The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Viruses don't care what you think
|
01-12-2022, 07:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2022, 07:59 PM by Lucky2Last. Edited 1 time in total.)
(01-12-2022, 10:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:(01-12-2022, 10:38 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Is that your new refuge? I'll take it on the chin and admit that I misapplied your comment to Bob Saget. I probably got a couple Ronster posts mixed up and was mistaken about which one you responded to. I am back at work now and check this forum once or twice a day from my phone. If a post is low energy and one line, it's probably all I have time to write that the time. So, when I ask if that's your refuge, I'm not talking about the obvious miscommunication. I'm talking about the only thing that makes sense in that context, which was this: "Of course all the internet experts surely know more than the actual physician who treated the patient, that's the world we live in and why these discussions serve little purpose." You have come to rely on strawman tactics in our recent discussions. If that's where you want to take refuge, go ahead. Even still, it only slightly modifies my original position. There are more tests they can run for someone who is alive, but unless they dial in on a specific defect (to which they are saying it's a congenital heart defect), it's almost impossible to rule out the vaccine completely, even if it just served as a catalyst aggravating the existing condition. Again, I am not saying it was caused by the vaccine. In fact, I am outright admitting there's a small probability of it being the cause. I will go one step further and proclaim that Ronster is most likely wrong for attributing these heart attacks to the vaccine. There's a lot of that going around. HOWEVER, none of that negates my original point, that we should encourage good science, and a lot of that starts with challenging the status quo. I think it's irresponsible for a doctor to say the heart attack was unrelated to the vaccine because he can't know that. He is unqualified to state that definitively, and probably should be more specific in his word choices. While you might think it's a small change to make that condition, I think it's everything in building institutions of trust. Furthermore, I don't think it's a big ask from you to be on board with that line of thinking. Or Marty. Or any of the other people who are blindly following the narrative that has been created by people and institutions we KNOW to be duplicitous. |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.