Poison ☠?

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, just_abc said:

So I am wondering which Covid vaccine.. is often being referred to on worthy threads?  

In my experience, people that are concerned about “the” COVID vaccine generally mean either Pfizer or Moderna. Most appear to have very little understanding of vaccines at all, let alone the complicated differences between the ones that are available around the world.

[Starise]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Feel free to point out anything evil, with evidence to support its existence. I’ll be very happy to discuss it with you.

I have several valid reasons for not accepting your request

- I have followed you on these threads for awhile now and I realized early on that any data I present no matter how compelling, you will either try to find other data to dispute it. You will believe your data and not believe my data, so with you it's a lost cause.

- If you haven't seen many of the motives behind this thing already, nothing I could say or do would convince you. In essence I'm wasting my time on someone who refuses to believe anything but what they believe. Not that you haven't contributed to these kinds of discussions in good ways.

- Ample data had already been presented in other threads on this subject and in EVERY case, you shot it all down.

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, I don’t have a “narrative”, I simply prefer evidence-based conclusions.

I realize that evidence-based opinions are not exactly popular around here, but that is where I stand.

I don't doubt that you have some "evidence" to support your views. No one can have ALL of the evidence (except for God Almighty) so we are back to looking at the results of what has happened. I can't believe such an intelligent person as yourself thinks he has ALL of the evidence? Some of the evidence is not enough to establish a solid fact. Why not just be honest like me and admit that you use the little evidence you have to  develop hunches?

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There are enough real problems in the world right now. I don’t see the benefit of digging up unsupported conspiracies and making up new ones.

I think maybe you need to develop your vocabulary beyond frequent use of the word 'conspiracy' to deflect everything you refuse to look at.

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I’m not running for a pin. Although it stands to reason that with millions of airbags produced, a certain number might have faulty manufacture does not mean that I am going to boycott airbags.

Of course not. It probably wasn't your father or mother that died.Why be concerned at all?

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

ot on COVID vaccines, at least. As I stated previously, the vaccines were tested in model organisms. Then they were tested in tens of thousands of human volunteers.

In an ideal world, vaccine safety would have been assessed for years before administration. However, in a world where thousands of people were dying every day, it would have been ethically unthinkable to wait that long for use.

Did we or did we not change the definition of vaccine to allow for it to be seen the same as traditional vaccines? I believe a sense of urgency was created to make people more compliant. Someone created the condition that required the urgency in the first place IMO.

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This name doesn’t make any sense.

Both the virus and the vaccine were partially developed in communist China, I call it the Chinese Communist Party vaccine.

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That’s ok, I’m not going to demand that people find historical precedent and logic convincing. I’ll just share pertinent information and leave it at that.

Ah, once again attempting to establish that YOUR logic is the logic we should all follow. You aren't a history major, so what makes you an expert on historical precedent?

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

If a YouTube video convinced you, I sure hope you don’t watch any on lizard people or the abundant other nonsense you can find so easily there.

There are YouTube videos on needle point and woodworking, there are nice sermons on YouTube. When you go to the grocery store do you buy 1000 gummy bears or do you buy healthy food?

Believe it or not YouTube can be used the same way

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I’m not kidding I’m the least. What “solutions” are you referring to?

Doesn't matter to you. Go back to my first statement in this post. No matter what I say you will find a way to discredit it and say the COVID vaccine was the best solution. You are smart enough to know what the alternatives were which were less expensive and could have been distributed faster than the COVID vaccine to help at the very least. Some countries who couldn't obtain the vaccine used some of these solutions and they worked very well.

Good day!

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

- I have followed you on these threads for awhile now and I realized early on that any data I present no matter how compelling, you will either try to find other data to dispute it. You will believe your data and not believe my data, so with you it's a lost cause.

The "Well, I would present evidence, but I don't want to hold it up to scrutiny" explanation is sad. Too many people have been too easily convinced by talking heads about what they should or should not believe about the pandemic - and then lack the desire to make sure their conclusions are correct.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

- If you haven't seen many of the motives behind this thing already, nothing I could say or do would convince you. In essence I'm wasting my time on someone who refuses to believe anything but what they believe. Not that you haven't contributed to these kinds of discussions in good ways.

In order to discuss "motives behind this thing", we would first need to establish that the entire pandemic was intentional. The best and latest evidence regarding the initial cases in Wuhan suggests that it was natural in origin (click here). I have heard both Michael Worobey and Robert Garry (two of the authors on this paper), discuss their involvement. Both were very adamant about investigating both a natural and a lab leak origin. After studying the available evidence, both experienced researchers concluded that a natural event is a much more likely explanation. Even a potential lab leak would not have been intentional. I truly do not understand the conclusion that there were "motives behind this thing".

It is extremely unhelpful to expand on the conclusion of motive by essentially saying "there is evidence I could provide, but you would just scrutinize it and I don't want that to happen".

1 hour ago, Starise said:

- Ample data had already been presented in other threads on this subject and in EVERY case, you shot it all down.

Maybe, just maybe.... consider that I might actually know what I am talking about and my conclusions could conceivably be based on the best evidence.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I can't believe such an intelligent person as yourself thinks he has ALL of the evidence?

No, of course not. I do not have the time or energy to keep up with ALL of the evidence. But I have yet to see reliable evidence indicating anything nefarious.

As a scientist, I am constantly open to new information and have often shifted my knowledge base accordingly over the years. That's one of the reasons I frequently ask for evidence supporting conclusions that differ from my own.

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Why not just be honest like me and admit that you use the little evidence you have to  develop hunches?

Hmmm... It sounds to me like you are suggesting I am being dishonest. Is that what you intend to say?

Let me pause in my response right here. I'm at work and have things to do. So I'll let you answer that question before I sink any more time into formulating a response to the rest of your post.

[Sparks]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Some people just believe in evidence-based conclusions.

And some others just ignore the evidence-based conclusions if those conclusions do not fit their 'beliefs.' 

That method is called an a priori fallacy.  Coincidentally, that same fallacy is used to support Evolution Theory, but I digress. 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

Coincidentally, that same fallacy is used to support Evolution Theory, but I digress.

I'm very happy to discuss evidence. You are one of the several people here that no longer wish to share pandemic-related evidence with me because I critically scrutinize it. Let me be frank, if your evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it probably isn't very solid evidence.

I'll be very happy to discuss the evidence supporting evolution and young earth creation with you - on a thread in the science and faith section of the forum. You know I'm not short on words there.

[Starise]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

The "Well, I would present evidence, but I don't want to hold it up to scrutiny" explanation is sad. Too many people have been too easily convinced by talking heads about what they should or should not believe about the pandemic - and then lack the desire to make sure their conclusions are correct.

My take away here is you think I'm a gullible individual who buys into any conspiracy theory he comes across. At least this is the implication because you responded to my ideas with this. Have you considered that maybe your assumptions are incorrect? I just refuse to get into the same kind of back and forth with you I've seen in other threads. It isn't that I'm afraid to discuss it. It's because all of the different angles to this argument have already been laid out multiple times in multiple threads on Worthy. We are "beating a dead horse" so to speak.

The truth of the matter concerning me is I believe almost nothing about anything I hear on this subject. Many of the so called scientists have made a sham of their professions in supporting some of the things put forth on it.

If you want to get into the mechanics of viruses in general as a scientist, I see no harm in any of that and I believe it's helpful. I'll reiterate what I've repeated often here, I have never said the CCP vaccine was ineffective, only that the true effectiveness of it is negligible all depending on who or what you read. You would probably argue the CCP vaccine was an overwhelming success. I can't go that far. I think the CCP vaccine was really more of a vehicle to a political end whilst at the same time fulfilling their goal of reducing population numbers. If the CCP vaccine had been ineffective completely they could not have fulfilled their goals. 

If we consider the effort that went into the production and distribution of the CCP vaccine and the need to make new formulations for different variants of it. The need to be re-vaccinated, then it must qualify as one of the biggest failures as a vaccine ever.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

In order to discuss "motives behind this thing", we would first need to establish that the entire pandemic was intentional.

It was. I sincerely believe it was all intentional. There were certain variables they couldn't control though. 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

The best and latest evidence regarding the initial cases in Wuhan suggests that it was natural in origin (click here). I have heard both Michael Worobey and Robert Garry (two of the authors on this paper), discuss their involvement. Both were very adamant about investigating both a natural and a lab leak origin. After studying the available evidence, both experienced researchers concluded that a natural event is a much more likely explanation. Even a potential lab leak would not have been intentional. I truly do not understand the conclusion that there were "motives behind this thing".

We are back to sources we either see as credible or not credible. If an arsonist starts a fire in a forest and the forest burns down, then in the aftermath experts are sent in to attempt to find out exactly what happened, how likely are they to find the person who set the fire? That person is long gone. They may get lucky if the individual was acting alone, but imagine that this individual has the support of powerful people who's reputations will be ruined if the truth gets out. These people will do everything in their self interest to hide the source. Now let's take it a step further. If the persons who engineered this event had stake in a company that happens to sell fire fighting equipment that stand to make astronomical amounts of money off of the arson, how difficult will it be to trace down the truth?

This is where we are with COVID. Saying a "natural event" is much more likely means they are saying it wasn't a sure thing. Lots of things are "likely" and never happened. Of course a lab leak isn't generally intentional. Neither of these things happened IMO. They told us what they didn't think it was or what wasn't 'likely'.

Ask yourself what the difference is really between a natural event and an intentional event so far as release is concerned. In one instance I coughed, you were in proximity and caught it. In the other instance I went over and sneezed on you intentionally. How does one go about proving which occurred scientifically?

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Maybe, just maybe.... consider that I might actually know what I am talking about and my conclusions could conceivably be based on the best evidence.

I believe you are probably knowledgeable about viruses to a high degree, however you one among thousands of people in your profession who likely work in labs. You only work on what you are working on. In other words, you are isolated to the details. The exact details on this. Even if you are on the front line working on a vaccine for this, you can't possibly know enough about it to prove beyond all doubt  there were not nefarious things that brought it all about, and I have a hard time believing anyone would give the people attempting to make it all look innocent carrying a narrative no one can prove 100 trust. Many of these people with a financial and agenda interest in all of it.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

But I have yet to see reliable evidence indicating anything nefarious.

I don't know how it could be missed.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Hmmm... It sounds to me like you are suggesting I am being dishonest. Is that what you intend to say?

I apologize if that is how it came across. This was not my intention. I just can't see how anyone can be this confident in knowing beyond all doubt everything with regard to COVID is on the up and up. In order for me to come to those same conclusions I have to live in denial ( not the river)

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I apologize if that is how it came across. This was not my intention. I just can't see how anyone can be this confident in knowing beyond all doubt everything with regard to COVID is on the up and up. In order for me to come to those same conclusions I have to live in denial ( not the river)

Thank you, I completely accept your apology. While on the topic, I will also apologize for giving the impression that I believe you are naïve and gullible. We simply value different sources of information.

I think it basically comes down to the question of "who do you trust?" As a scientist myself, I cannot pretend that I don't have some bias here. At the end of the day, I tend to believe evidence that has gone through the peer review process. When multiple studies consistently show the same thing, I think that makes pretty reliable evidence.

Let me just add one tiny little note. I do not know that everything with regard to COVID is on the up and up. What is absolute fact is that coronavirus spillover has already occurred twice in the last 20 years - SARS and MERS. We frankly dodged a global bullet with both of those because neither was extremely contagious. All solid scientific evidence that I know of suggests that this happened again, but this time in a virus that was much more contagious. I cannot make a claim with 100% certainty, but what I can do is say that based on all the scientific evidence I have seen (which is a considerable amount), what I state regarding the pandemic, vaccines, etc is based on the most complete view of the scientific evidence I know. Again, if you have good scientific evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate you sharing it.

I'll end my post here because I like you and I appreciate your contributions here, even though we may disagree on some things. I think you are probably correct that further discourse on the subject is not likely to change anyone's mind 

[tim_from_pa]

On 4/19/2022 at 2:56 AM, MonicaWife said:

https://rumble.com/vz44ow-senator-malcolm-roberts-drops-covid-19-bombshells-in-australian-senate.html

I don't know if you have seen this, but for me it is another evidence that the vaccines of this kind is poison ☠. 😔 

As my dad would have once said, "It looks like he flushed their toilets." Yes, he is correct about vitamins, minerals and other nutrition helping to protect against COVID-19.  There's data (pre-immunization time frame when the original virus struck) showing that people with blood levels 30ng/dl or higher were only 4% of the serious or critical cases, but comprised of 96% of the mild/asymptomatic cases. So we can't credit a vaccine for that. That's just vitamin D alone, not vitamin C, Zinc, etc etc

I don't want to sound cold or like a cranky evangelist, but we can take comfort these diabolical people who would cover this up and allow a dangerous vaccine for some people to the point of mandating it just for money are a special kind of evil destined straight for hell. That's as Christian as I can say it, because it's true, sadly. It will happen one day and will all come out in the wash.

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm very happy to discuss evidence. You are one of the several people here that no longer wish to share pandemic-related evidence with me because I critically scrutinize it. Let me be frank, if your evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it probably isn't very solid evidence.

The irony. 

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'll be very happy to discuss the evidence supporting evolution and young earth creation with you - on a thread in the science and faith section of the forum. You know I'm not short on words there.

You are when it comes to showing the evidence.  You have said that based on 'what you have seen' but you never go into detail about what you have seen.  I think I debunked the retro virus statement in a thread.

[Starise]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Thank you, I completely accept your apology. While on the topic, I will also apologize for giving the impression that I believe you are naïve and gullible. We simply value different sources of information.

I think it basically comes down to the question of "who do you trust?" As a scientist myself, I cannot pretend that I don't have some bias here. At the end of the day, I tend to believe evidence that has gone through the peer review process. When multiple studies consistently show the same thing, I think that makes pretty reliable evidence.

Let me just add one tiny little note. I do not know that everything with regard to COVID is on the up and up. What is absolute fact is that coronavirus spillover has already occurred twice in the last 20 years - SARS and MERS. We frankly dodged a global bullet with both of those because neither was extremely contagious. All solid scientific evidence that I know of suggests that this happened again, but this time in a virus that was much more contagious. I cannot make a claim with 100% certainty, but what I can do is say that based on all the scientific evidence I have seen (which is a considerable amount), what I state regarding the pandemic, vaccines, etc is based on the most complete view of the scientific evidence I know. Again, if you have good scientific evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate you sharing it.

I'll end my post here because I like you and I appreciate your contributions here, even though we may disagree on some things. I think you are probably correct that further discourse on the subject is not likely to change anyone's mind 

Thank you @one.opinionThis is probably the wisest thing to do. I believe we are in different mindsets on this issue. While I am very appreciative of science and scientists, I think it can be very easy to get locked into certain approaches we see as unmovable. 

To say there aren't researchers out there with boots on the ground who have worked hard to assemble data we can all use would be untruthful. Many honest people involved in all phases of COVID developments were caught up in this. I could go on about the inaccuracy of the data collection process in general as I see it, but it would amount to yet another 'he said, she said'. 

The unsaid part of "good scientific evidence" is that the person making the demands for it always has their own lenses to look through. Their own stipulations can and often do have bias. If the source isn't viewed as credible, or if it wasn't peer reviewed by the right organization, then it can't possibly be correct. These same people are on message boards all over arguing that Jesus wasn't a real person or if He was, He could not have been resurrected. Instead it makes more sense to them to conclude Jesus was knocked out, then he revived while human helpers moved the stone away from the tomb. Many of them deny a God at all. Due to many people like this, true history has been hidden from so many people. I'm sure they will have their own narrative on COVID in history books if the Lord tarries. It happened with 9-11. It was clearly a false flag operation the press silenced. Like COVID, there are too many things that didn't add up as there always are with lies. The vaccine is now affecting pregnant women-I don't know if you can read this because I pay for the Epoch Times, but here's the link to that story.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-ive-seen-in-the-last-two-years-is-unprecedented-physician-on-covid-vaccine-side-effects-on-pregnant-women_4428291.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-04-28&utm_medium=email&est=pGvLmqXkJlsXohW1KOw2%2FmvK%2BjgMFRlvIspQMgL6pSG51j%2FOge0eV%2FmUSAsUHw%3D%3D

Edited April 28, 2022 by Starise