Infidel Dog

You two progressives seem to be having trouble making a fact based argument. If all you have is disparaging remarks against political ideologies you don't agree with you don't actually have much. I'm starting to feel a little sympathy for you both so I'm going to help you. If you hadn't been so restricted by your inability to consider anything beyond your given narrative you would have discovered there actually is an opening for an argument within the offered science in the embedded links. Here's a quote from an abstract in the first paper: There you go, try that. See if it can help you avoid looking so lame.

Really a former rep of some sort, you say. Well thanks for that cracker-jack on the spot reporting, Beave. I guess you missed this one: CNN Fires Producer John Griffin Over 'Deeply Disturbing' Federal Child Sex Charges and this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/05/chris-cuomo-cnn-fired-sexual-harassment-allegation Any news on when Ghislaine Maxwell will be sentenced for her part in the Clinton connected Epstein sex crimes?

That's of the total of those tested. Almost all of those would be negative. 42% of the positive results were false positives.

Do you remember that one where that guy attacked a Sikh temple where they wore turbans? Do you remember how the media hammered the point home that the guy was actually wanting to attack Muslims but he made a mistake? There was never a doubt about what the motive was there. Why was that?

Mediabiasfactcheck expresses an opinion on whether sites skew left or right. My opinion is their opinion too often skews left. Their language doesn't just suggest right wing thought is present. It tells you there's something wrong with that. They have less of a problem with a site that skews left. In any case, so what. They have an opinion they don't like right wing sites and I have an opinion I don't care what a Prog thinks of me or mine. And when undeniable facts are cited as evidence within a piece, a prog's opinion on the site where it's found is just piss in the wind.

Citing a leftist source that expresses an opinion they don't like a right wing source is nonsense. It's blatantly erroneous in this case because multiple evidences from mainstream articles, universities and medical journals were cited in embedded links. It doesn't even matter though because there's a basic fact that's undeniable by any means other than distraction. The reason we know lockdowns don't work is because they didn't.

OK Moonbox, so you two want to speak in generalities and think you've won on some specific point you don't specifically identify. You haven't. Let's get into specifics. The specific debate, at it's core was Eyeball believes if he can google and find somebody from the left to discredit a general website on the grounds it's from the right then anything inside is automatically false regardless of how many mainstream, scientific or first sources it supports itself with. I showed you both a site that did that. At that point the argument should have been over and you lost. But Eyeball tells me no, every scientific paper from every university and medical journal archived in the piece is now worthless because the intro contained a metaphor about lab rats and he's not a rat. Then you tell me some gobbledygook about how what I'm really saying is "that's what they want you to think." A rat being put in a maze to find the cheese can be seen as being like getting mandated into segregation and deprivation until you get the vax in that neither operation really offers a choice. That's what I actually said and you 2 want to hyperventilate about use of the word "they." See how that conversation wanders away from the actual topic though? See who's actually initiating the evasion from the premise.

Personally I think it's more just another case of Prog projection. Everywhere you try to run you get smacked down at the ears. Now you want to whine about it yet try to make yourself seem heroic. 'Mommy, Dog is chasing me.' 'Stop being such a baby." 'Er...I mean running from me.'

Evading what? Go ahead hotshot. I'm your huckleberry. Tell me specifically what this is you're so smug about, thinking others fear to face.

" TORONTO -- As provinces rely more heavily on rapid antigen tests as part of their strategy to curb the spread of COVID-19, there have been concerns over the possibility of false positive results. Canadian researchers have produced new data shedding light on the likelihood of such events In total, 462 rapid test results, or 0.05 per cent of the 900,000 results, resulted in false positives. This represents 42 per cent of the positive test results in the study." https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canadian-study-reveals-rate-of-false-positives-from-rapid-antigen-tests-1.5742050

Twitchy offers some clues to the clueless media on what the motive might be for a Muslim pissed at the incarceration of an anti-semitic terrorist in taking hostages at a synagogue. https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/01/16/freaking-clowns-fbi-and-mainstream-media-already-teaming-up-to-claim-synagogue-hostage-situation-not-connected-to-jewish-community/

" COLLEYVILLE, Texas (AP) — Authorities on Sunday identified a 44-year-old British national as the man who took four people hostage at a Texas synagogue for 10 hours before an FBI SWAT team stormed the building, ending a tense standoff that President Joe Biden called “an act of terror.” Malik Faisal Akram was shot and killed after the last of the hostages got out at around 9 p.m. Saturday at Congregation Beth Israel near Fort Worth. In a statement, the FBI said there was no indication that anyone else was involved, but it didn’t provide a possible motive." https://www.cbs17.com/news/british-national-malik-faisal-akram-idd-as-hostage-taker-at-texas-synagogue/

You're starting to sound desperate their, Bud. "They" won't like that.

They are the ones putting ideas in the back of your mind like equity is a good idea or "building back better" doesn't mean ripping down the infrastructure that built the most successful societies in the history of humanity. Or has you convinced "Moving Forward" is a dandy slogan without considering what you're leaving behind. You hear their voices you just don't bother paying attention to where they're coming from and think that qualifies you to mock those of us attentive and curious enough identify that omnipresent voice as "they." They is anybody registered as a member of the Club of Rome. It's the UN, the EU, the IMF, WHO, the Global Resetters, social media, corporate media, any corporate monopoly etc. And it's their mass formation psychosis suffering puppets that repeat their narrative like its fact. Which means it's kind of you.

And now there's this: Mandatory vaccine laws could eventually exist, says health minister Where'd your choice go?

They put a rat in front of a maze and let it run for the cheese. They segregate us into rats that will run and the ones that won't. We non-complaint rats get starvation rations until we're ready to run the maze. They'll segregate and starve us until we're ready. That's the choice. In general though humans as lab rats is a metaphor that's going to make less sense the more you twist it. But in it's original sense it's dead on. There's a way we can see humans treated like lab rats in service of an experimental vaccine.

Free choice supports humanity, equity boy.

Wrong again. They cited sources that did make their case.

A lab rat, for being used in an experiment using an experimental vaccine? I'll answer this way. Lab rats don't know, or at least refuse to notice that's what they are. Lab rats.

Really? One of your "fact checkers" told you that, did they? Well you have the perfects chance to prove that. The American Institute of Economic Research has offered you a list of sources illustrating how lockdowns didn't work. Show us the misinformation. Because if you can't I'm going to say all you've produced is just another Proggy, slur merchant.

If anybody is interested in the full quote of the intro Eyeball thinks justifies him in dismissing a collection scientific papers, and such from an archive site I offer it up below: " The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion. The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control. " https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/

There were three links. The one in your quote from me listed an archive site. The one you think you dismissed by later mentioning it contained a link to a mainstream article and a peer reviewed paper. You dismissed nothing because you were clueless about what was actually in the content. This is pretty basic. Why are you having such a problem with it?

I could probably find you something that made a pretty good, fact-sourced case explaining how this - what you call a "vaccine" - is experimental but you'd rush to your leftist google to find some leftist "fact checker" who had something nasty to say about the source. Then - all dripping with smug - you'd show me the link like you'd dismissed anything that could possibly be in it - including links to sites you might link to yourself if your leftist authorities authorized it.

An archive gives you a list of sources. You seem to think if you diss the archive site you've dismissed the sources. You haven't. Why must I continually be pointing out these simple facts to you?

Complexity and context isn't a "yeah-but." Don't whine to me about the deficiencies in your simplistic thinking.