If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
One of CNN's medical propagandists, er, I mean experts:
"...Rather, my approach to this school year reflects the evolution of the pandemic and the acknowledgment that avoiding covid-19 cannot be the singular metric of people’s overall health and well-being."
"As new Omicron-specific boosters become available in the U.S., a study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine emphasizes the importance and success of boosters in keeping people infected with COVID-19 out of the hospital."
"As new Omicron-specific boosters become available in the U.S., a study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine emphasizes the importance and success of boosters in keeping people infected with COVID-19 out of the hospital."
Hi Bob,
In the last decade or so high, quality medical journals have been corrupted by the large pharma companies that dictate what is published with the threat
of withdrawal of sponsorship if these dictates are not followed. The same is true for the actual investigators
During the Pandemic the most infamous example of this was the anti HCQ article in The Lancet published by Mehra et al that had to be retracted weeks later as
the data was proven to be literally created out of thin air. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext
The goal at the time was to discredit all therpeutics and make sure all roads led to mass vaccination.
As far as the article you have posted here is concerned, these investigators are on the big pharma corruption payroll.:
“followthemoney.org” is a very interesting tool for looking for potential conflicts of interest:
I didn’t go through more—just the first 4 and last author, but I think you get the picture, especially with the first author’s activity. In an article our medical forum published on political donations and hydroxychloroquine use in COVID (attached) we found a similar donation pattern. At this point in time, it is not enough just to list monetary income from drug companies. Medical publications have come to have a political component as well, and readers should be able to consider that when weighing the purpose of articles and if there may be an unintentional skew to the experimental design and the findings.
If that is not enough the study itself has many obvious short comings.
The "key point" conclusion does not match the study which was over 16 months. not the 4 "OMICRON" months : " Findings In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during January 2022 to April 2022 (during Omicron variant predominance), COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons and 2.5 times higher in vaccinated persons with no booster dose, respectively, compared with those who had received a booster dose."
They did not extract 2022 data from the remainder to reach the "key point." Therefore mixing in early data when very few people were vaccinated ie January 2021 completely tilts the data to the unvaccinated group.
This is a favorite trick of the Canadian Govt data that always go back to mid December 2020 when showing data when no one was vaccinated and you end up with a result like this:
But when you take two reports and subtract the prior report from the current report to get the time period in question that does not mix in data when no one was vaccinated in the beginning of the vaccine roll out, you get a result more like this.
Thanks Sid - very detailed analysis.......I will take some time with it.
Obviously I am not happy with my take on your proposition (I am not sure you are actually going this far):
All mainstream medical researchers/scientists, AND all the industry magazines that publish their reports, are compromised by the tainted money of Big Pharma.
Thanks Sid - very detailed analysis.......I will take some time with it.
Obviously I am not happy with my take on your proposition (I am not sure you are actually going this far):
All mainstream medical researchers/scientists, AND all the industry magazines that publish their reports, are compromised by the tainted money of Big Pharma.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Not all, but many, hence you have to analyze the data yourself.
Those who were unvaccinated couldn't keep a job. Couldn't get on a plane. Couldn't even go into a restaurant.
Why was the public so grossly mislead with this disinformation campaign concerning virus transmissiblilty?
I understood Pfizer to have stated that vaccination would DECREASE, NOT "stop", the chance of transmission.
Nevertheless, they did have to have SOME evidence of this to even make this limited declaration......
I always understood the MAIN, and most important, claim to be:
- when you actually got COVID-19 by transmission, the vaccine lessened the negative consequences of the virus......for example, less chance of death, less chance of hospitalization, and less severe symptoms.
I understood Pfizer to have stated that vaccination would DECREASE, NOT "stop", the chance of transmission.
Nevertheless, they did have to have SOME evidence of this to even make this limited declaration......
I always understood the MAIN, and most important, claim to be:
- when you actually got COVID-19 by transmission, the vaccine lessened the negative consequences of the virus......for example, less chance of death, less chance of hospitalization, and less severe symptoms.
I understood Pfizer to have stated that vaccination would DECREASE, NOT "stop", the chance of transmission
Nevertheless, they did have to have SOME evidence of this to even make this limited declaration.
You ": understood " wrong, but that is because you were lied to. Go to the 2:00-minute mark on the video Neil posted. The Pfizer executive clearly states that they never tested for transmission, therefore, as Neil, stated, they had no scientific evidence to make a statement that it would decrease, stop or otherwise prevent transmission. This removed the entire legal basis for the Covid passport, as MEP Rob Roos said.on the video “This is scandalous. Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others’.”
“Get vaccinated for others” was always a lie, tweeted MEP Rob Roos yesterday.
And you expect us to trust in the benevolence and goodness of Govts, what a joke!
I always understood the MAIN, and most important, claim to be:
- when you actually got COVID-19 by transmission, the vaccine lessened the negative consequences of the virus......for example, less chance of death, less chance of hospitalization, and less severe symptoms.
Big tech censored the Surgeon General of Florida who advised men from the ages of 18-39 to not get the jab, citing evidence that it causes heart problems in that group.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Big tech censored the Surgeon General of Florida who advised men from the ages of 18-39 to not get the jab, citing evidence that it causes heart problems in that group.
Tweet
Comment