RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

Yeah, there's an irony in the whole deafness thing. laugh

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

What does that mean, the virus hasn't been 'isolated'?

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

It was a simple question, did you not understand it, or do you not know?

You seem to be making assumptions about my opinions with respect to doctors, as well.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

Is that a genuine question?

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

How was that statistic collated?

It's not mentioned in the video.

RE: Do you remember when you were 1 years of age........?

Yes, I do.

35 years ago it was thought that neurolgical development was such that no one would be able to recall anything prior to 18 months of age.

I believe later research demonstrated that isn't true.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

I was being kind and realistic in terms of probabilities.

The alternative is that, the psychiatrist in particular, was deliberately misleading the audience and touting false claims.

The IQ of 0-18 month old children can't fall because of being denied formal schooling during the pandemic because they wouldn't be going to school at their age anyway.

I won't bother going into all the permutations of developmental stages, play groups, siblings, day care, etc.. It would point to the same flagrant misinformation mongering.

The point is that the sequence of the psychiatrist's statements was clearly meaningless whether he put that rubbish together himself, or it was edited by someone else to promote false beliefs. I'd like to think it was the editing, rather than a psychiatrist trying to dupe viewers for obvious ethical code of conduct reasons.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

What was actually said was that no one realised the spike protein was biolgically active.

Proteins are one of the four main biological molecules, along with carbohydrates, lipids and neucleic acids because they are produced by cells and living organisms. It's no surprise that the spike protein produced by the virus cell is biological.

A biolgically active protein is one that can change in structure and therefore have changing properties.

I think what is being said by Dr.Robert Malone, although it's difficult to tell given the editing, is that for various reasons, including the biologcal activity within the spike protein, the virus is changing more rapidly than expected giving rise to lots of variants.

The 'flu vaccine gets tweaked every year to account for the particular strain that has evolved that season, but so far covid virus changes have occurred faster than covid vaccine changes. That means vaccination strategy needs to take that into account.

He's saying using the same vaccines as third boosters is less effective than targetting the vaccination programme globally, that is, at the most vulnerable people in low income countries. It's the only sensible thing that's been said/portrayed during the first quarter of this video.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

That's not much use to the wider audience of this video.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

Selenite posted a video of a panel debate.

How can this thread not be meant to be about debate? laugh

Why are you trying to shut me down for pointing out the editing, manipulation techniques, bias and resulting blatantly false information in this video?

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

I don't know anything about doctors getting their licenses revoked in Canada, so you'll need to give me more informatin before I can comment on that.

The fella who created the ebola vaccine may well be on the panel, but that doesn't mean the video hasn't been edited and his 'opinion' altered as a result. You need to look at the presentation, not just the status of the people on the panel.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

A statement is made about covid not being a medical pandemic, but a fear pandemic. That statement isn't argued, nor evidenced before moving on to how the pandemic has psycholgically impacted upon children.

The implication is that fear is screwing children up and that the psychiatrist's paediatric patients are evidence of this. That incomplete anecdotal statement can easily be countered by my own, more complete version: The children I have contact with rarely show any signs of anxiety regarding covid itself and are remarkably cognisant of protcols which protect themselves and others. They have, however, become frustrated with social isolation and forgtten some of their social skills. Everytime schools have reopened, it seems fights break out in the payground until they readjust to the school group setting where they don't get to socially dominate.

The psychiatrist mentions a study about a reduction of 20 IQ points in babies born after January 1st 2020 as compared with those born before. He mentions that they don't see faces, they don't play, they don't have exposure to friends, they don't go to school and that they are locked in their homes looking at their parents' faces for a year and a half as the reason for this.

I'd be surprised if babies 0-18 months of age go to school. Babies 0-18 months have maybe had more contact with older siblings because of school closures, more play with them, more faces to look at. He's using the deprivations of older children to explan the alleged IQ reduction in younger children. If those deprivations impacted upon IQ you'd expect the older children to be develpmentally delayed, not the younger.

The video goes on to the only female panelist. Just as she gets to explaining her nebulous statement about the damage caused to children by covid protocols, the video is edited and she's heard saying more nebulous introductory statements.

11 minutes (that's a quarter of the way) in and this video has no substance, other than vaccuous statements, no reasoned, or evidentiary argument and blatantly misleading editing/causal links.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

Alternative to what?

I'm all in favour of 'alternative' medicines. I'm currently looking at dietary triggers, herbal support, breathing exercises and throwing myself into stinging nettle bushes in a bid to improve my current health issues.

I'm not, however, advocating that millions of other people take potentially dangerous and likely ineffective pharmaceutical products in order to avoid taking an effective and less dangerous pharmaceutical product.

If you think I'm supporting the cited video in my comments, you are very much mistaken. I'm critically evaluating it and so far, approximately one fifth of the way in, it's not looking terribly impressive.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

Approx 7-8 1/2 minutes: vaccine strategy has always been an issue given limited resources and that vaccinatng everyone at once is a practical impossibility.

Vaccinating the elderly and other vulnerable people first isn't just about protecting them.Those most likely to become infected and very sick are those most likely to replicate the virus, spread the virus and burden health services. Vaccinating the most vulnerable first is a strategy which helps protect the least vulnerable, too.

I do agree that a part of that vaccination strategy should be directed at vaccinating the most vulnerable in low income countries. Inhibiting transmission and replication of the virus reduces the possibilty of vaccine resistant variants emerging. The next generation of vaccines should go to the areas where they will be most effective and that's not necessarily in high income countries where most people already have a high degree of protection.

There is nothing new in this argument, although there is some weight in maintaining practical and economic functionality in high income countries so they are in a position to share resources globally. For example, in the UK we have a lot of Delta infection, but comparitively few deaths. We appear to be stable as long as a vaccine resistant variant doesn't take us back to square one. We probably don't need a Delta vaccine booster, but other countries would likely benefit from a Delta vaccine and that in turn may further protect the UK from the possibility of future emerging variants in other countries where more people are less protected.

In countries like the UK, perhaps we need to have conversations about acceptable death tolls and burdens on health services. We maybe need to recognise that, as with other diseases, a zero death toll and total eradication of the virus is unrealistic.

RE: 8 prominent Doctors and scientists ...

7 minutes into the video and I have some observations.

The video is clearly heavily edited. That may simply be a matter of removing 'filler' material of no consequence, but the information put forward doesn't appear to be sequential. That leaves me questioning the possibility of editorial bias.

The input from the panel members appears out of context with no concrete evidence provided to substantiate claims. This leaves arguments open to viewer interpretation and leaps of logic which each of us will do from our own value framework. Trump is a master of this technique of influence/manipulation where many may agree with and support him without him actually saying anything definitive, or of consequence.

The information provided so far is that vaccines aren't the sole answer and we must utilise other strategies as well. We already know that: of course people who get sick need treatment and of course hygiene protcols (masks, social distancing, ventilation, hand washing, cleaning/sanitation) should be adhered to.

Panel members don't specify the 'other strategies' beyond early treatment regimes and so these strategies appear cloaked in mystery, along with the suggestion that they are being blocked by authorities. I wanted to hear the alleged 'blocked' strategies named because I can neither agree, nor disagree without this essential information.

I see from other comments on this thread that people have found the video informative and agreeable, yet no one has highlighted these red flags which appear so early on.

RE: Wuhan leaked the virus

That's not new information, neither is it the same as your thread title:
The possibility that covid leaked from the WIV has always been on the table along with other possibilities, none of which have been definitively identified as the source.

To change the possibility to the definite in your title is not only falsifying information, it has potentially dangerous ramifications.

RE: Are boycotts a legitimate form of protest?

I can choose to buy a product, or not buy a product.

I'm not legally obliged to buy Nestlé coffee, for example. I rarely drink coffee, so how can the law force me to buy it? How can the law force me to buy any Nestlé product, whether the reason is because I don't want/need their wares, or because I refuse to buy their wares on moral grounds?

Every time we go to the supermarket we boycott products because we don't buy at least one of every available item on the shelves. It cannot possibly be illegal to make purchase choices simply on a practical level.

RE: Are boycotts a legitimate form of protest?

Like Westerners who won't go short of food because of their boycotting actions?

'Collabrator' comes across as a judgemental, angry and aggressive way of expressing yourself. Perhaps starving Palestinian people might be considered collaborating with Israel. dunno

Ideally, Palestinian and Israeli peoples should live in the spirit of harmony and co-operation, not one ruling over the other. The article cites acts of co-operation, but you call that collaboration and not giving a damn about anyone else.

Perhaps you're letting your own experiences and emotional investment interfere with this discussion by attempting to shut down a valid point against boycotts.

What is the point of that kind of armchair 'support' if the people paying the price for injustice have to pay an even higher price? Why can't we consider the pros and cons? Why can't we use our imaginations and explore some other ways of doing things?

RE: Do you think...men are from mars and women are from Venus

Takes a man to know 'bout something complexicated like that. laugh

RE: Destroying the rain forests for soya cattle feed

You ain't that lucky. laugh

RE: Do you think...men are from mars and women are from Venus

Knoxville, Tennessee? dunno

RE: Do you think...men are from mars and women are from Venus

I told him long ago, but clearly a woman's opinion doesn't count. rolling on the floor laughing

RE: Do you think...men are from mars and women are from Venus

She doesn't look like a Welsh mammy to me.

But then Lee's not a Welsh mammy's boy either, given he doesn't actually know the Cardiff area.

RE: Do you think...men are from mars and women are from Venus

Burn baby, burn...

giggle

RE: Do you think...men are from mars and women are from Venus

I read an article recently about Mars being a dried up, old dying planet.

Apparently, all it's nothing much, but blowing off hot air.

RE: Destroying the rain forests for soya cattle feed

It's Thursday, right?

Aka, Friday Eve celebrated with the pretence of martinis?

That'll be why you're unaware I'm much to posh to fart. snooty talk to hand

RE: Destroying the rain forests for soya cattle feed

If I ate bugs, you'd be the first on my chopping board. laugh

RE: Destroying the rain forests for soya cattle feed

Don't forget the deforestation as a result of cattle farming.

It's much more efficient, environmentally friendly and healthier to eat the soya beans, rather than processing them through a cow.

I tried tempeh for the first time yesterday. I simply marinated it in tamari, a few drops of liquid hickory smoke and baked it. It was unusual, but nice and I'm going to try a satay style marinade next time.

Animal Rescue...

RE: Are boycotts a legitimate form of protest?

Conflict isn't solely about violence. I currently have conflict within myself regarding the practises of boycotts and sanctions.

Non-violent conflict can escalate, or exacerbate, however. I'm wondering about wisdom of poking the wasps nest.

One of my internal conflicts is as you mention: how do we quietly get on with ethical consumer choices without someone making a noise? Apart from adopting a vegetarian diet at the age of 12, my first introduction to the politics of consumer boycotting was the student's union shop making a noise (albeit a quiet, localised one back in the days before the internet) about the Nestlé boycott. That was instrumental in shaping my understanding of consumer ethics.

I very much take on board what you're saying about overt public support and the emotional value of that. It happens on here when someone is being targetted and others speak out their objection. Most of us value even the smallest gestures when under the smallest of fire.

How much more important that emotional support and solidarity is when the stakes are so much higher, but there are always different ways of speaking out. The most hostile aren't always the most successful; quite the reverse, I'd say. We can maybe learn somethng from and be inspired by the social dynamic here.

And I don't think missionaries and Magdeleine laundries should be dismissed to another thread so easily. There are lessons to be learned about how damaging and corrupt 'saving' people can be.

This is a list of forum posts created by jac_the_gripper.

We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here