(09-13-2023, 03:04 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]These people have too much money, which means they have too much power. Do I think he's trying to intentionally kill us? No. Do I think he's making himself rich while playing God? Absolutely. When people play God, they are only bound to their morals. Bill Gates is an enemy of ours, not because he's intrinsically evil, but because he steals political capital from me. He can use his power and influence to shape the world in a way HE sees fit. I can't really stand opposed to it. While that doesn't necessarily make him evil, it is a form of disenfranchisement, and it needs to be stopped.
(09-13-2023, 02:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The whole point to all of this discussion is that people are adamant that the vaccine is the reason for these deaths (or injuries in Hamlin's case) or that the government and doctors (and Bill Gates!) are trying to kill them. It's a fact that the large increase in cardiac deaths in 2019/2020 was not because of the Covid vaccine, and I am supremely confident in that assertion. Your soapbox is your own of course, but good luck proving me wrong on that.
I understand the point of the discussion. My point is that you can't confidently assert that position. We don't have clear data. We have some conflicting research. I think your sources are predominantly corrupted by money (which has been commonly seen in the healthcare industry for years), and you think my sources are not supported by the proper authority. We're at an impasse. You're not right just because you have authority behind you. In this way, Mikey is correct. Can you PROVE that the uptick in heart attack deaths is NOT caused by the vaccine? Without repeating what the government says?
Yes, I can prove that the uptick in heart attacks in 2019/2020 were not caused by the vaccine. We have the clearest of data on that fact. I also agree with you about Bill Gates, he's not evil and I believe he is in fact trying very hard to do good. But having that much control in one person (or small group of persons) is a bad thing.
(09-13-2023, 03:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2023, 03:04 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]These people have too much money, which means they have too much power. Do I think he's trying to intentionally kill us? No. Do I think he's making himself rich while playing God? Absolutely. When people play God, they are only bound to their morals. Bill Gates is an enemy of ours, not because he's intrinsically evil, but because he steals political capital from me. He can use his power and influence to shape the world in a way HE sees fit. I can't really stand opposed to it. While that doesn't necessarily make him evil, it is a form of disenfranchisement, and it needs to be stopped.
I understand the point of the discussion. My point is that you can't confidently assert that position. We don't have clear data. We have some conflicting research. I think your sources are predominantly corrupted by money (which has been commonly seen in the healthcare industry for years), and you think my sources are not supported by the proper authority. We're at an impasse. You're not right just because you have authority behind you. In this way, Mikey is correct. Can you PROVE that the uptick in heart attack deaths is NOT caused by the vaccine? Without repeating what the government says?
Yes, I can prove that the uptick in heart attacks in 2019/2020 were not caused by the vaccine. We have the clearest of data on that fact. I also agree with you about Bill Gates, he's not evil and I believe he is in fact trying very hard to do good. But having that much control in one person (or small group of persons) is a bad thing.
Why are you talking about 2019 and 2020? I'm talking about a study that was released this year about 2022. 2019 and 2020 aren't even relevant to this conversation.
(09-13-2023, 07:57 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2023, 03:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I can prove that the uptick in heart attacks in 2019/2020 were not caused by the vaccine. We have the clearest of data on that fact. I also agree with you about Bill Gates, he's not evil and I believe he is in fact trying very hard to do good. But having that much control in one person (or small group of persons) is a bad thing.
Why are you talking about 2019 and 2020? I'm talking about a study that was released this year about 2022. 2019 and 2020 aren't even relevant to this conversation.
They are extremely relevant and you'll figure out why eventually. If you're going to jump my [BLEEP] and tell me I'm wrong then you can at least confine your criticism to what I'm actually talking about instead of going off on one of your "everything is corrupt all the time" tangents again.
Lol. Dude. You know it's corrupt. It's a cash cow. Not for you, obviously. Not for the person next to you trying to take care of the people in Jacksonville, obviously. Pull your head up and look around your hospital. Nurses and doctors are overworked, budgets are tight, and there's a backlog of patients too big to handle. Meanwhile, everyone who is not directly tied to practicing medicine is raking it in hand over fist. That's corruption. This stems directly from bad scientific practices.
Let me guess your point: That heart attack deaths were already on the rise? That's a great theory, but I bet it's [BLEEP]. Lockdowns probably contributed to most of the 2019 increase, followed by deaths that occurred from people who missed checkups and procedures (not to mention the general fallout from Covid itself). 2022 not only didn't have that problem, but heart attack deaths also continued to rise, especially for those under 30. All of the sudden, after years of transparency and readily available data, my ability to simply look up facts and figures is disappearing. This should be an easy debate, but, more and more, clear, easy to access data is being either unreleased or prepackaged into digestible material for the braindead masses. Here's the science, they say.
The difference between me, a truth seeker, and you, a follow the science guy, is that I am not following anything but the truth. If the science is wrong or manipulated, you are wrong. I look at the data (all data) and try to determine if it's the truth. If I can't know it's the truth, I say so. Because our government did such a bad job collecting data, WE don't know the truth. WE can only speculate. Now, since these hacks want to roll out their best guess as science, you get to point to that authority as THE SCIENCE. It's not. It's speculative. You don't know [BLEEP]. You can't. We don't have good data. Look, I'm not saying there's NO data. I'm just saying that we're all speculating. I'm open though. You know me... show me the money. I'll roll up my sleeves and get into a study.
(09-14-2023, 01:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. Dude. You know it's corrupt. It's a cash cow. Not for you, obviously. Not for the person next to you trying to take care of the people in Jacksonville, obviously. Pull your head up and look around your hospital. Nurses and doctors are overworked, budgets are tight, and there's a backlog of patients too big to handle. Meanwhile, everyone who is not directly tied to practicing medicine is raking it in hand over fist. That's corruption. This stems directly from bad scientific practices.
Let me guess your point: That heart attack deaths were already on the rise? That's a great theory, but I bet it's [BLEEP]. Lockdowns probably contributed to most of the 2019 increase, followed by deaths that occurred from people who missed checkups and procedures (not to mention the general fallout from Covid itself). 2022 not only didn't have that problem, but heart attack deaths also continued to rise, especially for those under 30. All of the sudden, after years of transparency and readily available data, my ability to simply look up facts and figures is disappearing. This should be an easy debate, but, more and more, clear, easy to access data is being either unreleased or prepackaged into digestible material for the braindead masses. Here's the science, they say.
The difference between me, a truth seeker, and you, a follow the science guy, is that I am not following anything but the truth. If the science is wrong or manipulated, you are wrong. I look at the data (all data) and try to determine if it's the truth. If I can't know it's the truth, I say so. Because our government did such a bad job collecting data, WE don't know the truth. WE can only speculate. Now, since these hacks want to roll out their best guess as science, you get to point to that authority as THE SCIENCE. It's not. It's speculative. You don't know [BLEEP]. You can't. We don't have good data. Look, I'm not saying there's NO data. I'm just saying that we're all speculating. I'm open though. You know me... show me the money. I'll roll up my sleeves and get into a study.
Good to see you hand wave away the points of your own presented study. Everything but Covid caused the jump in 2020 huh? Lol. We KNOW it wasn't the vaccine.Thats enough for my point to be made. It's ok for you to say I'm right, I promise it won't hurt. Now back to Corruption Rant Central.
You don't KNOW [BLEEP]. I'm not hand waving away anything, bro. I didn't say it was the vaccine, did I? I don't know what's causing the increase.
All I know for sure is that our "experts" made terrible choices. They didn't require data that we collect data that should have been obvious to anyone with a brain. We imposed a vaccine on population groups that were minimally affected by Covid. We didn't make any attempts to properly categorize groups or equally measure symptoms so that we can properly monitor the results. The same standards for covid were not used with the vaccine, which creates lopsided data. It's all speculative. I can admit that. Why can't you?
4 questions:
When this first started, was it me or you that was saying Covid is a threat?
When the first wave of Covid came through the US in 2019, going into spring of 2020, was it me or you saying that Floridians should be concerned because it probably hadn't got here yet?
When the vaccine first came out, was it me or you that said vaccines stopped transmission?
Was it you or me saying that natural immunity was sufficient for those previously infected?
I have been on both sides of this issue, taking neither a conservative or liberal position, at a time when you were on the wrong side. During the pandemic, I argued for better classification of data (for this exact reason). I argued against lockdowns in areas where the r nought value wasn't appropriate. I didn't get there because I'm a [BLEEP] psychic. I got there because I followed the data and the trends before it started being shaped and manipulated by people with various motives, be it talking heads or fat cats. I don't follow the data anymore because it's a waste of time. It's not there. It won't ever be there. The CDC dropped the ball on this in every way. I have argued against mandatory vaccinations from the government or corporations. That's it. I've never said at-risk groups shouldn't vaccinate. I stopped following this issue when they stopped mandatory policies. Btw, is the vaccine still mandated by your hospital?
I find it odd you claim you are right, yet you have not even attempted to show any data supporting your position (not that it would matter, because it's so tainted). Sure, use that point to feel confident that I am wrong for being suspicious of vaccines for young, healthy people, but don't pretend that the data is comprehensive or clear. It's not.
(09-14-2023, 09:52 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You don't KNOW [BLEEP]. I'm not hand waving away anything, bro. I didn't say it was the vaccine, did I? (Was I talking to you before you jumped in and highjacked the topic away from what I was talking about? If you aren't talking about the vaccine then why are you interrupting those of us who are?) I don't know what's causing the increase. (So you don't know but you're certain I'm wrong. Got it!)
All I know for sure is that our "experts" made terrible choices. They didn't require data that we collect data that should have been obvious to anyone with a brain. We imposed a vaccine on population groups that were minimally affected by Covid. We didn't make any attempts to properly categorize groups or equally measure symptoms so that we can properly monitor the results. The same standards for covid were not used with the vaccine, which creates lopsided data. It's all speculative. I can admit that. Why can't you? (I agree with you that there is much we don't know, for a variety of reasons including those you elucidate; you can't admit that there is much we do.)
4 questions:
When this first started, was it me or you that was saying Covid is a threat? I did not initially think it was a threat and I was wrong. (Would you like a cookie for being right?)
When the first wave of Covid came through the US in 2019, going into spring of 2020, was it me or you saying that Floridians should be concerned because it probably hadn't got here yet? I don't remember, but I'm sure you were right else you wouldn't be asking. (Two cookies!)
When the vaccine first came out, was it me or you that said vaccines stopped transmission? I did and it does in the same context as all other vaccines. It's not 100%, this was known and that fact does little to negate the positive effects of the vaccine in the general population. (Uh oh, cookie for me. Your lead is down to just one!)
Was it you or me saying that natural immunity was sufficient for those previously infected? It wasn't and isn't, those with NI will still be at greater risk of re-infection than those who have both NI and the vaccine. It also requires contracting Covid-19 to obtain which has it's own set of significant risks. (Cookie for me, I guess we tie. Of course you'll trot out the Bad Data rant again because you have to be right. Oh wait...we just have to wait to the next paragraph.)
I have been on both sides of this issue, taking neither a conservative or liberal position, at a time when you were on the wrong side. (Well, as long as you're always right there's no harm in being on both sides.) During the pandemic, I argued for better classification of data (for this exact reason) (Good for you, I wanted us to have the most incorrect and flawed data we could possibly have so as to kill as many people as possible, much like the thousands of scientists and scholars working around the world who also despise all humanity). I argued against lockdowns in areas where the r nought value wasn't appropriate (I wanted concentration camps where all citizens would be housed until we could get the ovens running.) I didn't get there because I'm a [BLEEP] psychic. I got there because I followed the data and the trends before it started being shaped and manipulated by people with various motives, be it talking heads or fat cats. I don't follow the data anymore because it's a waste of time. It's not there. It won't ever be there. The CDC dropped the ball on this in every way. (Well, I'm glad you saw through it in spite of all the data you were using being evil and corrupt, good job!) I have argued against mandatory vaccinations from the government or corporations (I opposed government mandates but supported employer's rights to mandate). That's it. I've never said at-risk groups shouldn't vaccinate. I stopped following this issue when they stopped mandatory policies. Btw, is the vaccine still mandated by your hospital? Not mandated but provided by Employee Health on request. That might change again as this current uptick moves into the winter. Flu shots are still required though and it's likely we get the bivalent that holds both.
I find it odd you claim you are right, yet you have not even attempted to show any data supporting your position (not that it would matter, because it's so tainted). Sure, use that point to feel confident that I am wrong for being suspicious of vaccines for young, healthy people, but don't pretend that the data is comprehensive or clear. It's not.
I KNOW that you CANNOT have a vaccine induced cardiac injury a year before the first vaccine was ever administered. Either tell me how I'm wrong on that one statement (not another long winded rehash of the last 3 years either, just how this one statement is wrong) or admit I'm right and move the hell on.
No [BLEEP], dummy. I already answered that in post #9,605. I suggested that the statistic from 2019 was not some part of a normal trend. It was caused directly by lockdowns. The fallout in 2020 was for similar reasons. The rise in heart attack deaths in people under 30 in 2022 cannot be explained with these same excuses. It's not just a pattern. The trend from 2009 to 2019 was in steady decline. Now it's rising. You don't know what's causing it. Is that simple enough for you?
Hell, from 1990 to 2019 (pretty much since it's been recorded), heart attack deaths for people under 30 was almost unchanging. You know what? Let's blame climate change. That's science.
The worst part about this whole experience is that it used to be very easy to go find good data. All of that has changed. It's like pulling teeth to find information by age as it pertains to covid or heart attacks. Everything has become age-adjusted, which is a really [BLEEP] way of doing it. But, who am I to question the noble and just CDC?
Btw, you can ignore my questions (since you're always right). Just answer the last one. Does your hospital require vaccine mandates for its employees still?
(09-14-2023, 02:25 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]No [BLEEP], dummy. I already answered that in post #9,605. I suggested that the statistic from 2019 was not some part of a normal trend. It was caused directly by lockdowns. The fallout in 2020 was for similar reasons. The rise in heart attack deaths in people under 30 in 2022 cannot be explained with these same excuses. It's not just a pattern. The trend from 2009 to 2019 was in steady decline. Now it's rising. You don't know what's causing it. Is that simple enough for you?
C'mon man. Lockdowns...please.
(09-14-2023, 02:35 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Hell, from 1990 to 2019 (pretty much since it's been recorded), heart attack deaths for people under 30 was almost unchanging. You know what? Let's blame climate change. That's science.
The worst part about this whole experience is that it used to be very easy to go find good data. All of that has changed. It's like pulling teeth to find information by age as it pertains to covid or heart attacks. Everything has become age-adjusted, which is a really [BLEEP] way of doing it. But, who am I to question the noble and just CDC?
Btw, you can ignore my questions (since you're always right). Just answer the last one. Does your hospital require vaccine mandates for its employees still?
I answered all your questions dumb [BLEEP]. Maybe read it. Once again, I'm reflexively wrong in your mind, you don't even have to check what I actually said.
Sorry, not in the habit of reading my quoted posts. You got me. Put a feather in your cap.
I don't know why you're scoffing about lockdowns. Let me be clear that I am not denying that Covid had an impact on these figures. Nor am I saying it was caused exclusively by lockdowns. I am saying that lockdowns shut down unnecessary healthcare, which probably lead to additional deaths in the form of missed check-ups, delayed procedures, etc. Even if you want to pretend it played no role, you have to admit that stresses brought on by Covid could have played a role in the increase deaths. That's not a stretch by any means. There was always going to be a bump considering the considerable pressure, lack of access to healthcare, and, yes, the added cases from post-Covid that might have slipped through the cracks. This makes my point, that in 2022, these stressors were not there. Specifically, you shouldn't see it in people under 30. It's an anomaly.
And, since you are still missing the point of my "interruption" into this conversation, I am saying you cannot rule out vaccines. We simply have bad data and it's going to be hard to parse through it. It could be other factors, including increased drug use, both recreational and enhancement (in the sports industry). There are a myriad of reasons why this could be the case, but you don't get to confidently rule out one of them. That is my point.
(09-14-2023, 04:56 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, not in the habit of reading my quoted posts. You got me. Put a feather in your cap.
I don't know why you're scoffing about lockdowns. Let me be clear that I am not denying that Covid had an impact on these figures. Nor am I saying it was caused exclusively by lockdowns. I am saying that lockdowns shut down unnecessary healthcare, which probably lead to additional deaths in the form of missed check-ups, delayed procedures, etc. Even if you want to pretend it played no role, you have to admit that stresses brought on by Covid could have played a role in the increase deaths. That's not a stretch by any means. There was always going to be a bump considering the considerable pressure, lack of access to healthcare, and, yes, the added cases from post-Covid that might have slipped through the cracks. This makes my point, that in 2022, these stressors were not there. Specifically, you shouldn't see it in people under 30. It's an anomaly.
And, since you are still missing the point of my "interruption" into this conversation, I am saying you cannot rule out vaccines. We simply have bad data and it's going to be hard to parse through it. It could be other factors, including increased drug use, both recreational and enhancement (in the sports industry). There are a myriad of reasons why this could be the case, but you don't get to confidently rule out one of them. That is my point.
Your point is noted. I agree to an extent, but that doesn't negate what I was saying to Caldrac.
(09-18-2023, 10:22 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxVlJ54L1...ODBiNWFlZA==
What does this mean? Anybody have an idea? Or is it bunk?
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
He's a legit scholar and scientist and his case is for more regulation and oversight of production. There isn't any safety issue with DNA because the integration of foreign DNA into our genes doesn't happen. You get foreign DNA in your body every time you catch a bug, but that DNA never integrates with your DNA; it only happens using machinery. It's much more complex than what I just wrote of course, but that's what it boils down to.
(09-19-2023, 12:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2023, 10:22 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxVlJ54L1...ODBiNWFlZA==
What does this mean? Anybody have an idea? Or is it bunk?
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
He's a legit scholar and scientist and his case is for more regulation and oversight of production. There isn't any safety issue with DNA because the integration of foreign DNA into our genes doesn't happen. You get foreign DNA in your body every time you catch a bug, but that DNA never integrates with your DNA; it only happens using machinery. It's much more complex than what I just wrote of course, but that's what it boils down to.
I thought the whole distinctive about retroviruses and DNA viruses was that they could permanently change and remain in our living genetic code. But loose DNA isn't like that? Maybe something to do with the packaging into a virus and the enzymes that also come in the package? Biology was never my strong suit.
![[Image: OGC.118d5da5a434e137e1d885f9ac0c7042?pid...nwxyw9Q%3d]](https://www.bing.com/th/id/OGC.118d5da5a434e137e1d885f9ac0c7042?pid=1.7&rurl=https%3a%2f%2fmedia2.giphy.com%2fmedia%2f64aBc1uYI7asXZH28O%2fgiphy.gif&ehk=%2bvAsKF8sZrKphgE1CMXYhor5tLxgnaESx14qnwxyw9Q%3d)
![[Image: aaronrodgersvaccine.jpg]](https://ace.mu.nu/archives/aaronrodgersvaccine.jpg)
