Will you get the vaccine?

[Nunsuch]

46 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

The CDC says you can still carry the disease if you're vaccinated, too, which makes this a complete lie:

 

 

Praise God for people like your dad!

This is false.  There are many scientific studies showing that it's not only false, but directly contrary to what is true, that those who are vaccinated are more likely to be infected by covid, and it's also more dangerous for them.  This is exactly what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News want you to believe, but it's contrary to actual science.

It is not a lie, and it is almost a month old. The best information now is that those who are severely ill--to the point of needing hospitalization or facing death--are over 98% from the unvaccinated population.  THAT is the "actual science." Do not accuse me of lying when that is what you are promoting. One more thing: I don't believe news networks; I believe the actual experts whom they have on air. There is a big difference.

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

It is not a lie, and it is almost a month old. The best information now is that those who are severely ill--to the point of needing hospitalization or facing death--are over 98% from the unvaccinated population.  THAT is the "actual science." Do not accuse me of lying when that is what you are promoting. One more thing: I don't believe news networks; I believe the actual experts whom they have on air. There is a big difference.

I'm not accusing you of lying.  But I do believe you are perpetuating a lie.  You're not lying if you believe it, which I think you do.

Right now, all the major media sources and the government and the so-called "experts" and big tech are all on the same side.  

Many of them should be tried for crimes against humanity.

The 98% figure is a lie.

[Nunsuch]

Just now, fides' Jack said:

I'm not accusing you of lying.  But I do believe you are perpetuating a lie.  You're not lying if you believe it, which I think you do.

Right now, all the major media sources and the government and the so-called "experts" and big tech are all on the same side.  

Many of them should be tried for crimes against humanity.

The 98% figure is a lie.

As I tell my college students, you saying something doesn't make it so. Simply asserting that things are lies doesn't make them untrue. If you want me to believe you, please share either your medical or your research credentials, and provide actual evidence for your claims, so I can substantively assess what you proclaim. If you can't or won't do this, then you have zero credibility, as opposed to double-blind peer reviewed studies, and experts with verifiable credentials and replicable analyses. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the reason those you reference are all on the same "side" is because it is both factual and verifiable. It's not a matter of ideology.

[fides' Jack]

Just now, Nunsuch said:

As I tell my college students, you saying something doesn't make it so. Simply asserting that things are lies doesn't make them untrue. If you want me to believe you, please share either your medical or your research credentials, and provide actual evidence for your claims, so I can substantively assess what you proclaim. If you can't or won't do this, then you have zero credibility, as opposed to double-blind peer reviewed studies, and experts with verifiable credentials and replicable analyses. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the reason those you reference are all on the same "side" is because it is both factual and verifiable. It's not a matter of ideology.

That makes a lot of sense now.  The education system is also owned by the left.  That doesn't work in your favor.

I have seen dozens and dozens of international studies coming out refuting just about everything that Fauci and the CDC have been saying since this whole thing started.  You can look them up just as easily as I did.  Me posting them here isn't going to sway you.  I've already posted a whole lot of stuff, which was mostly received negatively.  So I fall under the "won't do this" category, and if you want to think that means I have zero credibility, more power to you.

That being said, answer me two questions:

1.  Is it EVER ok to silence scientists who disagree with the official government narrative?  If the answer is yes, then it's not science.  If your answer is no, then you have to explain why this has been going on to literally hundreds of people who were considered experts before this debacle.  This is one of the chief reasons I will NOT toe the line on this.  

2.  Does it make sense to take a "vaccine", which was developed using a relatively-new technology, which has never been given approval for use on humans before, and a technology which, when tested on animals in the previous decade or so, failed spectacularly and caused the animals' deaths, and which was pushed forward under Trump's administration (who many people think is literally worse than Hitler), by a private pharmaceutical company that has profited billions of dollars off of it (based on their own public admissions of earnings), which has never even sold ANY product or vaccine before, which has no responsibility for any ill-effects stemming from the "vaccine",  when many of the safety measures were simply ignored in order to get it done faster, again with a technology that's never been approved for human use before, and which we know has caused tens of thousands of deaths at this point (those are CDC official numbers now), when there are alternative treatments that are largely effective outside of vaccinations, at a point when morality has failed more than any other time in history (if you're going to distrust the system, now is the time to do it), etc...?  These are the non-disputed facts.  If you answer "yes", you lack any and all common-sense, and I think I'll pray for your students.

[Nunsuch]

Bless your heart.... SO glad you know more about everything than... anyone. Enjoy your self-assurance. Bye!

[fides' Jack]

Or you can choose to not answer the 2 legitimate, simple questions, and try to avoid them simply by implying that I'm arrogant for even asking them, when the truth is that my own defects have no bearing on the validity of the points I'm making.

In other words, cover your ears and hum a tune.

[hakutaku]

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I have seen dozens and dozens of international studies coming out refuting just about everything that Fauci and the CDC have been saying since this whole thing started.

No you haven't.

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

You can look them up just as easily as I did.

I tried, but all I found were quacks quacking, not major international studies.

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I've already posted a whole lot of stuff, which was mostly received negatively.

You have posted a very small quantity of stuff, all of which was in fact quackery.

 

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

So I fall under the "won't do this" category, and if you want to think that means I have zero credibility, more power to you.

At least you finally realize the truth of the old adage:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

Because every time you tried to back up your points before it was immediately obvious that all you had was blatant pseudoscience and loony toons claims.

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

which we know has caused tens of thousands of deaths at this point (those are CDC official numbers now),

Once again, you are accepting the VAERS reports at face value, which the CDC explicitly says you should not do.

 

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

when there are alternative treatments that are largely effective outside of vaccinations

There are no such treatments.  We certainly have improved our treatments, but we have no cure and we have no foolproof way to keep people from dying from COVID.  That's why people are still dying of the disease.

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

These are the non-disputed facts.

Well, I just disputed them.

 

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

If the answer is yes, then it's not science.  If your answer is no, then you have to explain why this has been going on to literally hundreds of people who were considered experts before this debacle.

There are valid reasons for censoring scientists (e.g. if one was going around teaching people to make bioweapons).  However, what you're describing is not governmental censorship.  What you're describing is everyone deciding to ignore scientists who decided to become quacks, which happens all the time.  The only reason you care is that these quacks are saying things you desperately want to be true.

[ardillacid]

19 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Well, I just disputed them.

Soyjack.jpeg

[Didacus]

Got the first dose, was not in a rush to get the second.  Never had any fear of it.

But now that they are talking and in some paets of the world introducing 'vaccine passports' i draw the line.

This fabricated emergency has already gone too far and its time for this foolishness to end.

And for the record i NEVER voted for Covid to be elected into office!

[dUSt]

On 8/10/2021 at 3:37 PM, fides' Jack said:

In other words, cover your ears and hum a tune.

Sorry, I'm hesitant to think someone who throws out terms like "the left" without equally blaming "the right" has objectivity as their top priority.

[fides' Jack]

On 8/10/2021 at 4:50 PM, hakutaku said:

However, what you're describing is not governmental censorship.

The Biden administration has already admitted they're working with social media companies to censor people.  They probably were since the beginning of all this.

21 hours ago, dUSt said:

Sorry, I'm hesitant to think someone who throws out terms like "the left" without equally blaming "the right" has objectivity as their top priority.

I'll blame Democrats and Republicans alike.  But neither of those parties belong to the "right".

The left is evil.  

But I only blame the left inasmuch as they aren't even hiding the fact that they're working for satan, now.  In reality, we're all to blame, as we're all sinners.  But the worst sins clearly currently belong to the left: abortion, normalization of lgbtq-abcdefg, euthanasia, socialism/communism, racism (many here will argue on that point), feminism, etc...  I have my own vices, and I'm not going to come out of this squeaky-clean, either.  I'm just doing the best I can to warn people, come what may.

"I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth."

[fides' Jack]

On 8/10/2021 at 4:50 PM, hakutaku said:

There are no such treatments.  We certainly have improved our treatments, but we have no cure and we have no foolproof way to keep people from dying from COVID. 

I never said we have a cure.  That would be impossible.  It's a coronavirus...

But we do have effective treatments, but you wouldn't believe that because you'd rather believe government/media-collaborated lies than decades and decades of research.

On 8/10/2021 at 4:50 PM, hakutaku said:

What you're describing is everyone deciding to ignore scientists who decided to become quacks, which happens all the time.

Hundreds at the same time, on the same issue?  I don't think so...

[ZeroM]

20 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Hundreds at the same time, on the same issue?  I don't think so...

Who are these hundreds of scientists that back anti-Covid quackery that you see on facebook and religious discussion forums?

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, ZeroM said:

Who are these hundreds of scientists that back anti-Covid quackery that you see on facebook and religious discussion forums?

You can't prove it's quackery without ultimately relying on arguments from authority.

I don't see anything on facebook.  I'm not on social media.  

This one is really the only religious discussion forum I'm on.

If you want a list, you can do internet searches.  Their names are out there.  A good one to start with would be in the group America's Frontline Doctors.  I'm not going to post names here, but 5 minutes of searching found me more than 20 names, and there were others coming up that I didn't dig into further.  

There are literally hundreds out there, across the globe.  Possibly thousands.

[ZeroM]

Quote

You can't prove it's quackery without ultimately relying on arguments from authority.

No, you rely on arguments from science.  Scientific research using proper methodology with credible sources.  This is not an argument from authority.  No one has made them authorities.  They have simply done science.  For every well done scientific research paper on Covid it will have a garbage study saying something different.  Most of the "fake news" surrounding Covid is based on garbage studies and anecdotes.  

There seems to be an almost willful acceptance of garbage science simply because it pretends to refute actual "mainstream" science.  Every contrarian study is accepted at face value until overwhelmingly proven otherwise.  And then on to next garbage study to be embraced as true.  The manner in which false science comes to the fore re Covid is satanic in its deceitfulness.  

[fides' Jack]

20 minutes ago, ZeroM said:

Scientific research using proper methodology with credible sources.

Precisely.  Argument from authority.

 

Here's a thought exercise based on the same mainstream science: can a biological male ever be anything other than a biological male?

[ZeroM]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Precisely.  Argument from authority.

I am baffled by this response.  Using your own God given intellect and wits when studying science to determine truth is not an argument from authority.  That is simply not what that term means.  

Quote

can a biological male ever be anything other than a biological male?

Of course not.  Maybe you have confused me with some "catholic" fifth columnist.  I am new here and have not yet caught on to all the inside ball.   I am not your enemy.  I am here to make you better. 

[ZeroM]

To answer the original query:

yes 2 doses moderna; wife mixed pfizer moderna; teenage son 2 of pfizer

we are the world of mrna; great specimens for a cross vaccine study 

[ardillacid]

Bruh only two doses? Living on the edge. 

[hakutaku]

On 8/13/2021 at 11:40 PM, fides' Jack said:

Here's a thought exercise based on the same mainstream science: can a biological male ever be anything other than a biological male?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6369831/

Quote

In vertebrates, sex determination occurs along a continuum from strictly genotypic (GSD), where sex is entirely guided by genes, to strictly environmental (ESD), where rearing conditions, like temperature, determine phenotypic sex.  Along this continuum are taxa which have combined genetic and environmental contributions to sex determination (GSD + EE), where some individuals experience environmental effects which cause them to sex reverse and develop their phenotypic sex opposite their genotypic sex.

So... the answer is "it depends."