a Wayback machine copy of the same CDC webpage that Rawma linked, except the July 20th version showed 12,313 deaths, while the July 25th version shows 6,207 deaths.

That's really fucking bizarre, and I'm not sure what to make of it. The lack of any explanation is also disturbing.

In any case, I went back and edited my earlier post to reflect that, crediting your post.

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #574 on: July 25, 2021, 10:22:43 PM »
The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.

The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.

TL;DR: Here's a link that seems exactly on point to rebut you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics

I was alive in 1968; the reaction in the US to that pandemic, even after the fact, was never what we had for COVID-19, because it wasn't as deadly as you would like to pretend.

The novel coronavirus was expected to be deadlier than it actually was based on the original SARS; nor was it expected that significant numbers would have preexisting immunity from earlier exposure, given that SARS and MERS were not very widespread. Four million is a high estimate for the worldwide death toll of the 1968 pandemic; the CDC says one million worldwide, and 100,000 in the US, which COVID-19 has blown past, even accounting for the doubled world population. And COVID-19 appears to have more long term debilitating effects than the flu, so its death toll could spread across many years to come.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

^ You do realize the number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS is over 11,000? And for most vaccines, the estimate is VAERS only captures 1 in 100 deaths? 45,000 is a conservative estimate.

That does not seem correct.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
Quote
Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 339 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.

So you're exaggerating the number of reports of death (unless there was a sudden 4000+ reports in the last few days before your post) and suggesting that there are tens of thousands of deaths after vaccination that were either unnoticed by every healthcare provider or where the healthcare providers blew off the FDA requirement.

You could easily find fact checks that rebut your claims, if you were actually motivated by an interest in facts.
It is correct. "11,405 COVID Vaccine Related Deaths"
https://www.openvaers.com/
This is pulled directly from the VAERS database on the HHS website, except it's much easier to use.

If you had any interest in actual facts instead of falsely projecting your failings on other people, it would have been trivial to discover that information, trivial to figure out why it differs from the CDC's numbers (hint: they're using different criteria), and slightly less trivial to figure out why the larger number is a better baseline (hint: look at the historical data). You can also review the website and see why the part you bolded is technically correct but misleading (hint: look at the graphs showing the time between getting the vaccine and death).


From the OpenVAERS FAQ:
Quote
OpenVAERS is a project developed by a small team of people with vaccine injuries or have children with vaccine injuries.

So you got your information from what may be an anti-vaxxer website; it's not surprising for a right-winger like Pat to go for easy incorrect numbers that support his preferences. I got my number from the CDC website. Maybe you should explain how the requirement to report such deaths will still manage to miss the vast majority (not that something reported to VAERS means that a vaccine caused it, or even that it actually happened, as noted in their disclaimers).

(I bolded what the CDC bolded, by the way.)

This is actually one of the weird things that is happening regarding the reporting of VAERS data. The CDC published an update a few days ago with the ~12,000 figure, and then later edited the page again reverting it to the previous version. There's a lot of speculation about why that happened. I haven't heard/seen a definitive explanation.

Either way it's definitely true that VAERS is a very poor system for actually tracking vaccine side effects. From a scientific standpoint it's honestly very disappointing there isn't a more rigorous system for tracking side effects from vaccines. It seems clear to me this process is purposefully designed to be insufficient to protect pharmaceutical companies from liability.

Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant. VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)

How many deaths would you expect within a week of vaccinating a very large percentage of elderly people? CDC say almost 49 million vaccinated, age 65 and older. CDC says that in 2017 and 2018, number of deaths per year for ages 65-74 were more than 1700 per 100,000 (and higher for older people). That's 489 groups of 100,000 at least 65 years old; that's more than 32 deaths per week per 100,000; the product is more than 15,648 just for that age group. So we're seeing less deaths reported than would be expected, which is unfortunate but no justification for tinfoil hat nonsense.

Phase 4 testing, which happens after the vaccine has been released to the general public, is traditionally called "post marketing surveillance" for a reason. It involves checking whether there's any difference in results between a controlled clinical environment and the real world, and looks for any long-term or particularly rare side effects. Companies are required to follow up with everyone who has been injected. This is mandatory, and required for every vaccine.

Until now. The covid vaccines are exempt from this requirement. They haven't just scaled back phase 4, which would be reasonable because so many people have been jabbed that it would be difficult to follow up with them all. Instead, they've completely gotten rid of it, and they're not doing any formal phase 4 follow up at all. The best tool we have for seeing what happens after a vaccine has been released into the wild has been blinded.

The vaccine manufacturers are continuing to monitor phase 3 participants; governments are collecting data (in the US, with the VAERS system; that led to a brief suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and a warning about the increased risk of blood clots). Phase 4 is not required for drug approval, since it must by definition occur after a drug is approved.

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #575 on: July 25, 2021, 10:29:49 PM »
Deaths are heavily concentrated in the >=50 age group without regard to vaccines or COVID-19; that's pretty unsurprising. It seems the rate of vaccination among that age group exceeds 90%, according to the Office for National Statistics. So why would you not expect deaths among the vaccinated to be a higher count?

Perhaps you should wonder why the number of deaths is not nine or more times higher for that age group.

In all the other categories, unvaccinated account for more than half of the totals under "All cases"; perhaps you should wonder why that is so in a country with greater than 50% vaccination rate in general.

The tortorous "logic" you have to engage in is hilarious. These "vaccines" were sold as reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation or death. They're not doing anything of the sort.

Magical thinking about "it could have been higher" is as risible as the people claiming that they would be dead if they hadn't been vaccinated, whilst suffering from covid again.

"Tortorous"? It was never touted as an immortality elixir; breakthrough infections were expected, but are observed to be of lower frequency and intensity, reducing both hospitalizations and deaths. The rates for the older unvaccinated are much higher than the rates for the larger older vaccinated group.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 4346
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #576 on: July 25, 2021, 11:20:03 PM »
The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.

The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.

TL;DR: Here's a link that seems exactly on point to rebut you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics
You just cited the CDC as an authoritative source, and now you're relying on a financial paper named after a Democratic presidential candidate that says the CDC can't be trusted? Nice level of consistency.

I was alive in 1968; the reaction in the US to that pandemic, even after the fact, was never what we had for COVID-19, because it wasn't as deadly as you would like to pretend.
The alternate explanation, of course, is that the CDC is a better source than a random journalist, and the reaction to the 1968 pandemic wasn't as severe because they didn't overreact.

It's certainly possible that covid-19 will end up being deadlier than the HK flu, because it's not over. But we're more than 18 months into the current pandemic, and they're comparable. Which is the point -- even if covid-19 ends up edging them all out, it's still closer to the 2nd tier pandemics of the 20th century than the 1918 flu.

From the OpenVAERS FAQ:
Quote
OpenVAERS is a project developed by a small team of people with vaccine injuries or have children with vaccine injuries.

So you got your information from what may be an anti-vaxxer website; it's not surprising for a right-winger like Pat to go for easy incorrect numbers that support his preferences. I got my number from the CDC website. Maybe you should explain how the requirement to report such deaths will still manage to miss the vast majority (not that something reported to VAERS means that a vaccine caused it, or even that it actually happened, as noted in their disclaimers).
It's literally a mirror of the HHS website. You can verify anything you want on the OpenVAERS website with the HHS website. You just have to agree you've read the same disclaimer multiple times, and deal with a truly antiquated format. But I know that, because I've used that website. Which you clearly haven't.

Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant. VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)
How can we tell when Rawma is lying? Your hands are on your keyboard.

I never said any such thing. I have a reasonable understanding of the strengths and limitations of VAERS, which you clearly don't, because you're acting like the most basic details are some shocking revelation. Of course VAERS is a voluntary reporting system. That's the most basic thing anyone who's heard of the system should know. What you're doing is like telling a computer programmer that computers are computing machines, and then expecting the programmer to be shocked when you say they're not human. It's a nonsensical argument that just highlights how little you know.

Phase 4 testing, which happens after the vaccine has been released to the general public, is traditionally called "post marketing surveillance" for a reason. It involves checking whether there's any difference in results between a controlled clinical environment and the real world, and looks for any long-term or particularly rare side effects. Companies are required to follow up with everyone who has been injected. This is mandatory, and required for every vaccine.

Until now. The covid vaccines are exempt from this requirement. They haven't just scaled back phase 4, which would be reasonable because so many people have been jabbed that it would be difficult to follow up with them all. Instead, they've completely gotten rid of it, and they're not doing any formal phase 4 follow up at all. The best tool we have for seeing what happens after a vaccine has been released into the wild has been blinded.

The vaccine manufacturers are continuing to monitor phase 3 participants; governments are collecting data (in the US, with the VAERS system; that led to a brief suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and a warning about the increased risk of blood clots).
What they're not doing is following up with every person injected, as they've done with every other vaccine. They're not even following up consistently with a subset of the wider public, defeating the purpose of seeing how the vaccine works outside of a controlled environment. Instead, they're doing various ad hoc studies.

As I literally just said.

I hope even you can understand how the loss of a thorough, official, vetted, and rigorous source of data hurts our understanding of the vaccines. The data we have simply isn't as good, which makes conclusions more suspect, and forces us to rely more heavily on weaker sources, like VAERS.

And this is a decent enough place to mention it, but the proper approach to a system like VAERS isn't to dismiss all the reports. The correct way to handle it, and the way it's been handled for every other vaccine, is to treat every report as valid until proven otherwise. This is important, because it aligns the burden of proof with common sense medical practices. We don't want to wait until we have overwhelming proof of harm before pulling a vaccine. No, the vaccine is pulled right away, at the first real sign of problems. Vaccines are typically pulled when only 20-25 deaths are reported to VAERS, and only reauthorized after a thorough investigation. Which they don't seem to be doing. Which hurts what we know, and frankly makes them look like they're hiding something, which at best is terrible optics.

Phase 4 is not required for drug approval, since it must by definition occur after a drug is approved.
I literally just said that. In the paragraph you quoted. What do you think "released to the public" means?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 02:13:55 AM by Pat »

Zelen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #577 on: July 25, 2021, 11:24:00 PM »
So you got your information from what may be an anti-vaxxer website; it's not surprising for a right-winger like Pat to go for easy incorrect numbers that support his preferences. I got my number from the CDC website. Maybe you should explain how the requirement to report such deaths will still manage to miss the vast majority (not that something reported to VAERS means that a vaccine caused it, or even that it actually happened, as noted in their disclaimers).

I'd encourage you to take a step back and analyze your own behavior here. Your immediate response when presented with the VAERS data (which OpenVAERS merely collects and presents in a way that is more easily parsed) was to immediately smear and make accusations based on no evidence.

That isn't a rational response, and I hope you can at least acknowledge that indicates a problem with your emotional involvement in the topic. It is rational and morally correct to ensure that people have access to accurate data concerning the benefits and drawbacks of any medical procedure, so they can make the best decision for themselves or a loved one in their care.



Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant.

It's not redundant since "already protected from liability" isn't some ironclad law of nature. It's a particular policy that can be changed at any time if enough people get upset about it. Because the VAERS data is so unreliable, and because the process requires a dedicated effort to even file a report, it ensures that side-effects are undercounted and therefore people aren't getting upset enough to threaten the pharmaceutical companies.

For what it's worth, almost all of my co-workers, and several of my close friends and family, were negatively impacted by the vaccines. Fortunately I'm not aware of anyone who has had a serious and long-lasting side-effect, but many people reported severe headaches, aches at the injection site, and trouble breathing. Many of these seemed to go away after a few days, one friend had side-effects persisting over weeks. I'm confident none of these were filed as VAERS reports despite that they do qualify (and should have been filed, in an ethical system).



VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)

Calling it an internet poll is hyperbolic and not helpful. They do at least parse the reports before putting them online. Of course, there's no system to establish the validity of the reports, which is an intentional design flaw in the VAERS system.


The vaccine manufacturers are continuing to monitor phase 3 participants; governments are collecting data (in the US, with the VAERS system; that led to a brief suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and a warning about the increased risk of blood clots). Phase 4 is not required for drug approval, since it must by definition occur after a drug is approved.

The vaccine manufacturers destroyed their own studies soon as the FDA issued an emergency-use-authorization. There isn't a control group anymore, so what can we actually conclude?

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9635
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #578 on: July 26, 2021, 02:48:18 AM »
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.

  You realize trying to point out a law and at the same time mentioning motorcycles, which are legal to ride shows the very contradiction in what is legal and accepted?  It is also a pretty massive contradiction regarding an activity you must be tested and licensed for (driving) versus simply moving freely about the world.   If you fear death or injury from some activity, do not partake in it.  If this includes going out in public, again try a respirator or gas mask.

While motorcycles are legal, many governments (including in the U.S.) have laws for requiring seatbelts, just as many governments (including in the U.S.) have laws requiring vaccines - either for everyone or for broad populations like anyone in public school. Even though getting vaccinated is an action that technically affects only an individual, there are widespread social consequences of having mass vaccinations. There is similar justification over drug laws. Some would say that what an individual puts inside their body isn't the business of the government -- but the counter-argument is that the spread of infectious disease and/or patterns of drug use and addiction have consequences for the wider society.

For the most part, this logic has been accepted broadly across different political sides. Major political parties will argue about where to draw the lines about what the regulations should be, but the mainstream don't argue over the right of the government to regulate.

As for the stuff about covid in general,

I've now read several studies on masks and on vaccines - but for me the biggest issue is just the most obvious. There are some points about covid, masks, and the vaccines that are disagreed about -- but there's also a lot in common between nearly all the countries in the world, which are all taking covid very seriously and pursuing vaccinations. This goes from South Korea to Australia to Israel to England to Brazil. I can't see any way all those governments - and doctors and scientists among them all -- could cooperate in a deliberate ruse. The data and effects are way too widespread for it to be controlled short of the Illuminati.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #579 on: July 26, 2021, 03:28:36 AM »
I wish people could take the Pandemic seriously without having to bring in the Illuminati.

 ::)
There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 4346
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #580 on: July 26, 2021, 03:36:13 AM »
I wish people could take the Pandemic seriously without having to bring in the Illuminati.

 ::)
People don't act to their own advantage or respond to incentives, that's just conspiracy theorizing! The only possible explanation for anyone doing anything that increases their own power is the Illuminati!

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2887
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #581 on: July 26, 2021, 08:25:32 AM »
The China vaccine for Wuhan flu, Sinovac, is a real vaccine that contains inactive virus.
However we can't get it here.
That might be for the best, considering China's quality control can be somewhat spotty.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #582 on: July 26, 2021, 09:41:05 AM »
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.

  You realize trying to point out a law and at the same time mentioning motorcycles, which are legal to ride shows the very contradiction in what is legal and accepted?  It is also a pretty massive contradiction regarding an activity you must be tested and licensed for (driving) versus simply moving freely about the world.   If you fear death or injury from some activity, do not partake in it.  If this includes going out in public, again try a respirator or gas mask.

While motorcycles are legal, many governments (including in the U.S.) have laws for requiring seatbelts, just as many governments (including in the U.S.) have laws requiring vaccines - either for everyone or for broad populations like anyone in public school. Even though getting vaccinated is an action that technically affects only an individual, there are widespread social consequences of having mass vaccinations. There is similar justification over drug laws. Some would say that what an individual puts inside their body isn't the business of the government -- but the counter-argument is that the spread of infectious disease and/or patterns of drug use and addiction have consequences for the wider society.

For the most part, this logic has been accepted broadly across different political sides. Major political parties will argue about where to draw the lines about what the regulations should be, but the mainstream don't argue over the right of the government to regulate.

As for the stuff about covid in general,

I've now read several studies on masks and on vaccines - but for me the biggest issue is just the most obvious. There are some points about covid, masks, and the vaccines that are disagreed about -- but there's also a lot in common between nearly all the countries in the world, which are all taking covid very seriously and pursuing vaccinations. This goes from South Korea to Australia to Israel to England to Brazil. I can't see any way all those governments - and doctors and scientists among them all -- could cooperate in a deliberate ruse. The data and effects are way too widespread for it to be controlled short of the Illuminati.

  I am not implying anything is a ruse, and to be honest believing the retards who end up in government is pointless.  I say that if this country is going to allow a certain level of personal freedom and responsibility you CANNOT force a vaccine for Covid.  Comparing a trial vaccine for what is essentially the flu to measles and polio is also a straw man.  The main thing in common in countries across the world is MOST of them LOVE big government control of citizen's lives, and most are full of people who possess the incredible skill of deep understanding of bureaucratic process and ability to look like they care.  So, all I say is you do you.  I will do me.  If Covid was legit deadly to a large portion of the population, I might be willing to endorse taking a clinical trial.  But using the fact most governments are going along with it as a reason to do it...you have to be retarded to accept that.

   As for why the 'mainstream' doesnt argue, well at the founding of the  nation about 80 percent of the population was self employed.  Now most are corporate wage slaves, drones will do what drones do.  What they are told.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 09:42:40 AM by oggsmash »

Zelen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #583 on: July 26, 2021, 11:21:05 AM »
I've now read several studies on masks and on vaccines - but for me the biggest issue is just the most obvious. There are some points about covid, masks, and the vaccines that are disagreed about -- but there's also a lot in common between nearly all the countries in the world, which are all taking covid very seriously and pursuing vaccinations. This goes from South Korea to Australia to Israel to England to Brazil. I can't see any way all those governments - and doctors and scientists among them all -- could cooperate in a deliberate ruse. The data and effects are way too widespread for it to be controlled short of the Illuminati.

Lets narrow our examination down to a single aspect of the Covid issue.

In early 2020 we heard the theory that Covid was released from a wet market in Wuhan. In the United States we have figures like Anthony Fauci and Peter Daszak actively conspiring to promote the wet market theory, while simultaneously attempting to discredit (& censor) the Wuhan lab leak theory. It doesn't take an expert in medicine or virology to look at two facts like, "A novel coronavirus outbreak started in this city," and "There was a lab in this city conducting research on coronaviruses" to realize that these events are probably connected. As Jon Stewart observed, it doesn't take a genius to point out the damn chocolate factory.

While I don't frequently monitor news from most non-English speaking countries, from what I can tell there was no widespread attempts by journalists, medical professionals, or government agencies in other countries to question the orthodox narrative on the issue. The wet market narrative only slipped when Nicholas Wade (a former NYT science editor) wrote an article which, while presenting no evidence that hadn't been available since early 2020, made it socially acceptable to question it.

We can state that it'd be weird if the millions of doctors and politicians and journalists were wrong about all of these things -- I agree. That is weird, and it's hard to believe the levels of cowardice and group-think that are involved to deliberately conceal the most-probable origins of the virus. But nevertheless we do see that demonstrated, so we must believe it. We can't proceed with evaluating the reliability of actions taken globally among the international "elite" class without first admitting that they refused to even talk about what was obvious to virtually everyone, and actively worked to censor contrarian voices.

None of that instills trust in the judgement or practices of medical authorities. Beyond the simple issue of the Covid origin, we know similar problems are manifesting across the board in response to C-19. For example, the DANMASK-19 study went through 3 medical journals that all refused to publish research based on political grounds. The Lancet published a fraudulent paper meant to discredit HCQ + Zinc as a prophylactic for Covid-19, and you aren't even allowed to discuss Ivermectin as part of a treatment regimen or else you'll be censored from mainstream discourse.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 11:26:34 AM by Zelen »

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2887
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #584 on: July 26, 2021, 11:50:15 AM »
The Lancet published a fraudulent paper meant to discredit HCQ + Zinc as a prophylactic for Covid-19, and you aren't even allowed to discuss Ivermectin as part of a treatment regimen or else you'll be censored from mainstream discourse.
Yeah, I found it fascinating how certain posters here just didn't react when I brought up how Surgisphere helped prop up the Lancet's study, and then simply vanished like it had been disintegrated.