SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> I Missed this? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1640035461 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 12/20/21 at 13:24:21

Title: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/20/21 at 13:24:21 I would have thought the media, in the search for truth, would have been quick to bring the opposing voice to the forefront and allow scientific debate to rule the day. https://gbdeclaration.org/ https://www.zerohedge.com/political/emails-expose-fauci-collins-collusion-smear-anti-lockdown-scientists

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/20/21 at 13:57:31 I would have thought the media, in the search for truth,  No, "media" is the search for money.  If you want truth you gotta do some work.    This was in the news over a year ago.  But it depends on where you get your "news".  Will a declaration by 3 medical professionals who are asking for signatures be on mainstream TV?  Probably not.  FOX didn't cover it and they cover plenty of things that are anti-Fauci.  I think at the time I would have argued against it as well since the Great Barrington Declaration didn't use actual findings.  They didn't know about the very low duration of post-infection antibodies, but they assumed they would be present.  So basically the GBD took a guess and Fauci (along with the WHO and hundreds of other epidemiologists) said we can't possibly know what the GBD is claiming to be true because time hasn't progressed enough to provide evidence.  The "a quick and devastating published take down" of the GBD is questionable.  Why this one when so many others exist?  Was is personal?  Was it because it was presented in a way that it sounded like it was factual when it was theory?  Who knows.  More transparency would be nice that's for sure.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Serowbot on 12/20/21 at 15:15:21 They have "Esperanto" on their signature map. Espernato is a made up language, not a place. So WTF is a signature map and who's signing it in Espernato? :-?

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by MnSpring on 12/20/21 at 16:22:49 4650475A42575A41350 wrote: " ... Espernato is a made up language, ... " Really ????????? " Esperanto is the world's most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Serowbot on 12/21/21 at 09:10:15 How many "widely spoken constructed international auxiliary languages" do you know of?

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/21/21 at 09:19:09 was in the news over a year ago.  But it depends on where you get your "news". You could have shared it

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/21/21 at 09:27:01 They were “fringe epidemiologists” because they had the temerity to ask whether the lockdowns of 2020 were effective. Those three, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford were simply doing what any good scientist would do: They were following the evidence. They wrote the Great Barrington Declaration [GBD] as they parted company at AIER, posting it for all to see. So why was Dr. Collins so intent on impugning these three scientists? It’s hard to know exactly, mostly because any scientist worth his salt should have been happy to see further research being done. That is, after all, how ignorance is replaced by knowledge. But Collins was clearly in no mood to replace his own possible ignorance with any kind of knowledge. He was pretty sure he knew all he had to know; and this is one of the most dangerous positions a scientist can take. Not important?

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/21/21 at 10:38:44 "You could have shared it"  I could share a bunch of things.  We go through 30 or 40 a day.  I didn't think posting that TBD was basically just guessing and making assumptions on some pretty specific and important things was worth the conversation here as it would need to be read to know what it's saying.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/21/21 at 11:37:34 While Americans are being swamped from every direction with one message and some credentialed people disagree, adding that to the conversation seems like the thing to do. The ideas are not advanced. I even mentioned the possible negative effects of the mandates. I think we screwed up at every turn. Nobody can prove it, either way. Vaccination is not keeping people from dying. And the reports are without details. Who knows if they weighed four hundred pounds and had diabetes that they weren't taking care of? We have not been given honest numbers to use to make come to solid conclusions. The covid death numbers were dishonest. And I think the vax damage numbers are screwed up. Call me a cynical person.. I consider myself a realistic person. I've watched media and government push the people to believe things. It's never been good. Usually it is to manufacture consent to get in a war. Or support some bad legislation. So far, the way I see it, the harder they push,the worse it is. This is the hardest I've seen them push anything. There is More to say, but I'm not typing an hour.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Serowbot on 12/21/21 at 12:23:54 Yer' a cynical person  :-? Very...

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/22/21 at 07:06:39  I've found that a lot of people confuse Cynical with Skeptical.  The primary difference to me is a Cynic doesn't need any facts because they already know the answers.  - The Government is always manipulating and is wrong.  A Skeptic requires facts and can accept multiple outcomes. - The Government has manipulated and may be wrong.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Serowbot on 12/22/21 at 08:24:30 JoG is still a very cynical person...

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by WebsterMark on 12/22/21 at 09:56:01 To be fair, in issues regarding Trump, Republicans, conservatives etc… Sew is pretty cynical also….

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Serowbot on 12/22/21 at 11:24:14 But you're not... ;D

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/22/21 at 15:47:49 6747454D5047220 wrote:  I've found that a lot of people confuse Cynical with Skeptical.  The primary difference to me is a Cynic doesn't need any facts because they already know the answers.  - The Government is always manipulating and is wrong.  A Skeptic requires facts and can accept multiple outcomes. - The Government has manipulated and may be wrong.   Parse away.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/22/21 at 15:55:29 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote: They were “fringe epidemiologists” because they had the temerity to ask whether the lockdowns of 2020 were effective. Those three, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford were simply doing what any good scientist would do: They were following the evidence. They wrote the Great Barrington Declaration [GBD] as they parted company at AIER, posting it for all to see. So why was Dr. Collins so intent on impugning these three scientists? It’s hard to know exactly, mostly because any scientist worth his salt should have been happy to see further research being done. That is, after all, how ignorance is replaced by knowledge. But Collins was clearly in no mood to replace his own possible ignorance with any kind of knowledge. He was pretty sure he knew all he had to know; and this is one of the most dangerous positions a scientist can take. Not important? I don't think this has been adequately discussed.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/22/21 at 19:12:13  What else is there to say?  The GBD declared things they didn't have evidence of and also declared things they did have evidence of.  You won't read it so  just select the paraphrasing that says what you think is true.  Various people put too much energy into shutting it down.  These things happen in politics on both sides.  The only thing we can do is guess as to why people were so intent on shutting this one down since they aren't going to log in here and tell us.   Personally if the GBD was accurate I'd expect to see their predicted outcomes by now.    Your stance is: "Vaccination is not keeping people from dying."  Some credentialed people disagree.  A lot of them actually.  How is dismissing all of those adding to the conversation?    So what's the point of talking about a "follow the science  event?  I feel like you cherry-pick information and expect us to just go along with it.  It's like you don't think we can see that you present evidence that states death under 28 days of vaccination are not documented, then also present information documenting deaths 1-28 days after vaccination.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by MnSpring on 12/22/21 at 20:57:28 2404060E1304610 wrote: " ...  So what's the point of talking about a "follow the science  event ..."  Why do you think, groups, do not  "follow the science" When the, ‘Science’ is. More Guns = Less Crime Giving more money to people that commit most of the crimes in a area, will not stop the crime in that area. When more votes are tallied, than recorded eligible voters in a District, it is a very good indication of, voter fraud. That banning one kind of Firearm, will not stop crime. That allowing Citizens to carry  concealed firearms, does not turn that area into a, ‘Wild West’. That releasing people form Jail, will not reduce crime. That it is just as safe to do, Weddings/Funerals/Reunions/etc. as it is to go into a ‘big box’ store. That a S/A revolver, (which is not broken) can not be fired, without pulling the trigger. AND ON, And on, and on

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/22/21 at 21:03:33 "Why do you think, groups, do not  "follow the science" When the, ‘Science’ is."  Agenda and ignorance usually.  If it's not acceptable to ignore false statements about gun control why is it acceptable to ignore false statements about vaccine outcomes?  Why do we demand evidence of gun violence to address gun-control measures but require zero evidence of death certificates saying Covid was the cause of death when it was actually a car-wreck?    No problem repeating that lie.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/23/21 at 01:01:41 A tyrant stifles dissent. From the Wall Street Journal: The tale unfolded in October 2020 after the launch of the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement by Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya against blanket pandemic lockdowns. They favored a policy of what they called “focused protection” of high-risk populations such as the elderly or those with medical conditions. Thousands of scientists signed the declaration—if they were able to learn about it. The liberal establishment suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration, largely by ignoring it. Debt Star technocrats like Fauci and Collins took a more active approach. “This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists . . . seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises,” Dr. Collins wrote [to Fauci]. “Is it underway?” “Fringe” is technocratese for “dissident.” A week after his email, Dr. Collins spoke to the Washington Post about the Great Barrington Declaration. “This is a fringe component of epidemiology,” he said. “This is not mainstream science. It’s dangerous.” What really is dangerous is white collar thugs like Collins and Fauci politicizing science and suppressing debate. Dr. Fauci replied to Dr. Collins that the takedown was underway. … Dr. Fauci also emailed an article from the Nation, a left-wing magazine, and his staff sent him several more. The emails suggest a feedback loop: The media cited Dr. Fauci as an unquestionable authority, and Dr. Fauci got his talking points from the media. Facebook censored mentions of the Great Barrington Declaration. This is how groupthink works. Recalcitrant scientists of the “Eppur si muove” type aren’t imprisoned these days. They aren’t even forced to listen to Collins singing and strumming his guitar. Soft tyrannies have soft takedowns. These make ideological conformity a prerequisite for career success and even continued employment. Similar takedowns can be expected as necessary to keep everyone on the same page regarding the global warming hoax. Any scientist skeptical about a policy of controlling the weather by wasting taxpayer money on electric cars and other inefficient boondoggles will be dismissed as “fringe” and canceled. On a tip from Varla. You declare it worthless, but the many scientists who signed on? Naah, You dismiss it, They said things that are unsupported! Reee!!! Like Get the Jab! You won't get sick! Hell, vaccination is not stopping people from getting it, spreading it or dying from it. You don't have a desire to stop Their free speech. But the Fringe Scientists, ohh,well, they made claims,, Fine American position. We NEED other ideas. And they proposed some good things. But the narrative was more important than thinking. No debate. No real smart tactics, just Everyone Stay Home! Well, except strippers and Wal-Mart workers,, No Church! I was never real good at following rules I don't agree with.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/23/21 at 07:23:21 "Hell, vaccination is not stopping people from getting it, spreading it or dying from it."  Except it does keep people from dying from it.  Why add that lie into what would otherwise be a true statement?   I get it, as long as you don't look at or accept information proving otherwise you can maintain the observed reality.  Just don't observe what you don't want to be true.   "We NEED other ideas. And they proposed some good things. But the narrative was more important than thinking."  You mean like saying that 1 in 100 die or hospitalized but ignoring that we don't have that many people actually in hospitals?  That narrative is ok?  Why are we ignoring the DoD numbers? We can dump hundreds of thousands of proven outcomes and next week the "doesn't stop people from dying" will just be said again, completely ignoring hundreds of thousands of proven true outcomes.    It doesn't make suppressing discussion right.  It doesn't make continuing shutdowns a positive thing to do.  But if one wants to call for "discussion" shouldn't they be open to discussion and stop ignoring  critical pieces of the puzzle?

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/23/21 at 09:53:17 The Great Barrington Declaration The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. Terrible, just terrible,, and to stifle it,, absolutely necessary, before the people start thinking. V

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/23/21 at 11:08:16  Look the GBD is a good idea, but it was a guess at what might happen.  Recall saying on here when herd immunity was reached in Spain?  Then thousands died there.  As long as we ignore all those dead people we can still claim Spain reached herd immunity.  But math will disagree.  GBD had sound ideas - but bad math and a guess at what could happen, not data.  Stifling it was not a good idea, but saying it was the right way to do things is not either.  I can recall everything in the GBD being said from multiple sources, so why this one was chosen who knows.  I mean tons and tons of people didn't think the full lockdowns were necessary,

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/23/21 at 23:13:15 I never said it was The Answer. I said squashing it instead of having the conversation was Wrong. And Fauci did.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/23/21 at 23:22:30  The dismissal of ideas that don't conform to already decided ideas is pretty common across the board.    Why this one was chosen I would like to know considering multiple exist.  Was it personal, or perception?  I feel a lot of this is a lose-lose situation no matter what response one chooses because people will always look back and tell you what you should have done.  If Covid was really really deadly and killed a bunch of people we would be sitting here asking why these idiots even entertained the GBD (and similar) ideas that had no proof of what they claimed.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/24/21 at 11:46:30 Covid was really really deadly and killed a bunch of people we would be sitting here asking why these idiots even entertained the GBD (and similar) ideas that had no proof of what they claimed But since it never was, never looked like that kind of threat, and the bully pulpit was used to crush any other ideas, from treatment to what kinds of responses we needed to use, it's obvious Now and was obvious then, that having the conversation was right. It's time to stop believing in Experts who seriously are Not Producing. Look around, THINK, read what nurses are saying. Can I PROVE it? Nope,, but I know what I'm hearing. The things I'm seeing. The jabs are dangerous and long term effects are completely unknown. Calling it a good idea Doesn't look like a good idea.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/24/21 at 12:16:22 "It's time to stop believing in Experts who seriously are Not Producing."  I agree with this which is why I provide verified outcomes and not press releases.  The US DoD vaccine outcomes are from real verified humans that are currently going under weekly verified testing.  Why ignore all of those hundreds of thousands of positive outcomes? "Look around, THINK, read what nurses are saying."  I work with hundreds of them.  The ratio is important - Why ignore the majority which are nurses who have gotten the vaccine and are working with zero side-effects?    Why are we only supposed to listen to nurses that think the vaccine is dangerous?  How is that being open for discussion?   "Can I PROVE it? Nope,, but I know what I'm hearing. The things I'm seeing. The jabs are dangerous and long term effects are completely unknown."  As long as you cherry-pick your information you will get the outcomes you think are correct.  It's fine to examine cardiac issues but accepting an obviously false statistic like 1 in 100 die or get hospitalized should indicate that you don't need proof to make your argument.  The very document you provided disproved the statistic that was claimed.     But as usual we should ignore that part, the lie, and just focus on the correct parts.  But if someone else lies, that's a big deal, focus on their lies for sure.    Open for discussion looks to mean only open for information that points in a pre-decided direction.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/24/21 at 13:13:43 FWIW, my daughter, a traveling nurse, is jabbed. She said she has experienced some odd pain, and stops the conversation. She won't talk about it. You decide what you believe. I've been watching things for decades. The,, ohh, I spelled it out a few days ago. The push to accept is greater than any other time. Sufficient reason to say no. Recovering from covid, having the antibodies,, nobody cares. I saw the rebuttal. I'm calling bullshit.

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by MnSpring on 12/24/21 at 15:44:45 1737353D2037520 wrote: " ...   As long as you cherry-pick your information you will get the outcomes you think are correct.   ... "    Just like Fauci, Gates, Ghebreyesus, Redfield, Walensky, +, +, +, the majority the Media, State medical  ‘woke’ shepol, ‘Trolls’ on private forms, and Social media platforms. All did !

Title: Re: I Missed this? Post by Eegore on 12/24/21 at 15:48:44 Just like Fauci, Gates, Ghebreyesus, Redfield, Walensky, +, +, +, the majority the Media, State medical  ‘woke’ shepol, ‘Trolls’ on private forms, and Social media platforms. All did !  Yes.    Billy broke a window.  You mean just like Bobby did!!??  Yes.  Just like Bobby did.

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.