Jump to content

Returning to normal


myata

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, EastCanada90 said:

damn you have authority issues buddy.. 

And what if authority makes you jump through hoops, twice daily after waking up and before going to bed? Is it mommy and daddy issue or another kind of issue? No, not a joke or stretch: travel from Wuhan no problem, locked parks, mask recommended outdoors, mask on for the washroom, "vaccination status unknown" and one can continue with a long list. When where is no accountability and responsibility "authority issues" so easily become authoritarian and totalitarian ones. Not like there's any need to confirm it yet again with all the history before our eyes. Sure one needs the eyes and memory though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Semantics? 

Ask a question and I will give you an answer.

Maybe it's semantics, but it's not just semantics. Depending on which definition you're using for semantics or if you've decided to change the definition of that one too.

By the way you use it I assume this one applies: "Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues"

So no in this case it's not just semantics. Replacing the word "Immunity" with "protection" creates a real and distinctive change in the meaning of the thing you're claiming to describe. It was one thing. Now it's another.

When they said immunity we took it to mean what they implied when they introduced the vaccine. Take this and the pandemic goes away. Then it was 'no, what we really meant was take two doses and the pandemic goes away." And the goal posts continue to move so now it's "Did we say Immunity? We meant protection." It's not doing what it was supposed to do. They changed the word in the definition because they recognize that. It's an admission the "vaccine" isn't doing what they wanted us to believe it would do.

Vaccination now refers to a therapeutic.

Monoclonal Antibody treatment now fits that new CDC definition for vaccine. I could make the argument Ivermectin and others also meet the parameters of this new definition but that let's stick with MCA because that's indisputable. Or did you want to dispute it? Will you be needing to see the Florida worldometer graph again?

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And note that this kind of quick and dirty "solution" to an inconvenient reality can create more problems than they were trying to fix. Now they've opened the door to a host of new "vaccines" it they could show at least some preventative effect for some time. So next time you're buying immunity-boosting drops over the counter check if they now officially qualify as a "vaccine".

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Vaccination now refers to a therapeutic.

I disagree. You use a therapeutic to treat something. 

 
Quote

 

ther·a·peu·tic
/ˌTHerəˈpyo͞odik/
adjective
  1. relating to the healing of disease.
    "diagnostic and therapeutic facilities"

 

 
 
You would have to actively pursue a Therapeutic and likely already experience symptoms. 

The vaccine is greatly reducing both instances of infection and when breakthrough infections do happen they are much less likely to have detrimental symptoms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, myata said:

And note that this kind of quick and dirty "solution" to an inconvenient reality can create more problems than they were trying to fix. Now they've opened the door to a host of new "vaccines" it they could show at least some preventative effect for some time. Sp next time you're buying immunity-boosting drops over the counter check if they now qualify as a "vaccine".

When was the last time you bought something you had to inject, over-the-counter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, myata said:

For once I agree, it's not therapeutic but prophylactic will do. A preventative treatment with limited duration of protection. Herbal pills if shown to reduce probability of infection over some time would fully qualify.

I think we all agree that something like Vitamin D helps with immunity. . . or is it protection? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bother going back to look but somebody on the previous page was trying to push masks again.

I've posted all kinds of studies and basic observations illustrating masks don't work. That seems to go over their heads.

Very well, at the link below Fiona Lashells will present the argument against mask mandates at the more simplistic moral superiority level they may be more familiar and comfortable with:

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

And what if authority makes you jump through hoops, twice daily after waking up and before going to bed? Is it mommy and daddy issue or another kind of issue? No, not a joke or stretch: travel from Wuhan no problem, locked parks, mask recommended outdoors, mask on for the washroom, "vaccination status unknown" and one can continue with a long list. When where is no accountability and responsibility "authority issues" so easily become authoritarian and totalitarian ones. Not like there's any need to confirm it yet again with all the history before our eyes. Sure one needs the eyes and memory though.

lol you are talking nonsense get a life buddy jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, irony aside, flu shots have same issues. They do not provide full protection, guessing, even against covered variants; they probably (guessing) do not prevent transmission in case of infection. And the protection does not last long. But there's one important difference though: flu shots are made with natural agents. Getting a flu shot is not unlike being exposed to the virus that is a regular and common experience. "Boosting" immune system to pump out antibodies against specific proteins is quite different. This is not unlike setting it into an overdrive mode every so many months. And of course immune systems are individual with different reactions and long term effects that may not appear in several months of the trial.

This is a novel, brand new situation and it's irresponsible, premature and dumb to rush into it blindly, including by coercion, confusion and manipulation on the word of already demonstrably clueless and careless individuals. There's an old story of Pandora's box but what is it to highly paid bureaucrats, always out of the public's pocket who need to show a pretty number on paper now.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey...spinning off for a sec, because it's driving me crazy...

What's that Simon and Garfunkel song that goes:

~ I have squandered my resistance for a pocket full of mumbles such are promises ~

When I'm listening to the knee-benders demand we join them in their march to serfdom at Big Pharma's call to thrall that verse is always beating in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, blackbird said:

Everyone has to do their part to stop the spread of Covid.  It doesn't matter what age one is.  They can still spread it.  The experts say unvaccinated people spread is more than vaccinated people.  So just because someone is younger than 50 or 60, doesn't mean they should not get vaccinated.  Everyone should do their part to protect Canadians.  Vaccination is a simple quick thing.  Showing a vaccine passport is easy and only takes seconds.

1) If you believe that vaccines work, then the people who rightfully should fear covid don't need to fear covid anymore

2) It's extremely selfish for 85 yr olds to seek protection from covid by inflicting the vaccine on 5-39 yr olds when there's a risk of death or serious injury to those younger people. I will never be such a coward that I'd ask younger men, women and children to risk their own health for me just so that I might live those precious years between 86 & 88 years old. It's pathetic. 

 

Vaccination isn't a 'quick, simple thing'. It's bizarre that you'd think such a thing after all that we've come to know about vaccines in the past 6 months. 

This is an actual dead child. His life should mean something to you. He'd still be alive if he hadn't taken the vaccine and he's not the only one. 

Drs and politicians want Big Pharma Bucks so they overstate the efficacy of the vaccines and downplay the risks. Rich old dudes who own TV stations want you to fear covid because they want a wall of vaccinated people around them. They also exaggerate the risks to everyone from covid and they downplay the health risk that the vaccines pose to young people like Jacob Clynick.

Jacob Clynick's cause of death 'is still a mystery' but anyone who died within 14 days of their last cough was thrown into the 'covid death' category. 

The classic MSM strategy when they want to pimp a false narrative is they put a face on their chosen stories, like 'the fat anti-vaxxer who died of covid' and they bury stories that expose their bullshit. You'll see the whole story about every anti-vaxxer on every continent who dies of covid but they won't touch a story about a child that was killed by the vaccines. They won't even acknowledge vaxx deaths. Have you ever seen a story a vaxx Nazi that died of covid? Of course not. You're supposed to believe that's an urban myth. Will you hear from elderly members of Jacob Clynick's family who say "we'd rather die than see any other children get forced to take the vaccines"? Nope. Jacob Clynick can go to hell, right Blackbird? Just say it. I know that's how you feel inside - the loss of his life was justified because it protects a bunch of 85 yr olds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Everyone has to do their part to stop the spread of Covid.

No, no, slow down. Who said that that I owed you anything? And who decided what the "part" has to be? Isn't that like a corner preacher handing out obligations, would you like to owe me, just sign here and here. Nice try but sorry, I'm on my way. Next time try an intelligent and respectful conversation. If only for a change.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, cannuck said:

my fear is by asking only the questions that will get the answers you want those mask camp peddling the idiotic notion that a piece of paper or cloth with HUGE leakage is somehow going to save you from infection

I believe those in authority making these rules already know the masks are next to useless.  Anybody who has worked in medical knows this.

BUT - it is a very good fear-mongering visual of "how much danger we are all in."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

No, no, slow down. Who said that that I owed you anything? And who decided what the "part" has to be? Isn't that like a corner preacher handing out obligations, would you like to owe me, just sign here and here. Nice try but sorry, I'm on my way. Next time try an intelligent and respectful conversation. If only for a change.

Not sure how I got quoted as saying that, that was in blackbird's post, which I quoted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EastCanada90 said:

lol  masks a sign of subission and obedience..  damn you have authority issues buddy..  mommy and daddy didn't treat you well i take it.

Anyone wearing a clown mask tells the likes of people like Bonnie the commie Henry that you love being submissive and obedient to her covid bull shit lies. She was at a hockey game in Vancouver the other night and she was seen not wearing a clown mask. 

I despise authority because of the communist political leaders that we have in power here in Canukistan today whom treats we the peasants with contempt and hatred all the time. They don't like you, comrade! 

I can certainly see that your mommy and daddy brought you up to become an obedient and submissive zombie. Lol.

So, I wonder if Santa Claus will be allowed to do his tour of the world without being vaccinated? Will he have to wear a clown mask also? Just wondering. ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, taxme said:

whom treats we the peasants with contempt and hatred all the time

Nah, contempt certainly, dismissive out of hand obviously, talking down like to a dim slow and little peasant looks like it but why would one hate a golden cow that can be milked at least $400K annually "for as long as necessary".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2021 at 2:16 PM, Goddess said:

Good post, the lists are compelling evidence of the damage that the vaxx can do to people who aren't in the at risk category from covid.

 

Re: Josh Archibald, the story coming from the Oilers is that he was the only unvaccinated player on the team, and that he got it after having asymptomatic covid during the summer. Tough to say what to believe because the NHL is so politically correct right now: if the truth is controversial they definitely won't tell it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masking works.

Case Study: 340,000 participants in Bangladesh

Results:  Mask use reduced infection by 9% generally; among older people, by 23%.

Type of Masks: Surgical masks were most effective; cloth masks less so, even with 3 layers.

Sept. 7, 2021 -- A large, real-world test of face masks in Bangladesh shows that masks reduce community spread of COVID-19. It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.

 One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn't lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.

Compared to villages that didn't mask, those where masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

People 50 to 60 years who wore surgical masks were 23% less likely to test positive for COVID compared to their peers who didn't wear masks. For people older than 60, the reduction in risk was greater — 35%.

Masks aren't the whole answer, just part of it.  But downplaying their effectiveness, while complaining about restrictions and spreading misinformation about vaccines makes Russia and China very happy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no wonder that piece keeps hammering home their claim "masks work." They really want you to believe it.

If you follow the links the confirmation bias is strong in that paper. It was conducted by a poverty organization. They conducted these trials with two purposes and one was to show masks work. The study had a twin purpose. It was also about finding methods to convince villagers to mask up and social distance. So if there was an effect which one claims the infection decrease statistic? Masks or social distancing. I'm guessing the villagers who wouldn't wear the masks weren't fussy about the social distancing either.

2/3s of the supposed symptomatic refused a blood test. That'll cut into your 340,000. They gave different masks to different groups. Then you're looking at a smaller group of symptomatic, then a smaller group of infected.  Cloth masks were only responsible for 5% of the claimed decrease in infection of that remaining group. Is that even statistically significant? I don't think so.

How did they even monitor those 340,000 people anyway?

So a poverty organization that wanted to show masks worked claimed they watched 340,000 people somehow and knew which of those had some symptom or symptoms, then did blood tests on those and decided 5% more villagers in that remaining group who weren't regularly using cloth mask were infected. That's scientific rigor is it?

Quote

4) Fake science

For decades, studies have shown that face masks don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics. But with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and increasing political pressure (see below), suddenly studies appeared claiming the opposite. In reality, these studies were a mixture of confounded observational data, unrealistic modelling and lab results, and outright fraud. The most influential fraudulent study certainly was the WHO-commissioned meta-study published in The Lancet.

https://swprs.org/the-face-mask-folly-in-retrospect/

Here's some different data collected by somebody else:

47cff4bb-ab1d-4b2d-9f47-e86b9351e097_102

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only Almighty may know what will be the new normal and this is not a fact. We have near-daily reports of car breakins and damage in a community where none of that was seen ever. How about rolling your sleeves to the blaring propaganda truth of day? How about a decades-long Covid-dance around the fire to the beat of the health shamans, now clap left and then stomp right? She may know if we're in luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...