And if you're not just crappity smacking around, or are blind to what's going on in the world;
Do you really think that these laws are being introduced to safeguard the health of people?


 No.  I think the claim that France made a law in "secret" that allows their government to charge and incarcerate any human for advising against mRNA, or the Covid vaccine is a lie.  Because it is not true, and was actually tabled on November 15, 2023 indicating it followed the same process as other laws.  It was not secretly and suddenly enacted.

 Instead of acting like all of this is true, I will instead say France has enacted more restrictive laws, but no go so far as to repeat false information because I want it to be true.  I will instead read the actual law and additional reference material using accurate information so I'm not caught up complaining about things that never happened.

Eegore wrote on 03/03/24 at 02:14:36:


The question was, do you think it contributes to public health to make such laws as in France and whether the law in Belgium that makes any contradiction against the government punishable contributes to public health?
Here in the Netherlands, the idea is that new laws must first be approved by the House of Representatives. This has happened less and less in recent years and goes directly against democracy.

We now have a demise cabinet that makes decisions that are far beyond their authority. And the right-wing politician elected by the people is being thwarted from forming a new government and in its place there is now a threat of a left-wing government led by a European parliamentarian who will most likely become president. that is the world turned upside down.

It's absolutely crazy.
And if new elections were to be held now, that right-wing politician would receive more than 70% of the votes and that is an absolute record, in our country where we have 26 parties.

Our people are completely fed up with the way things are going.

But you can also bury your head in the sand, of course. Or have a low IQ. Or be a lefty (thats a combination of both). It's also better not to be right-wing.

It is quite an art to see reality.

Thanks?

I could say the same... only I'd be serious  

The question was, do you think it contributes to public health to make such laws as in France and whether the law in Belgium that makes any contradiction against the government punishable contributes to public health?

 
 I think it is a gross misinterpretation/lie in regard to what you claimed here about how France's law is implemented.  If it were true, and implemented as you stated, would not contribute to public health.  Laws like that do not contribute to public health.  They also, at this time, do not exist in France or from what I can find, in Belgium.  However similar restrictive laws do exist and are not beneficial to my knowledge in most cases, except for those combating medical fraud.


 If I drastically misinterpret a US law and indicate that it applies in different way than it actually does, to different people, and mislead how it was implemented, what value is a question asking you what you think about it?  Since it's not even true, why is an opinion from anyone at all valuable?

 The law you referenced in France was not secretly implemented, and it does not punish regular citizens for speaking out, or "advising against" mRNA or Covid vaccines.  That is reality.  I will formulate opinions on reality, not lies.

 I will read the actual law and additional reference material using accurate information so I'm not caught up complaining about things that never happened.

Well,lets look at this....


 I did, years ago.  This information has been available since November 2021, I already referenced it here before:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355979001_DETECTION_OF_GRAPHENE_IN_C...

 The problem is there is little to no consensus on the data he presents, especially among humans that work with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy.

 This is another example of deflection.  You presented "proof" and will still avoid acknowledging that your "proof" did not say what you claimed.  You instead will claim the "proof" is elsewhere, not the circled document you literally said was "proof".  Then they will deflect the facts by attacking one of 5 different methods used to verify the data.

The  identification of  graphene oxide  structures can  be regarded  as
conclusive  in  8  of  them,  due  to  the  high  spectral  correlation  with  the  standard.  In the remaining  20  objects,  images  coupled  with  Raman  signals  show  a  very  high  level of compatibility with  undetermined graphene  structures, however  different than  the standard used here.

 It does say that, unfortunately not one other human can get that same reading.  This presents a problem.  More study needs done, this one paper should not end the discussion.  This is still a deflection to avoid acknowledging the "proof" you previously provided was not true.


And your link says this:
This research remains open and is made available to scientific community for discussion.
That's different from using it to end a discussion.

 Agreed.  The discussion didn't end, it's been going on for years now and the issue is why can't anyone else get the same or similar results?  None of this comes from the "proof" you provided, that was not actually "proof" because it was a lie.  Similar to the misrepresented France law.



And your link says this:
Graphene  materials have  a potential  toxicity on  human beings and its presence has not been declared in any emergency use authorization.


 It should not be declared since only one human has had these results while thousands of other tests have not.  None of that information is in your "proof" you provided, that you will not acknowledge was not "proof" since it was a lie.  

 The "proof" you offered has only proven that graphene was on the slide of an electron microscope and not ever in the vaccine, you will deny that and claim the "proof" is elsewhere, not the circled document you literally said was "proof".  Then you will deflect the facts by attacking one of 5 different methods used to verify the data.

 Then you offer the exact same information I did, years later.

How much proof do you want if your own link already proves that there is graphene in the vaccine?

 It doesn't "prove" it - that one document is not proof - your own source claims it is not proven.  A single assessment from one lab result, that has not been replicated, does not make anything proof.  One test group.  One test out of thousands got these results.  If one Optometrist tests your vision and says you have bad vision, and 1000 others do the same tests and can't find evidence of bad vision, do you have "proof" that you have bad vision?

 

And in the same way you have labeled that French law as fake.

 I didn't label it as fake - it is real.   I said you misrepresented how it was implemented: There is a full publicly documented history of it's implementation, so how was it secretly implemented?  The very document you provide is prior to it's implementation.  Also it does not apply how you claim.  So the law is real, but your claim of how it applies, and to whom it applies, is incorrect.  



 I understand that I cannot change your opinion, but you change facts and then there is no point in discussing it.

 You could change my opinion if you would stop providing "proof", then saying it must be somewhere else when proven wrong.  Your "proof" of graphene has been proven to be only on the slide of the microscope and not in the vaccine.  You refuse to acknowledge that.  Instead you deflect by making jokes about one of the 5 methods used to prove it was a lie.  What's wrong with admitting that one document was not "proof" of graphene in the vaccine?  There's nothing to be afraid of.


"Denial seems to be a big part of your way of arguing.
It was well camouflaged, but it's denial."

 This coming from the guy that still won't acknowledge the "proof" he provided was wrong.  Also the claimed hundreds of additional pages of information I read for you, then had assessed 4 other times, never had "proof".

 Now you want to say the information I provided is "proof" when the documentation you provide is saying the exact same information has not been proven true but needs investigated.   What's so bad about being honest and acknowledging there is an investigation that is pending results?

Two official studies that conclusively show that it contains graphene is not enough evidence to say it,s in there.


 No more than 2 official studies that show it is not.  Would you accept 3 studies that show there is no graphene as evidence it is not in the vaccine?  How about 4?  Many exist, how many would you need to consider it proven?  There is evidence, but it needs to be compared against the totality, not cherry-picked and blindly accepted in a vacuum.  


 After reading those you don't see some issues with concluding graphene is present in the viscous components?  Further study needs done, and the fact that in both cases the secondary lab tests using the same BAR-ID did not get the same results needs to be addressed.

 Why is the very source you providing here not accepting those studies as proof?  The agency link you offered doesn't consider it proven.

 
 Your historical "proof" of graphene has been proven to be only on the slide of an electron microscope and not in the vaccine.  You refuse to acknowledge that.  What's wrong with admitting that one document was not "proof" of graphene in the vaccine?