TMPHBITEU
Nails it.Originally Posted by George Christiansen
Member
China has started banging on your door seriously back in the summer. I doubt it has much to do with the green new deal, they were seeing how much muscle they could flex in the Pacific, and Australia proved that it couldn't go quite that far. Besides, it was the Australian government that first went with the call for investigations into the origin of Covid. This kind of thing transcends election cycles, there are heavier forces at work.
Member
This ought to give some perspective on the enormity of the current situation in the US. This goes way beyond the election: Situation Update, Dec. 5th – Operation Warp Speed is a CCP-engineered conspiracy to cause mass vaccine casualties across the United States military – NaturalNews.com
I have no idea how much of this Trump is aware of. Probably all of it. It would explain the reshuffling of high-level military personnel. I would be surprised if he allowed American soldiers to get "vaccinated" against Covid-19.
Member
This statement shows a clear misunderstanding of how such things as "demonstration by evidence" actually work. This is why these discussions get so out of hand in contexts like this. It is unfortunate that folks are willing to act in important ways -- and urge others to the sort of actions that impact our ability to live together with civility based on this kind of stuff. How about a sticky with "the evidence" that you find so compelling, so we don't need to just keep this issue whirling in 800+ pages of discussion board? You guys really don't believe there are any other adults who know as much as you and don't have "their heads up their ass" who are responsibly executing their responsibilities in these matters. I kinda feel sorry for you.
OK, I have likely already made most of the ears on this board deaf to my further opinions by not just disagreeing but being ticked off by it all... For what it's worth, if I were far more eloquent (and paid to do it) I would have probably written something more like the conservative columnist for the NYTimes -- I submit this sincerely for your consideration. Long and short: both sides are a tad too gullible when it comes to conspiracies that reinforce their already existing world views, but the evidence at the moment -- which he reviews in detail -- does not support the notion that Trump won. (He also says a bunch of other stuff which I think those arguing against me here will probably like.)
Opinion | Why Do So Many Americans Think the Election Was Stolen? - The New York Times
I'd be much more interested to read what you have to say to him, than in hearing you call me an asshole/leftist/pussy a half dozen more times.
Member
Jab Me if You Can: How Political Endorsements Defeat Vaccinations - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
"Enlisting politicians and leaders into the role of product promotion, especially in the field of vaccines, is goggling in its daftness. In the United States, the brand label of the presidential endorsement is hardly glorious. Those with longer collective memory would remember the efforts of the Ford administration in 1976 to promote a mass vaccination programme against swine flu. It was nothing short of a calamity: the flu pandemic never eventuated and the vaccine led to cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome. In December 1976, President Gerald Ford’s vaccination programme was suspended, having reached only 20% of the population. “The danger now,” concluded the New York Times, “is that the whole idea of preventive medicine may be discredited.”"
"In Britain, a Daily Mail poll (make of that what you will) in November found that 74% would take the COVID-19 vaccine. Of those surveyed, four in ten were very selective about who should take it first to prove its safety: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his cabinet colleagues. Even taking vaccines can constitute a form of pornography. "
TMPHBITEU
He's moved from George Stephanopolous to the "conservative columnist" for The New York Times. Very persuasive. But this is better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ob...ature=emb_logo
Member
Graph comparing Florida to other states current hospitalizations per 1M
https://twitter.com/perry_ohad/statu...756508160?s=19
Member
A windy and naive article by a religious never-Trumper who formerly wrote for First Things until he joined the mainstream.
Here is all of Douthat's detail on the evidence:
To the outsider-intellectuals fascinated by anomalies in ballot counts or ballot return patterns, I’ve argued that anomalies indicating fraud would have to show up in the final vote totals — meaning some pattern of results in key swing-state cities that differ starkly from the results in cities in less-contested states, or some turnout pattern in a swing state’s suburbs that looks weird relative to the suburbs in a deep- blue or deep-red state. But where claims for those kinds of anomalies have been offered, they’ve turned out to be false. So until a compelling example can be cited, anomalies in the counting process should be presumed to be error or randomness, not fraud.
Douthat is a statistical dabbler as much as anyone else. The analysis he decisively links to is also a reactionary shot from the hip.
This could be added to the list of fundamental problems which violate what I call our right to a provably correct election:
1. On-line voting machines
2. Exported votes
3. Bullied witnesses
#2 might be in question, but probably not.
One or more of above is all you need to invalidate the election. At least two are obvious. The rest of the evidence is compelling and damning, but risks getting lost in the weeds, in eruditish NYT prose and elsewhere.
Member
I still hear zero reference to the election of 2000 or of what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 or what the GOP did to Ron Paul in Iowa and what the media did to him in 2008 and 2012 (I actually don't, because Dr. Paul is a non-person to the Cathedral)...
TMPHBITEU
This is a damned important paper. Take the time to read it, seriously.
Here is the Danish mask study he referenced: ACP JournalsMasks – There is no evidence of help to evidence of harm that masks are effective.
The seminal study on “source control” for masks is Neil Orr’s from 1981; it stands
uncontroverted despite 40 years of attempts.25 This was a random controlled trial
in Operating Rooms where everyone involved was a trained professional. There is
no better evidence available than the removal of confounding factors such as
compliance with wearing and procedural factors. In addition Cochrane Review,
arguably the best medical minds in the world when it comes to meta-reviews, the
highest form of evidence available, found weak to no evidence of efficiency for
masks.26 What’s worse is that they found weak to no evidence even when the mask
in question was an N95 and the wearer was a medical worker. The CDC has a web
page up claiming otherwise which contains a bunch of anecdotes, observational
studies and even computer models; the latter does not qualify as scientific evidence of anything.
In addition on the CDC’s own page from May, prior to this being
politicized, a meta-review showed no material effect.28 That document is still
present.
The argument for masks, specifically cloth and paper masks is that the virus is
spread almost-exclusively in large respiratory “droplets.” This, however, is
contrary to moderate evidence that culturable virus was inversely correlated with
particle size (footnote 21) and the meatpacking plant super-spread event which had
every person in the building wearing masks – which were ineffective (footnote 22.)
Masking as a source-control strategy obviously is of no value to attenuate
fecal/oral spread which we have every reason to believe is part of the picture as a
matter of strong evidence (footnotes 19 and 20.)
Then there’s the Danish mask study specific to Covid-19 which multiple medical
journals tried to suppress. Annals finally published it, trying to gloss over the
results.29 The results were damning; there was no statistically significant
improvement in outcomes. Even worse, when the researchers applied retrospective
analysis to limit the examination to only those who were allegedly “highly
compliant” with protocol the relative risk ratio got worse rather than better,
strongly implying that mask use might be harmful rather than protective.
If that’s not enough there is the direct testimony of Robert Redfield, CDC Director
before US Congress. On July 14th the director said that with four, six or eight
weeks of mask-wearing we could bring this epidemic under control.30 Many states,
cities and counties have mandated masks and multiple people crowed about their
“success.” Those claims were premature; none have stood up over time and in fact
huge spikes in infection rates are now being seen all over the nation, including in
my county.
In addition in September that same CDC Director said in sworn testimony before
Congress that masks are superior to a vaccine.31 Given the spikes in cases we
have seen nationally and in individual states if Dr. Redfield’s statement is true then
exactly nobody should take the vaccine under any circumstance as it is clear that
mask mandates have not stopped the spread.
What is worse than worthless? When it comes to a vaccine you don’t want to
know since unlike a mask that can be removed you can’t un-take a shot.
Finally, if masks work why can’t you put one on – even an N95 – and go into your
mother’s nursing home or your spouse’s hospital room? They either work or they
don’t. If the highest-quality masks available are deemed insufficient to protect a
nursing home resident from you then they are also insufficient to protect the
resident from a worker who is wearing one and in addition they are insufficient to
protect others in the general public, especially when the mask in question is of
lower quality.
The obvious logical disconnect has no explanation other than that the people
making these pronouncements know the 40+ years of prior science proves masks
are worthless. In short they’re lying.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote