COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Sid Belzberg]

If you think it is ok to listen to Wagner despite his pro-Nazi leanings

Richard Wagner died in 1883. The Nazi Party was not formed until 1919.

[Neil Frarey]

That's pretty damned low, Pargat; to suggest that a Jew who likes some of Wagner's music must also want to play the Nazi anthem at a bar mitzvah.

Totally agree with Peter, on this one.

[Peter McKillop]

....
If you think it is ok to listen to Wagner despite his pro-Nazi leanings, maybe you also like the sound of "Horst-Wessel-Lied"? Hmmm? You like, ja? You play it at a bar mitzvah, ja?
....

That's pretty damned low, Pargat; to suggest that a Jew who likes some of Wagner's music must also want to play the Nazi anthem at a bar mitzvah.

[Sid Belzberg]

No, you got the order wrong.

"One of the largest studies of mask-wearing during the Covid pandemic was conducted in Bangladesh, with more than 170,000 people in the intervention group and similar numbers in the control group. The authors studied a series of public announcements and mask distributions which raised the frequency of mask-wearing. In the end, around 40 percent of the experimental group wore masks, compared to around 10 percent in the control group.

The result, the study found, was a substantial reduction in the share of people with Covid-19-like symptoms, and in antibodies that would suggest a Covid-19 infection: “In surgical mask villages, we observe a 35.3% reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence among individuals ≥60 years old ... We see larger reductions in symptoms and symptomatic seropositivity in villages that experienced larger increases in mask use.”

That looks like pretty substantial evidence that mask-wearing reduces Covid-19! And this article is one of only two studies of mask-wearing included in the Cochrane review which happened during the Covid-19 pandemic. The other, a study in Denmark, assigned people to wear masks (though, of course, not all of the people told to wear masks did so consistently or correctly) and had a control group that generally did not wear masks. The group that was told to wear masks had slightly lower infection rates than the group that didn’t wear masks, but the sample was too small for the effect to be significant.

Given that — one study finding very solid evidence for the benefits of masks, and one finding limited but encouraging evidence — how did Cochrane arrive at its conclusion that mask wearing “probably makes little or no difference?”

There ARE some people doing unbiased research .... Sid isn't one of them.

Sid is the X-Files guy... Mulder? He WANTS to believe... the truth is out there.... the truth as Sid wants it to be, that is.

The Bangladesh study is included in the Cochrane meta-analysis of 78 RCTs.

"We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear."

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...6207.pub6/full

Please show us your evidence that the world-renowned Cochrane Library universally considered the gold standard of information among medical
professionals are run by "right-wing bigots."

[Pargat Perrer]

.....Pargat/Paul correctly implied here that just because he signed up on a chess forum to shill for Paul Bonham's chess variants and just because he shares the same interests as Paul Bonham it is not proof that he is Paul Bonham.

Well at least you DO have an inkling of logic in that biased head of yours.

but I almost missed it .... because I once said a good thing about Mr. Bonham's Option Chess, Sid proclaims I am "shilling" for (presumably all) of Mr. Bonham's chess variants.

so I ask anyone here who has regularly read my posts here ... have I been "shilling" for Mr. Bonham's chess variants? Even just for his main one, Option Chess?

I haven't even been "shilling" for my own chess variants.

but in Sid's perverted world, you say one good thing about something, you are a shill.

WHAT DOES THAT MAKE SID?

[Pargat Perrer]

Awww, poor Pargat/Paul. He doesn't like scientific findings, so he declares the journal full of right-wing bigots.

......

No, you got the order wrong.

"One of the largest studies of mask-wearing during the Covid pandemic was conducted in Bangladesh, with more than 170,000 people in the intervention group and similar numbers in the control group. The authors studied a series of public announcements and mask distributions which raised the frequency of mask-wearing. In the end, around 40 percent of the experimental group wore masks, compared to around 10 percent in the control group.

The result, the study found, was a substantial reduction in the share of people with Covid-19-like symptoms, and in antibodies that would suggest a Covid-19 infection: “In surgical mask villages, we observe a 35.3% reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence among individuals ≥60 years old ... We see larger reductions in symptoms and symptomatic seropositivity in villages that experienced larger increases in mask use.”

That looks like pretty substantial evidence that mask-wearing reduces Covid-19! And this article is one of only two studies of mask-wearing included in the Cochrane review which happened during the Covid-19 pandemic. The other, a study in Denmark, assigned people to wear masks (though, of course, not all of the people told to wear masks did so consistently or correctly) and had a control group that generally did not wear masks. The group that was told to wear masks had slightly lower infection rates than the group that didn’t wear masks, but the sample was too small for the effect to be significant.

Given that — one study finding very solid evidence for the benefits of masks, and one finding limited but encouraging evidence — how did Cochrane arrive at its conclusion that mask wearing “probably makes little or no difference?”

There ARE some people doing unbiased research .... Sid isn't one of them.

Sid is the X-Files guy... Mulder? He WANTS to believe... the truth is out there.... the truth as Sid wants it to be, that is.

[Pargat Perrer]

Awww, poor Pargat/Paul. He doesn't like scientific findings, so he declares the journal full of right-wing bigots.

The difference is Pargat/Paul bases this on nothing.Pargat/Paul correctly implied here that just because he signed up on a chess forum to shill for Paul Bonham's chess variants and just because he shares the same interests as Paul Bonham it is not proof that he is Paul Bonham.

However, unlike Pargat/Paul, I based my opinion on facts that are not disputed by Pargat/Paul. Hence, since you are entitled to your opinion about who is behind the Cochrane Library, I am entitled to my opinion (backed by evidence) that you are Paul Bonham and a cowardly troll who doesn't even go by your true name.

LOL the tired old refrain, I am really Paul Bonham ... is that the best you got?

Even if I was, it would have no bearing on this discussion.

I hope Mr. Bonham might still be alive, we were very close friends. If I ever hear from him, I will commend him on establishing such a great reputation on this forum LOL.If you can stir the anger of Sid, you are really doing something good.

Yes, you Sid have the right to that opinion. Now go ahead and prove it ....

A couple of questions for you Sid.

If you think it is ok to listen to Wagner despite his pro-Nazi leanings, maybe you also like the sound of "Horst-Wessel-Lied"? Hmmm? You like, ja? You play it at a bar mitzvah, ja?

But here's a more interesting question, since you are well-versed in genetics. As you know, Nazis did genetic experiments on Jews during WWII, against the will of those Jews in case it must be said.

I don't know what they "discovered" but if we say they did make scientific discoveries, are you prepared to say their method was ok because of the science that came out of it?

ARE YOU PREPARED TO SEPARATE THE SCIENCE FROM THE SCIENTIST(s) IN THAT CASE?

Yeah...... gotcha.

We have a convicted felon running for US President, and there's a chance he will win.

We have a US Supreme Court that says it's ok to manufacture bumper stocks for automatic weapons, enabling machine-gun-like firing on mass crowds by perrveted mentally-ill psychos.

Let's all separate the art from the artist, the science from the scientist, the morals from the politicians..... let the convicted felon run for God's sake (literally, thanks to evangelical Christians)....

MTG says it's ok because Jesus was a convicted felon too!

Morons!

[Sid Belzberg]

Spike Protein and Amyloid Aggregates Found in Recipients of mRNA Transfusions "As I have been warning about for years, the Spike Protein "Prionifies" multiple proteins, creating amyloid aggregates. They are now in the blood supply". Amyloid aggregates are the building blocks of neural degenerative diseases, including Alzheimers, Parkinson etc. "I wanted to post an additional finding this week which was published May 29th. Spike protein contamination and contamination with amyloid aggregates (among other issues) have been found in blood products from those vaccinated with mRNA gene therapies. Please read the entire report. Transfusions of Blood Products Derived from Genetic Vaccine Recipients: Safety Concerns and Proposals for Specific Measures https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202403.0881/v2 "I take no pleasure in having been correct about this warning. I will be reporting more on how the Spike Protein “Prionifies” multiple proteins via its cross-seeding abilities. Of course, I will be researching therapeutics to address this finding. What concerns me the most is that the Spike Protein may indeed either intergrate into DNA, never stop being produced, or both." https://substack.com/home/post/p-145781577

[Sid Belzberg]

I'm not the one going around saying I separate the art from the artist. Ayn Rand? I once read one of her books, realized what she was, and repudiate everything she stands for and have no need to read her books, literary talent notwithstanding.

You want to listen to Wagner's music knowing he was rabid antisemite? You discredit yourself and your heritage! Anyone who respects you for this is an IDIOT!

MORALS AND ETHICS COME BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE.

IF YOU PUT SOMETHING ELSE ... MUSIC, EVEN SCIENCE ... AHEAD OF MORALS AND ETHICS, YOU ARE INHUMANE.

You want to listen to music that matters, listen to the music and lyrics of Roger Waters (bass player Pink Floyd, solo artist).

Let us not forget: Sid is the one who is preaching here that the science of Covid in 2020 and 2021 was inhumane and criminal, that is, the science that said we need to vaccinate and mask and social distance. THAT SCIENCE WAS BASED ON MORALS AND ETHICS, NOT ON SOME HAIR-BRAINED CONSPIRACY THEORY OF BILL GATES AND CHINA TRYING TO SUBVERT THE WHOLE WORLD AND DEPRIVE US OUR "RIGHT" TO GO MASKLESS, A MESSAGE THAT SID WAS PREACHING ON TWITTER AT THE TIME, AS EXPOSED IN THIS THREAD (go back and read).

So, morals and ethics were telling us to do the careful things, the things that would help the greatest number of souls. You want to respect something, respect THAT.

Sorry Peter McKillop, it has to be said. Respect has to be earned, not given away willy-nilly because someone says glibly, "I separate the art from the artist" ... effing bullshit.

When the "science" agrees with Sid ... he separates the science from the scientist. When they disagree .... LOL you know what comes from Sid, profanity included.

I don't separate. The Cochrane Library is full of right-wing bigots? I determine that BEFORE I read their scientific articles. IMO yes, so I don't "respect" what they offer.

The effing U.S. Supreme Court is full of right-wing Justices ... and guess what we just got from them? Bumper stocks are LEGAL!

FIRE AT WILL, AMERICAN PSYCHOS! OUTDOOR MUSIC CONCERT LISTINGS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE!

THAT SCIENCE WAS BASED ON MORALS AND ETHICS

That "science" was based on eugenics, and that is a historical fact, not a "hair-brained conspiracy theory." If you know
how to do it, please read what I already posted and listen carefully to the video.
https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...315#post231315

The Cochrane Library is full of right-wing bigots? I determine that BEFORE I read their scientific articles. IMO yes, so I don't "respect" what they offer.

Awww, poor Pargat/Paul. He doesn't like scientific findings, so he declares the journal full of right-wing bigots.

The difference is Pargat/Paul bases this on nothing.Pargat/Paul correctly implied here that just because he signed up on a chess forum to shill for Paul Bonham's chess variants and just because he shares the same interests as Paul Bonham it is not proof that he is Paul Bonham.

However, unlike Pargat/Paul, I based my opinion on facts that are not disputed by Pargat/Paul. Hence, since you are entitled to your opinion about who is behind the Cochrane Library, I am entitled to my opinion (backed by evidence) that you are Paul Bonham and a cowardly troll who doesn't even go by your true name.

[Dilip Panjwani]

A majority of people are INCAPABLE of making that judgment. But we let them make it anyway, and we say it is their right.

Then if comes down to ... who gets to decide anything? The majority? LOL

A hint to you, Bob A.: 'Democratic' Marxism is just as bad as Marxism...

[Pargat Perrer]

........you must make your own judgment about the truth of a message).

Bob A

A majority of people are INCAPABLE of making that judgment. But we let them make it anyway, and we say it is their right.

Then if comes down to ... who gets to decide anything? The majority? LOL

Brad Thomson has it right ... we don't deserve to survive as a species.

If we do survive ... it will be because God loves us no matter what.

[Pargat Perrer]

State Of Kansas Sues Pfizer



The State of Kansas outlines several specific allegations in its lawsuit:

1. Pfizer misled the public that it had a “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccine.

2. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was safe even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths. Pfizer concealed this critical safety information from the public.

3. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was effective even though it knew its COVID19 vaccine waned over time and did not protect against COVID-19 variants. Pfizer concealed this critical effectiveness information from the public.

4. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission of COVID-19 even though it knew it never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission of COVID-19.

5. To keep the public from learning the truth, Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned Pfizer’s claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.

6. Pfizer’s misrepresentations of a “safe and effective” vaccine resulted in record company revenue of approximately $75 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales in just two years.

7. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated previous consent judgments with the State of Kansas.

8. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

9. Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine’s safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission.

Detailed Criminal Complaint Here

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-06-15-pfizer-complaint-002.pdf

Reading these 9 points, it does seem that Pfizer was a bad actor.

But what the proceedings will have to account for .... is INTENT.

If indeed they did suppress and conceal .... yes, guilty. But prove it.

[Pargat Perrer]

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...763#post230763


https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...765#post230765

I'm not the one going around saying I separate the art from the artist. Ayn Rand? I once read one of her books, realized what she was, and repudiate everything she stands for and have no need to read her books, literary talent notwithstanding.

You want to listen to Wagner's music knowing he was rabid antisemite? You discredit yourself and your heritage! Anyone who respects you for this is an IDIOT!

MORALS AND ETHICS COME BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE.

IF YOU PUT SOMETHING ELSE ... MUSIC, EVEN SCIENCE ... AHEAD OF MORALS AND ETHICS, YOU ARE INHUMANE.

You want to listen to music that matters, listen to the music and lyrics of Roger Waters (bass player Pink Floyd, solo artist).

Let us not forget: Sid is the one who is preaching here that the science of Covid in 2020 and 2021 was inhumane and criminal, that is, the science that said we need to vaccinate and mask and social distance. THAT SCIENCE WAS BASED ON MORALS AND ETHICS, NOT ON SOME HAIR-BRAINED CONSPIRACY THEORY OF BILL GATES AND CHINA TRYING TO SUBVERT THE WHOLE WORLD AND DEPRIVE US OUR "RIGHT" TO GO MASKLESS, A MESSAGE THAT SID WAS PREACHING ON TWITTER AT THE TIME, AS EXPOSED IN THIS THREAD (go back and read).

So, morals and ethics were telling us to do the careful things, the things that would help the greatest number of souls. You want to respect something, respect THAT.

Sorry Peter McKillop, it has to be said. Respect has to be earned, not given away willy-nilly because someone says glibly, "I separate the art from the artist" ... effing bullshit.

When the "science" agrees with Sid ... he separates the science from the scientist. When they disagree .... LOL you know what comes from Sid, profanity included.

I don't separate. The Cochrane Library is full of right-wing bigots? I determine that BEFORE I read their scientific articles. IMO yes, so I don't "respect" what they offer.

The effing U.S. Supreme Court is full of right-wing Justices ... and guess what we just got from them? Bumper stocks are LEGAL!

FIRE AT WILL, AMERICAN PSYCHOS! OUTDOOR MUSIC CONCERT LISTINGS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE!

[Sid Belzberg]

State Of Kansas Sues Pfizer



The State of Kansas outlines several specific allegations in its lawsuit:

1. Pfizer misled the public that it had a “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccine.

2. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was safe even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths. Pfizer concealed this critical safety information from the public.

3. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was effective even though it knew its COVID19 vaccine waned over time and did not protect against COVID-19 variants. Pfizer concealed this critical effectiveness information from the public.

4. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission of COVID-19 even though it knew it never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission of COVID-19.

5. To keep the public from learning the truth, Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned Pfizer’s claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.

6. Pfizer’s misrepresentations of a “safe and effective” vaccine resulted in record company revenue of approximately $75 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales in just two years.

7. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated previous consent judgments with the State of Kansas.

8. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

9. Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine’s safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission.

Detailed Criminal Complaint Here

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-06-15-pfizer-complaint-002.pdf

[Bob Armstrong]

I have always maintained that the character of the messenger should be distinguished from the truth of the message being brought.

I have also always maintained that the message of a flawed messenger must be more scrutinized than that of a messenger of good character (But one should not just rely on authority; you must make your own judgment about the truth of a message).

Bob A