First a trickle....Now a flood

[User]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All right boy. Sit down and pay attention, you're getting scolded.

Now, i'm not going to claim you're the smartest person on this board.  But you are moderately intelligent. 

Around here we leave the lies, the  stupidity and the self delusion to the liberals. You are not a liberal (despite sounding a hell of a lot like one at the moment). 

 

I  made a simple and easy to verify statement, because of a newspaper article that came out that dayd.

DOn't bother with your continued lies that it's not true, i've already proven a dozen times over it is. That's no longer the issue. 

The issue is you immediately freaked out and started making STUPID Statements attempting to attack the idea. 

You made an insanely weak argument that an obscure gov't website post that DOWNPLAYS the risk somehow is proof they properly advised of the risk, then ignored other proofs that they FURTHER downplayed the risk. 

This is NOT rational. This is you losing your logic and reason and desperately trying to defend a position that you have fallen in love with, based on nothing more than "Muh Feels". 

That is NOT what conseratives do. We leave that kind of crap to the libearls and other lefties. 

Consequently you look like a complete retarded twat and we both know that this isn't the case.

It is not possible to credibly claim that the government substantially warned the people of Canada about the risk. That has already been proven and if you claim differently it's because your emotions are getting the better of you

You need to learn to control your emotions better before replying. This is the second time I've seen you make a week an indefensible argument based on your emotional response.

If the facts don't support your position once you look at them then you need to back your way and come at it from a different direction.

It is painfully obvious that you have some reason in your teeny tiny little mind that you don't want anyone speaking against the government policy of enforcing vaccinations on people and you want to pretend that everybody made the decisions fully informed of the risks.

I don't know why you want that, but it is simply not true. And if you need to lie to make your argument you don't have a very good argument. Conservatives pride ourselves on having good arguments.

 

So you should reevaluate what led you to that kind of poor Behavior. Never ever ever fall in love with a position, you should always be reflecting on its accuracy given the latest information available to you rather than allowing your emotions to dictate your stand

I've always thought of you as a good contributor, if somewhat young and still in need of experience, and I expect you to continue to grow and become stronger and stronger

Reflect on this and do better. This was just embarrassing.

 

So, lets review... ignoring all this:

 

• [Ad hominem]
• [Patronizing framing]
• [Poisoning the well]
• [Guilt by association]
• [Tribal signaling]
• [Unsupported assertion]
• [Begging the question]
• [Ad hominem]
• [Dismissive characterization]
• [Mind-reading]
• [Attribution of motive]
• [Appeal to political identity]
• [Personal insult]
• [Bare assertion]
• [Ad hominem]
• [Psychologizing opponent]
• [Straw man]
• [Mind-reading]
• [Unsupported accusation of lying]
• [Appeal to group identity]
• [Condescension]
• [Moralizing]
• [Patronizing conclusion]
  
  If you want to go back to your original assertion, about the only thing of substance here, that Canada did not adequately warn of the risks, that is your job to prove:
  
   
• What risk? <-Define the risk
• When did officials know? <- You say they should have done more, so... what did they know before and what evidence do you have?
• What did they say publicly at the time? <- What was it they said you think is proof of them downplaying the risk (and remember, you must define that risk)
• What should they have said instead? 

[Goddess]

4 hours ago, User said:

You are conflating a reduction in DEATHS to a reduction in the disease. 

No, I'm not.

Reduction in deaths is what we want. That is the goal.  And that was achieved mainly through improved sanitation, better nutrition and hygiene. In addition, healthcare - especially the management and treatment of acute infection vastly improved after the 1960's.

The measles vaccine can prevent some deaths but that is not the whole story.  Measles is not a death sentence, it's an endemic childhood disease that the majority of people experienced.

By preventing transmission, the measles vaccine broke the natural ecological relationship humans had with measles over millennia.  Unlike other pathogens that have come & gone, humans developed a lasting relationship with measles that scientists and researchers are now discovering, in that those infected with measles as children have a survival advantage over those who do not.

This has been studied since about 2014, and needs further study, but it appears that those who have had measles are less likely to die from heart attacks and cancer and are less likely to suffer from various chronic diseases.  I know one of the studies was massive, from Japan, and followed over 100,00 people for decades.  The length & cohort size of the study was very helpful because the difference remained statistically significant even after adjusting for variables like age, body mass, family history, etc.

The Japanese study shows why measles, unlike most pathogens, never died out over time through natural selection.

There are even studies showing that children with Hodgkins' experiencing remission when having measles.

And studies that show that mothers who had measles as children pass that passive immunity onto their newborns, protecting them in the early months of life when the measles vaccine is not given.

All of this means it's quite likely that vaccines upended the natural decline of the virulence of the measles virus and broke the natural ecological relationship humans had with measles, which the studies reflect conferred a survival advantage to those who had the infection.

Sorry to ramble, but I find this subject fascinating, and the point I'm trying to make is that prior to vaccines, measles was considered a mild childhood infection, like chickenpox.

For perspective, it's one of the least killers of children.  Bee stings, trampolines, drownings - all dwarf measles numbers.

Not that every death of a child isn't truly tragic.  That goes without saying.

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

No, I'm not.

Reduction in deaths is what we want. That is the goal.  And that was achieved mainly through improved sanitation, better nutrition and hygiene. In addition, healthcare - especially the management and treatment of acute infection vastly improved after the 1960's.

Elimination of the disease is what we want, and that is what vaccines give us. Death is not the only consequence. Before the vaccine, there were still an estimated 3-4 million cases a year and about 800,000 reported cases, some 50,000 severe enough for hospitalization, and thousands with severe brain swelling. (That is based on population numbers from the 60's) 

When you are trying to ignore what vaccines did and pretend that deaths being down shows that the vaccine didn't do anything, THAT is the dishonest anti-vax nonsense, as there were still A LOT of people getting infected.

The vaccine reduced that to zero or near zero. For decades, we had zero cases or very small outbreaks among... the unvaccinated. 
 

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

The measles vaccine can prevent some deaths but that is not the whole story.  Measles is not a death sentence, it's an endemic childhood disease that the majority of people experienced.

Not endemic with the vaccine. It was a death sentence for more kids than you sit here complaining about people being harmed by the COVID vaccine. 
 

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Sorry to ramble, but I find this subject fascinating, and the point I'm trying to make is that prior to vaccines, measles was considered a mild childhood infection, like chickenpox.

Yeah, some parents certainly believed this, but that is a perception argument; that was not the view of health care professionals, as I pointed out above, who dealt with those dead, severe side effects, and hospitalizations. 

Why suffer through any of that at all... when we have a vaccine?

Remember, you said you were not anti-vax, but here you are pushing your anti-vaccine talking points yet again. So... you ever gonna tell me what vaccines you support?

As to the rest of your claims about how great the disease is or how its better to live with it... Let's see your evidence. 
 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, User said:

So, lets review...

review yourself dipshit.  This was embarrassing and you need to do better. At this point you don't get to have an opinion on anything else, your dumbass sealioning just makes it worse.  

If all you can manage is lies and asking answered questions 100 times then go join the liberals. you're too stupid to be a conservative. 

[CdnFox]

Oh, and 

 

• What risk? <-Define the risk  

Already answered several times above 

• When did officials know? 

Already answered several times above 

• What did they say publicly at the time? 

Already answered several times above 

• What should they have said instead? 

Already answered several times above 

Fcuking lying little sealion. You should be deeply ashamed. 

Edited 16 hours ago by CdnFox

[User]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

review yourself dipshit.  This was embarrassing and you need to do better. At this point you don't get to have an opinion on anything else, your dumbass sealioning just makes it worse.  

If all you can manage is lies and asking answered questions 100 times then go join the liberals. you're too stupid to be a conservative. 

Oh wow... 

 

• [Ad hominem]
• [Dismissive assertion]
• [Gatekeeping]
• [Appeal to authority of self]
• [Ad hominem]
• [Accusation without demonstration]
• [Unsupported accusation of lying]
• [Assertion that questions were answered]
• [Tribal signaling]
• [Guilt by association]
• [Ad hominem]

[User]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh, and 

 

• What risk? <-Define the risk  

Already answered several times above 

• When did officials know? 

Already answered several times above 

• What did they say publicly at the time? 

Already answered several times above 

• What should they have said instead? 

Already answered several times above 

Fcuking lying little sealion. You should be deeply ashamed. 

• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Ad hominem]
• [Unsupported accusation of lying]
• [Moral condemnation]
• [No argument]
  
  If you already answered all these questions... it should be easy to just answer them again or link to where you did.
  
   

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, User said:

• If you already answered all these questions... it should be easy to just answer them again or link to where you did.
   

They're answered in this thread above. Each time after they're asked they are immediately answered in the next post. In detail. When asked again they're answered again. I draw the limit at answering questions three times in a row in the same thread. 

 

1 hour ago, User said:

• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Assertion]
• [Not an answer]
• [Ad hominem]
• [Unsupported accusation of lying]
• [Moral condemnation]
• [No argument]
  
  
   

Lie.  In each case the question is answered and demonstrated. 

And once again you poop your pants rather than be a man and face the issue. 

You always run and hide when the facts don't' match up to "Muh feels"

[User]

Just now, CdnFox said:

They're answered in this thread above. Each time after they're asked they are immediately answered in the next post. In detail. When asked again they're answered again. I draw the limit at answering questions three times in a row in the same thread. 

No, they are not. You love making the assertions over and over again, and continuing to call me names over and over again... you just never have the time to actually back up your crap. 

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Lie.  In each case the question is answered and demonstrated. 

And once again you poop your pants rather than be a man and face the issue. 

You always run and hide when the facts don't' match up to "Muh feels"

LOL, just claiming you answered the question doesn't answer the question. Just another baseless assertion. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, User said:

No, they are not.

They are each and every time and everybody can see it and now you look like a complete twat. I've answered the threat thing about three times now. The rest of them were all answered as well. In detail.

Pooped your pants again huh kid?

3 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, just claiming you answered the question doesn't answer the question. \

Answering the question Did

Repetitively demanding that someone answer a question that has already been answered more than once in clear detail is one of those silly little tricks that the left plays because they have no ability to actually form an intelligent argument

I went into detail what the threat is. I went into detail as to what they should have said. I went into detail about everything else as well. It's all there in black and white. Now everybody reading this thread reads back and looks at you and thinks you're a twat. Just like they think about the liberals here.

Completely shameful behavior on your part because you want to protect "Muh feels" and can't be a man about it. 

The gov't did not substantially warn people about the risks, they pretended it's like any other vaccine, they are not standing behind people who have been hurt by the vaccine, you've had an emotional response that has caused you to look like a twat with absolutely childish behavior. 

Pretty simple facts.  You should be ashamed. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They are each and every time and everybody can see it and now you look like a complete twat. I've answered the threat thing about three times now. The rest of them were all answered as well. In detail.

Pooped your pants again huh kid?

So... you just want to keep claiming you did something you didn't over and over again?

If you have all this time to sit here acting like this, just prove it. Show me you answered all those questions. 

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Answering the question Did

Where?

 

[Goddess]

NIH Researchers Charged in Smuggling of Monkeypox Into US - Newsweek

 

Two scientists working for the NIH were arrested at Detroit Metro Airport.

Mr. Munster is not just any scientist at NIH, he is Chief of the Virus Ecology Section at the NIH's Bio4 lab in Hamilton, Montana.  And Mr. Kwe is a "research fellow" in Mr. Munster's section.  Their job is to "study emerging viral pathogens" and how they "cross the species barrier".

Sound familiar?  It should:

Suffice to say - these 2 would know how viruses are to be transported.

So, did these 2 highly trained, BSL4 level, health experts transport their latest research samples from the Congo to Montana in a secure, military-grade biological containment transport system in a special reinforced military aircraft?

No.  They jammed them into a plastic suitcase and boarded a commercial airliner.  Full of passengers who were unaware that just a few rows away the Chief of Virus Ecology was sitting in coach with a carry-on full of monkeypox.

Here we have........The Experts.™

They were on their way back from Brazzaville, Congo which by sheer coincidence (everything is now a "coincidence" in virology 🙄) was experiencing a monkeypox outbreak.

When questioned about what the case contained, they calmed replied, "Diagnostics and testing equipment."

When authorities opened the case, it did NOT contain diagnostics & testing equipment.  It contained 113 vials.

The FBI, who have recently become suspicious of NIH scientists who lie about concealed virus samples, have tested 20 of the vials, so far.  The delightful results?  17 of the vials contain "deactivated" monkeypox virus.  2 vials contain chickenpox virus and 1 contains human DNA.

I remind you that in 2014, CDC found dozens of staff infected with anthrax from vials labeled "fully inactivated", but which actually contained live spores.  That same year, some old vials at an NIH campus labeled "deactivated variola" (SMALLPOX) were found to contain live virus.  FDA Review of the 2014 Discovery of Vials Labeled "Variola" and Other Vials Discovered in an FDA-Occupied Building on the NIH Campus

US Attorney Jerome Gorgon Jr. sums it up quite nicely:

“These NIH experts apparently broke our laws by smuggling viral pathogens on a packed commercial airplane from an outbreak in the Republic of Congo. Let that sink in.”

Jennifer Runyan, FBI Special Agent with the Detroit Field Office reminds the credential class:

“No researchers should believe their positions, credentials, or professional status place them above the law.”

Nice sentiment, but let's be honest.  They absolutely believe they are above the law.  And why wouldn't they?

They work for the NIH, which has spent the last several years telling us they ARE.... **The Science**, NEVER EVER EVER do your own research and anyone who does is a Neanderthal who eats horse paste.

What was their motive?  Why would senior NIH scientists risk federal prison?  Why were they taking such a chance?

Well......sneaking samples into the US accomplishes one very valuable objective:

It erases the chain of custody.

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Goddess

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, User said:

So... you just want to keep claiming you did something you didn't over and over again?

 

You mean stating the truth? Kid every single person here can see you're a liar and I know you're a liar. You're achieving nothing and hiding nothing. Anybody can look through the responses above and see that I absolutely answered your questions every time till I got fed up with you asking the same thing.

Every single one of them. There's nothing I didn't answer you just keep asking and demanding the same thing over and over again like a line little twat

Quote

If you have all this time to sit here acting like this, just prove it.

I did. They're above. They're right there every single question answered

Everybody can read it. Many of them answered more than once. But you run like a coward and fill your pants rather than deal with those answers because it hurts your feelings

[User]

Just now, CdnFox said:

You mean stating the truth? Kid every single person here can see you're a liar and I know you're a liar. You're achieving nothing and hiding nothing. Anybody can look through the responses above and see that I absolutely answered your questions every time till I got fed up with you asking the same thing.

Every single one of them. There's nothing I didn't answer you just keep asking and demanding the same thing over and over again like a line little twat

Just saying it is true doesn't make it so. You pretending that everyone on here is on your side doesn't make it so and is little more than an appeal to popularity fallacy. I need to go back and look, you might hit every single known logical fallacy in this thread LOL. 

So, again, you just want to keep at this or maybe actually back up your assertions this time?

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I did. They're above. They're right there every single question answered

Everybody can read it. Many of them answered more than once. But you run like a coward and fill your pants rather than deal with those answers because it hurts your feelings

No, you didn't. Just claiming you answered them doesn't make it so. Eh, read the part above again about the appeal to popularity fallacy... 

So, again, you just want to keep at this or maybe actually back up your assertions this time?

[Goddess]

If you're interested in further reading about this incident and why it's important, see Dr. Robert Malone's substack from today, HERE:

https://www.malone.news/p/the-next-pandemic-starts-here?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=200437488&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=1x9svr&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

 

Also a good explanation of how gain-of-function research is financed and why it needs to stop.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, User said:

Just saying it is true doesn't make it so. You pretending that everyone on here is on your side doesn't make it so and is little more than an appeal to popularity fallacy. I need to go back and look, you might hit every single known logical fallacy in this thread LOL. 

So, again, you just want to keep at this or maybe actually back up your assertions this time?

No, you didn't. Just claiming you answered them doesn't make it so. Eh, read the part above again about the appeal to popularity fallacy... 

So, again, you just want to keep at this or maybe actually back up your assertions this time?

It's true because it's true. 

There's no "side".  People can see i answered you're questions and you're being  twat. That's not a 'side' that's simple truth. If i said the sun rose in the east this morning, people who agreed woudn't be taking my 'side'. 

You should be deeply ashamed of your behavior. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

If you're interested in further reading about this incident and why it's important, see Dr. Robert Malone's substack from today, HERE:

https://www.malone.news/p/the-next-pandemic-starts-here?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=200437488&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=1x9svr&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

 

Also a good explanation of how gain-of-function research is financed and why it needs to stop.

From the article...a good explanation of what really really needs to stop.

The issue is that one branch of the federal government looked at this research direction and saw danger, while another branch funded and encouraged the same research ecosystem.

Maybe some sort emphasis on the x's people cast at election time would help. Like a bold x instead of just a plain old x.  Capitalize it too X...that oughta do it for sure.

 

[User]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's true because it's true. 

There's no "side".  People can see i answered you're questions and you're being  twat. That's not a 'side' that's simple truth. If i said the sun rose in the east this morning, people who agreed woudn't be taking my 'side'. 

You should be deeply ashamed of your behavior. 

Maybe you can get one of those people to show me where you think you answered my questions... 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

Maybe you can get one of those people to show me where you think you answered my questions... 

 

Are you unable to figure out how to read back in a thread?

Kid, you're fooling no one. This is just beyond sad.  You let emotions beat your reason and now you look like a twat.