COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm blown away by the efforts spent by conspiracy theorists to "document" their alternative realities.

    Like if they all worked for the common good, who knows, could they re-discover COLD FUSION ?!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
      I'm blown away by the efforts spent by conspiracy theorists to "document" their alternative realities.
      Not addressing the facts speaks volumes about the strength of your argument as does your near-total ignorance on this topic. I am a coauthor on a
      paper with many Dr's and scientists on COVID protocols accepted for publication by Reviews In Cardiovascular Medicine. Do you think they are all conspiracy theorists also? How about the American Journal of Medicine? Also conspiracy theorists?
      We don't have anything to gain and everything to lose, unlike the pharma companies who stand to lose billions along with the pharma corrupted govts. Anyways, F*ck you and your buddies! I no longer give a shit what the likes of you think or have to say, I have many who have thanked me in writing in the last 19 months for saving their lives and no matter what happens that is good enough for me.

      Screen Shot 2021-10-08 at 8.21.04 AM.png


      https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/statu...28930755285002





      Conspiracy 2021-09-09 at 9.07.11 PM.png



      Dr Adam Nally -10-03 at 12.14.06 PM.png
      Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 8th October, 2021, 09:35 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

        Absolutely , the main point is not Ivermectin on its own but all kinds of early treatments are effective. Ivermectin is used in combo with other compounds hence, the kits in Utar Paradesh.All early treatments that for time immemorial si how Dr's treated diseases were effectively banned much to the benefit of pharma. The vaccines have ZERO data for long term effects. These compounds used in early therapy. have decades of safety data.
        Well Sid, starting your reply with "absolutely", some may infer we are on the same page. That would be incorrect.
        A couple of points of departure are thus:

        The home medical kits in Uttar Paradesh, while I applaud the effort, where they throw everything but the kitchen sink, unfortunately does not provide any significant evidence into what worked. For example maybe the combination of Vitamin D and Zinc contributed 100% of the effect and Ivermectin was nil. We don't know. More study is required and should be conducted.

        Your comment "The vaccines have ZERO data for long term effects" is misleading. The vaccines are only a year old, so there is no long term data. There is no long term data to dispute the effectiveness of the vaccines. But there is significant short term data in support of the vaccines. We have been using vaccines effectively for decades to fight other diseases successfully. IMHO, this gives the benefit of the doubt to the vaccines until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.



        Comment


        • Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
          I'm blown away by the efforts spent by conspiracy theorists to "document" their alternative realities.

          Like if they all worked for the common good, who knows, could they re-discover COLD FUSION ?!
          The science of conspiracy theories is a fascinating topic.
          As chess players we all recognize the importance of pattern recognition.
          This video is interesting,

          ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4y...l=SciShowPsych

          Comment


          • Here's an even better video on why people believe fake news:

            ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYT8...ab_channel=TED

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

              Well Sid, starting your reply with "absolutely", some may infer we are on the same page. That would be incorrect.
              A couple of points of departure are thus:

              The home medical kits in Uttar Paradesh, while I applaud the effort, where they throw everything but the kitchen sink, unfortunately does not provide any significant evidence into what worked. For example maybe the combination of Vitamin D and Zinc contributed 100% of the effect and Ivermectin was nil. We don't know. More study is required and should be conducted.

              Your comment "The vaccines have ZERO data for long term effects" is misleading. The vaccines are only a year old, so there is no long term data. There is no long term data to dispute the effectiveness of the vaccines. But there is significant short term data in support of the vaccines. We have been using vaccines effectively for decades to fight other diseases successfully. IMHO, this gives the benefit of the doubt to the vaccines until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.



              You are a complete ignoramus on this topic and sadly it is at your peril. https://ivmmeta.com.

              Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
              But there is significant short term data in support of the vaccines
              Here is what is happening in Pfizer's flagship state Isreal, the most heavily vaccinated country in the world. The vaccines are not only useless, but they are also harmful. Strange how raw data never matches the MSM's narrative! Heck, we have one idiot on this board that is convinced that VAERS Data is fake even though 86% of the reports are uploaded by medical professionals..
              Like I said I don't have any more time to waste with ignorant people Take your support of medical tyranny and pharma-sponsored fraud and genocide and shove it up your ass.

              Deatrhs Israel 2021-10-08 at 10.07.48 AM.png

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post


                You are a complete ignoramus
                I believe you have me confused with these guys.

                ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5M...hannel=zabakka

                Comment


                • If I wanted to convince someone of my point of view I would be polite to them, if I wanted to induce them into disagreement I would be more likely to be rude. If after no amount of what I considered to be reasoning the other person(s) still disagreed, I would accept it and move on. For example, on 9/11 I have explained to many why I am personally convinced that it was an inside job, and some have come around to my view, some have stuck to the "official" story. But I see no point in becoming rude with those who cannot be convinced by my reasoning. The same evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. The fact that a third building, one that was not hit by a plane, imploded into its own footprint at freefall speed on that day has no persuasive effect upon some people, while for myself this is proof that 9/11 was an inside job, and I came to this conclusion while watching the collapse of the third building being predicted on live television before it happened on live television. With respect to the pandemic, I agree completely with Sid to the extent that Big-Pharma and corrupt politicians, corrupt media and so forth are in on it. I believe that this pandemic was deliberately spread so that billions of dollars could be made, among other more sinister reasons, such as a cull. But this is not for me a reason to resist the vaccinations. If someone slashes your wrist and you have the choice of bleeding to death or allowing them to administer the necessary aid, what are you going to do? The monsterous evil behind this "pandemic" have created the problem and offered the solution, this is a common approach that evil takes. It may be the case that the alternative solutions Sid suggests are valid, but they are not universally and easily available, though it is possible they could become so in time, only the vaccines are. Whether or not to be vaccinated remains a personal choice, and there is no right or wrong. So I trust my guts.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                    If I wanted to convince someone of my point of view I would be polite to them, if I wanted to induce them into disagreement I would be more likely to be rude. If after no amount of what I considered to be reasoning the other person(s) still disagreed, I would accept it and move on. For example, on 9/11 I have explained to many why I am personally convinced that it was an inside job, and some have come around to my view, some have stuck to the "official" story. But I see no point in becoming rude with those who cannot be convinced by my reasoning. The same evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. The fact that a third building, one that was not hit by a plane, imploded into its own footprint at freefall speed on that day has no persuasive effect upon some people, while for myself this is proof that 9/11 was an inside job, and I came to this conclusion while watching the collapse of the third building being predicted on live television before it happened on live television. With respect to the pandemic, I agree completely with Sid to the extent that Big-Pharma and corrupt politicians, corrupt media and so forth are in on it. I believe that this pandemic was deliberately spread so that billions of dollars could be made, among other more sinister reasons, such as a cull. But this is not for me a reason to resist the vaccinations. If someone slashes your wrist and you have the choice of bleeding to death or allowing them to administer the necessary aid, what are you going to do? The monsterous evil behind this "pandemic" have created the problem and offered the solution, this is a common approach that evil takes. It may be the case that the alternative solutions Sid suggests are valid, but they are not universally and easily available, though it is possible they could become so in time, only the vaccines are. Whether or not to be vaccinated remains a personal choice, and there is no right or wrong. So I trust my guts.
                    One of the things I love about you Brad is your ability to not get rude. We've known each other for decades, we seem to disagree on multiple things, and yet we've always been nice to each other.

                    Awesome man!!

                    Comment


                    • Scientific journals are ranked according to the rigor of their peer review process and the quotes in other journals. Ranking of these journals can easily be found,

                      For 'Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine' one of the established rankings in the scientific community can be read in : https://www.scimagojr.com/journalran...total_size=349

                      Higher ranking journals in this field :
                      1 Journal of the American College of Cardiology journal 10.315 Q1 431 935 2960 22363 23475 1191 7.44 23.92
                      2 Circulation journal 7.795 Q1 607 778 2685 22242 26532 1702 9.48 28.59
                      3 JACC: Heart Failure journal 6.123 Q1 67 184 596 2888 2708 262 4.38 15.70
                      4 JAMA Cardiology journal 6.108 Q1 63 349 944 4752 4608 486 4.92 13.62
                      5 JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging journal 5.790 Q1 120 481 1051 9756 4889 422 4.57 20.28
                      6 Nature Reviews Cardiology journal 5.495 Q1 130 175 550 8971 3856 268 7.24 51.26

                      Much further we find :
                      167 Interventional Neuroradiology journal 0.574 Q2 34 169 358 3610 544 343 1.51 21.36
                      168 Cardiology Journal journal 0.573 Q2 33 163 363 3057 461 232 1.32 18.75
                      169 International Heart Journal journal 0.555 Q2 45 197 637 4998 972 585 1.61 25.37
                      170 Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine journal 0.555 Q2 39 67 79 4045 148 78 2.27 60.37
                      171 Acta Cardiologica Sinica journal 0.551 Q2 17 90 253 2519 432 199 1.81 27.99

                      Data speak by themselves, for those who are unbiased and want to hear

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Patrick Gougeon View Post
                        Scientific journals are ranked according to the rigor of their peer review process and the quotes in other journals. Ranking of these journals can easily be found,

                        For 'Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine' one of the established rankings in the scientific community can be read in : https://www.scimagojr.com/journalran...total_size=349

                        Higher ranking journals in this field :
                        1 Journal of the American College of Cardiology journal 10.315 Q1 431 935 2960 22363 23475 1191 7.44 23.92
                        2 Circulation journal 7.795 Q1 607 778 2685 22242 26532 1702 9.48 28.59
                        3 JACC: Heart Failure journal 6.123 Q1 67 184 596 2888 2708 262 4.38 15.70
                        4 JAMA Cardiology journal 6.108 Q1 63 349 944 4752 4608 486 4.92 13.62
                        5 JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging journal 5.790 Q1 120 481 1051 9756 4889 422 4.57 20.28
                        6 Nature Reviews Cardiology journal 5.495 Q1 130 175 550 8971 3856 268 7.24 51.26

                        Much further we find :
                        167 Interventional Neuroradiology journal 0.574 Q2 34 169 358 3610 544 343 1.51 21.36
                        168 Cardiology Journal journal 0.573 Q2 33 163 363 3057 461 232 1.32 18.75
                        169 International Heart Journal journal 0.555 Q2 45 197 637 4998 972 585 1.61 25.37
                        170 Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine journal 0.555 Q2 39 67 79 4045 148 78 2.27 60.37
                        171 Acta Cardiologica Sinica journal 0.551 Q2 17 90 253 2519 432 199 1.81 27.99

                        Data speak by themselves, for those who are unbiased and want to hear
                        And what publications have your COVID papers been published in? Yes, of course, none, because you don't know anything about the subject,

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post

                          One of the things I love about you Brad is your ability to not get rude. We've known each other for decades, we seem to disagree on multiple things, and yet we've always been nice to each other.

                          Awesome man!!
                          Thanks. Of course I am fully capable of being quite rude if someone else is rude to me first, but I try to avoid throwing the first punch if I possibly can. No one is perfect however.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Patrick Gougeon View Post
                            Data speak by themselves, for those who are unbiased and want to hear
                            The problem is that "data" can be and often is falsified. We can never be certain when it is and when it is not. To be sure some sources are more trustworthy than others, but nothing is foolproof. Thus I trust my guts.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post

                              One of the things I love about you Brad is your ability to not get rude. We've known each other for decades, we seem to disagree on multiple things, and yet we've always been nice to each other.

                              Awesome man!

                              Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
                              I'm blown away by the efforts spent by conspiracy theorists to "document" their alternative realities.
                              "conspiracy theorist, alternative realities"
                              Yes, you will always get a rude response to that, guaranteed!
                              Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 8th October, 2021, 07:06 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                                If I wanted to convince someone of my point of view I would be polite to them, if I wanted to induce them into disagreement I would be more likely to be rude. If after no amount of what I considered to be reasoning the other person(s) still disagreed, I would accept it and move on. For example, on 9/11 I have explained to many why I am personally convinced that it was an inside job, and some have come around to my view, some have stuck to the "official" story. But I see no point in becoming rude with those who cannot be convinced by my reasoning. The same evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. The fact that a third building, one that was not hit by a plane, imploded into its own footprint at freefall speed on that day has no persuasive effect upon some people, while for myself this is proof that 9/11 was an inside job, and I came to this conclusion while watching the collapse of the third building being predicted on live television before it happened on live television. With respect to the pandemic, I agree completely with Sid to the extent that Big-Pharma and corrupt politicians, corrupt media and so forth are in on it. I believe that this pandemic was deliberately spread so that billions of dollars could be made, among other more sinister reasons, such as a cull. But this is not for me a reason to resist the vaccinations. If someone slashes your wrist and you have the choice of bleeding to death or allowing them to administer the necessary aid, what are you going to do? The monsterous evil behind this "pandemic" have created the problem and offered the solution, this is a common approach that evil takes. It may be the case that the alternative solutions Sid suggests are valid, but they are not universally and easily available, though it is possible they could become so in time, only the vaccines are. Whether or not to be vaccinated remains a personal choice, and there is no right or wrong. So I trust my guts.
                                Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                                If someone slashes your wrist and you have the choice of bleeding to death or allowing them to administer the necessary aid,
                                Administer aid? ahhh..no more like getting you to pay to administer "aid" that makes it worst so that you can pay for even more "aid" until they have squeezed every last penny out of you. I am surprised that you have not figured that out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X