Moonbox

I'm not interested in investigating far-fetched theories or doing your work for you. Your theories are yours to support with evidence and arguments, and you've not been able to demonstrate that you're capable of it. Rather, you continue to link us garbage that either doesn't say what you pretend it does, or outright contradicts you.

The sad thing is that you actually believe all of that.

So...you have nothing, as usual. You're just nattering and pulling stuff out of your butt. Got it.

If it's not okay to provide public funding for domestic media in Canada, it cannot be okay for Russian state-funded media to operate as the propaganda arm in Canada. Choose your lane.

Hahahahaha. What sort of mind-melting tricks do you have to do to decry Canadian media getting domestic public support, but that state-run news from Russia operating in Canada is okay.

So post something. If you have anything that refutes that the expert BMJ quoted directly dismissed your conclusion when asked, let's see it. Otherwise, you're once again demonstrating your habits of citing articles that don't even support what you're saying. ?

Where's that? Where are you going to "fact check" your way out of the "fact" that the clinical trials expert BMJ quoted is dismissing your conclusions, directly? ?

The backwards logic. If this is such a sensational story, then surely they'd be interested in following it up with further investigation and post additional findings/conclusions? Except they don't. Why? Because the basic facts from the article don't support the conclusions that YOU and others draw from them. Here are a couple of follow-up quotes for you: Even Thacker acknowledged that “people are going to use this to push a political position because that’s what they’re interested in.” So the journalist who wrote the article (a provocateur and 5G conspiracy theorist with limited credibility himself) is warning us about people like you - folks who take the basic facts posted and twist it into something more than it is. The best part is that one of the sources Thackner used (PhD and clinical trial expert Jill Fisher) dismisses the exact conclusions you're attempting to draw: But Fisher — who has authored books on the subject of clinical trials and was quoted in Thacker’s story — says that’s the wrong takeaway. “I think that’s definitely a narrative that’s out there,” she said. “And I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair narrative.” The article explains that: The Pfizer Phase III trial involved 44,000 people and 153 locations. From August 2020 through Sept. 17, 2020 — when she was fired — Jackson told CBS 17 that Ventavia accounted for at least 1,200 of those people and accounted for three sites. “If all of the clinical trial data were dependent on one particular site, and that site’s data were called into question, I think it would be a much bigger concern,” Fisher said. https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/fact-check-report-questioning-pfizer-trial-shouldnt-undermine-confidence-in-vaccines/ If you spent months following this and the best citations you can provide demonstrably don't support what you're saying (with the experts quoted flatly dismissing your conclusions), that's a pretty damning testament to your reasoning skills. Time and time again you've proven you don't (or can't) even review your own sources beyond the provocative headline you pull from trawling garbage conspiracy sites. ?

I did read it, because it was the BMJ. I also read a bunch of other articles that discussed this publication and the overall Pfizer trial numbers. That's why I know that the BMJ is talking about a single sub-contractor conducting a small part of the Pfizer trials, and that they have nothing to do whatsoever with the other 98% of the trials. You've demonstrated a consistent habit of not even reading your own sources beyond their hot-take headlines, so you telling anyone on this forum to "inform yourself" gives me a mighty chuckle.

What we know is what's important, not the gaping holes of logic and evidence you use to conjure up your conclusions. Except you're more like, "Where there's smoke, you have ironclad proof of a world-spanning network of conspiracies bent to take away your freeeeedom."

Well the results are compromised. You have to toss them out. They can't be relied on. No, there's allegations that a tiny part of the trial process was compromised. They still have 98% of the trial that wasn't compromised or fraudulent. Pfizer told shareholders stock may go down because this wasn't good news and it was clear to even the dumbest ape that the conspiracy clowns would take this story and fantasize it into the next smoking gun. I'm saying that you know absolutely nothing about it, just like you know absolutely nothing about the Law which you so often refer to, or how to provide intelligence evidence to the dumb claims you make. I didn't deny anything from the BMJ article. I am contesting the foolish claims YOU are making about it. One questionable subcontractor (2% of the Pfizer trials) does not make the other 98% of the trial data fraudulent, especially when the safety and efficacy studies were done all over the world and involved tens of thousands of people. That you somehow think it does is positive proof you're unbelievably clueless on the matter.

It's 2% of the trial. The alarm bells are specific to the sub-contractor and though concerning and worth investigating, they do not diminish the results of the other 98%. You toss that 2% out as unreliable and then use the other 42,000 trials instead, where there's no evidence of problems. Care to tell us what your credentials are for reading scientific trial data btw? Judging by consistent faceplants when asked for sources, I think it's safe you assume you didn't attend any science programs. ? Please, share them.

He's almost 70 and seeing everything he hoped to achieve (a revival of Russia as a great-power) slowly crumble to dust. His neighbors are cozying up with NATO/Europe and back at home, Russia's economy was floundering even before the sanctions. The country's fertility is was one of the lowest in the world. Not only is outside conflict a longstanding recipe for distraction from problems at home, Ukraine embracing the West is anathema to a reborn Russian Empire and a failure Putin probably couldn't accept. Judging by Crimea and Donbass/Luhansk (among other conflicts) Putin had reason to believe that he'd get away with it too. I'm sure he calculated that invading Ukraine would prove more troubling to the West, but he may have gauged the risk acceptable. This is an aging, egotistical dictator who's running out of time and the status quo meant a dwindling of his power and means to build his legacy. In his own self-centred way, he probably felt like he's been backed into a corner.

I think it's trite and easy to dismiss Putin as insane. I don't think he is. He's a cold and calculated killer brought up in one of the most murderous and dangerous organizations the world has ever seen. He views the world differently than most of the rest of us. He's outmaneuvered and made fools of the West too many times to just dismiss him as insane. Don't mistake his brazen thuggery and completely disregard for global norms as stupidity or insanity.

I read it. The Ventravia contract involved clinical trials of around 1000 people out of a total of 44,000 total for Pfizer. Even if the allegations are proven (which they aren't), that's only 2% of the overall trial and therefore immaterial to the results. You, of course, determine that this is ironclad proof that the vaccines (plural) are unsafe or ineffective and that there's a massive worldwide cover-up for..."reasons"? As usual, you're doing mental gymnastics to deny any and all sources that don't confirm your biases but then unquestionably swallowing anything that sounds like spicy conspiracy and holding it up as the only information that matters. The best part about all of this is that in your little fantasy world, 2% of a trial being (possibly) flawed outweighs the 98% that wasn't. THAT'S the sort of mental math we get here from Goddess. ?

Anyone can say anything they want on the internet. The utter lack of skepticism and the blind faith you put into random youtubers, podcasters and social media posts is contrasted by your outright denial of anything/everything the MSM says. The contradiction in your logic, however, is completely lost on you.

Yeah it is. Thanks for being a part of it.

Unvaccinated 50+ brainlets are still getting sick and dying, and at a way higher rate than the vaccinated. Your logic relies on pretending that the 50+ demographic just doesn't exist or something. "I'm young and won't get seriously ill so F everyone else!"

No, Hydrogen's biggest problem is separating it in an economically feasible manner. Until you can do this cheaply, it remains an expensive (though alluring) alternative. The process is very energy-intensive itself (usually requiring electrolysis or steam) so it's really not an energy alternative until we solve the energy problem in the first place.

Not all of them, sadly.

Again, this is only relevant if you pretend the other 39% of the population doesn't exist and isn't in close contact with these people.

That's only relevant if you don't consider those over 50 "people" and assume they don't interact with people younger than that.

Because you're adding a lot of pointless noise to the conversation, asking questions that have already been answered and offering theories and conclusions that make no sense. The worst part is that often the dumber and more nonsensical the opinions and questions, the more people talk about them and the more confusion it spreads. The toughest part about conspiracy theories is that they don't have to be real or fact-based. As long as they spread confusion and uncertainty, they've accomplished their goals.

Okay. The Epoch Times posted some stuff from the CDC that was true. Believe it or not, I don't automatically assume absolutely everything someone says is fake. The problem with the Epoch Times' link, in this case, is that it doesn't actually support anything you're trying to tell us here, or what the OP was saying. Whoops.

Your standard of "true" is stuff that conforms to your worldview, and "untrue" is whatever doesn't conveniently fit in. You're mocking mediabiasfactcheck for armchair opinions on one hand, but then exalt youtubers and vbloggers mouthing off from home as sterling sources. Yikes. I think at this point everyone knows that Omicron infections are everywhere and the vaccines don't stop them. That's not news or what we're talking about here. Read the thread title again. It doesn't. The vaccines are not showing great efficacy at preventing infection against Omicron and at the same time most places are dropping pandemic restrictions. The rise in cases is not surprising news.