|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph?  I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. You are in a debate with a bloke that literally believes wombats, platypus, bandicoots, wallabies walked to Australia 4500 years ago. You have more chance of convincing a house brick it's a washing machine than getting fuckstick to change his mind. And then the fool has the hide to talk about being a 'truth seeker'.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. I can only share my strategy for navigating this fog of craziness. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? You see, we live in a society where people feel very comfortable with resorting to dirty tactics to help their side win. No feeling of guilt. It's the philosophy of "the means justifies the end". No morals. The only thing that matters to such people is that their team wins. It their team wins by cheating, they're happy. This is why the only way to navigate this craziness is (1) for you yourself to try to stick to plain language, and (2) when your opponents use twisted-definitions of what used to be plain words, you go through the analysis of perceiving what they would have said, if they had used plain language. I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. Even though what I'm saying to you is potentially insulting and hurtful to you, only a person who cares for your future would take the risk of hurting you in that manner, in order that ultimate good may come out of it. I have no benefit in taking cheap shots at you. If you review all my statements on this ftbl forum, there's the ultimate motive of a hope that people will become truth seekers. (If you seek truth, you will find the Truth).
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. You are in a debate with a bloke that literally believes wombats, platypus, bandicoots, wallabies walked to Australia 4500 years ago. You have more chance of convincing a house brick it's a washing machine than getting fuckstick to change his mind. And then the fool has the hide to talk about being a 'truth seeker'. I think logically by always considering the different permutations: 1) If there is no God, then Muz is stating wisdom. If there is no God, there is no supernatural element in life. If there is no God, then animals could not moved from the location probably in modern Turkey all the way to Australia. 2) If there is a God, then there is a supernatural element to life. A God, by definition, is spirit. Therefore, if there is a God, then the things written in the Bible are potentially true. Muz lamblasts me from his worldview of there being no God. But he is silly because the process of proving whether the God of the Bible does, or does not exist - does not start by testing whether - to quote him - "wombats, platypus, bandicoots, wallabies walked to Australia 4500 years ago". It starts, rather, with the evidence and proof offered by Jesus Christ for who he is. And if Jesus Christ is who he says he is, then the Bible records even more massively supernatural things than "wombats, platypus, bandicoots, wallabies walked to Australia 4500 years ago".
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. I'm only going to respond to the two relevant statements in here (I've cut the rest out of your quote) - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate. This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. But anyways, I've made my stance on what I consider 'anti-vaxer' to be. Carrying on about who's truth is truer lends credence to what I think about the term 'anti-vaxer'
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. All human beings engage in sin. And both sides are comprised of sinful human beings. Heck, even A.I. does it because, it its inception, A.I. is software programmed by sinful human beings. Did you see the A.I. that portrayed America's founding fathers as black people? https://nypost.com/2024/02/21/business/googles-ai-chatbot-gemini-makes-diverse-images-of-founding-fathers-popes-and-vikings-so-woke-its-unusable/https://www.wired.com/story/google-gemini-woke-ai-image-generation/https://nypost.com/2024/02/22/business/google-pauses-absurdly-woke-gemini-ai-chatbots-image-tool-after-backlash-over-historically-inaccurate-pictures/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/02/28/is-googles-gemini-chatbot-woke-by-accident-or-designAnd society is moving towards A.I. controlling our rights, e.g. an A.I. determining who gets banned on YouTube.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. But anyways, I've made my stance on what I consider 'anti-vaxer' to be. Carrying on about who's truth is truer lends credence to what I think about the term 'anti-vaxer' Your definition is actually reasonable. But its not the definition the mainstream media and their audience who lean politically to the left use. Even if you are pro-vaccine in general, they label you anti-vaxer if you express criticism of the *COVID* vaccines specifically. And its more than just an objection to vaccines. An anti-vaxer is also someone who is stupid, below average IQ, uneducated and votes for conservative. The word ant-vaxer has been weaponized poltically.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. All human beings engage in sin. And both sides are comprised of sinful human beings. Heck, even A.I. does it because, it its inception, A.I. is software programmed by sinful human beings. Did you see the A.I. that portrayed America's founding fathers as black people? https://nypost.com/2024/02/21/business/googles-ai-chatbot-gemini-makes-diverse-images-of-founding-fathers-popes-and-vikings-so-woke-its-unusable/https://www.wired.com/story/google-gemini-woke-ai-image-generation/https://nypost.com/2024/02/22/business/google-pauses-absurdly-woke-gemini-ai-chatbots-image-tool-after-backlash-over-historically-inaccurate-pictures/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/02/28/is-googles-gemini-chatbot-woke-by-accident-or-designAnd society is moving towards A.I. controlling our rights, e.g. an A.I. determining who gets banned on YouTube. Fair points. Although.. YouTube isn't a public library, so.. they should have every right to enforce who gets banned on YouTube with whatever reason they see fit. I understand that I guess socially it almost is like a public library, but.. it's still not a 'public organisation' (in the sense that libraries are generally owned by governments or some NFP organisation). If you get what I'm saying. I don't like it either, but sometimes AI can assist well, sometimes it does the opposite. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. But anyways, I've made my stance on what I consider 'anti-vaxer' to be. Carrying on about who's truth is truer lends credence to what I think about the term 'anti-vaxer' Your definition is actually reasonable. But its not the definition the mainstream media and their audience who lean politically to the left use. Even if you are pro-vaccine in general, they label you anti-vaxer if you express criticism of the *COVID* vaccines specifically. And its more than just an objection to vaccines. An anti-vaxer is also someone who is stupid, below average IQ, uneducated and votes for conservative. The word ant-vaxer has been weaponized poltically. Also fair points. From the anti-vaxers I come across, I wouldn't even say they vote conservative, they generally vote crazy. Or for themselves. After establishing themselves as crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. But anyways, I've made my stance on what I consider 'anti-vaxer' to be. Carrying on about who's truth is truer lends credence to what I think about the term 'anti-vaxer' Your definition is actually reasonable. But its not the definition the mainstream media and their audience who lean politically to the left use. Even if you are pro-vaccine in general, they label you anti-vaxer if you express criticism of the *COVID* vaccines specifically. And its more than just an objection to vaccines. An anti-vaxer is also someone who is stupid, below average IQ, uneducated and votes for conservative. The word ant-vaxer has been weaponized poltically. Also fair points. From the anti-vaxers I come across, I wouldn't even say they vote conservative, they generally vote crazy. Or for themselves. After establishing themselves as crazy. “City of Melbourne is last, Yarra is second last and other leftie, greenie, progressive heartlands of the professional middle class are near the bottom too,” he said. “My theory is we have a relatively large cohort of Byron Bay-type lifestylists into alternate medicine who think they know better than the health professionals. “They go to the gym every day, they have their decaf almond latte every morning, and they think they’re immune.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/byron-bay-type-lifestylists-blamed-for-low-vax-rates-in-inner-city-melbourne-20211005-p58xbx.html
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. But anyways, I've made my stance on what I consider 'anti-vaxer' to be. Carrying on about who's truth is truer lends credence to what I think about the term 'anti-vaxer' Your definition is actually reasonable. But its not the definition the mainstream media and their audience who lean politically to the left use. Even if you are pro-vaccine in general, they label you anti-vaxer if you express criticism of the *COVID* vaccines specifically. And its more than just an objection to vaccines. An anti-vaxer is also someone who is stupid, below average IQ, uneducated and votes for conservative. The word ant-vaxer has been weaponized poltically. Also fair points. From the anti-vaxers I come across, I wouldn't even say they vote conservative, they generally vote crazy. Or for themselves. After establishing themselves as crazy. “City of Melbourne is last, Yarra is second last and other leftie, greenie, progressive heartlands of the professional middle class are near the bottom too,” he said. “My theory is we have a relatively large cohort of Byron Bay-type lifestylists into alternate medicine who think they know better than the health professionals. “They go to the gym every day, they have their decaf almond latte every morning, and they think they’re immune.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/byron-bay-type-lifestylists-blamed-for-low-vax-rates-in-inner-city-melbourne-20211005-p58xbx.html That article was 2.5 years ago in the early months of the vaccine rollout, when there was not a significant amount of data, except for early warnings in the early data. (Those early warnings would have sufficient to halt previous vaccines, but because of the pandemic, the authorities pushed forward knowing that "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make," - quoting Lord Farquaad.) So the early-rejecters might have included a lot of Byron Bay latte crowd. Now, 2.5 years later, the data and evidence is pouring out like a firehose. So the decisions now can be made with widespread data. When data shifts, you do not be entrenched in a decision made on old data. For example, I myself followed the weekly NSW Health Department's death and sickness figures. Admittedly, early in 2020, the death rate of un-vaxed people was higher than the vaxed (that's the vax-rate, not total vaxed people). But in 2021, the data did a 180 degree switch, with the death rate of vaxed exceeding the un-vaxed. That is why people like Dr John Campbell said that, because of this shift in data, the risk-benefit of the Covid vaccines swung to the opposite side. From 2021 onwards, the risks from the Covid vaccines outweighed the benefits, Dr Campbell concluded from studying the data - not from sipping lattes.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething I read for work today: "that just proves that the greatest risk of vaccines is knowing your local anti vaccer … cause everyone they know has adverse events …" In today's sheep mentality, the phrase "follow the science" means -- shut up and do not question the consensus. Whereas, when I was receiving my education, "follow the science" means follow the facts and evidence, even if everyone says it is wrong. NicCarBel, It sounds like you've been moulded in the sheep-mentality? If you just ridicule people because of labels - vaxer, antivaxer - then that's the trait of the mob. They don't look at facts and evidence. They just move as a mob to create a loud noise to drown out those citing facts and evidence. Look at Pfizer's data, and search for the term "thrombosis" (medical word for "blood clot" - and note that it appears 105 times in Pfizer's document on side effects from the Covid vaccines. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfIf you're a crowd-follower, you'll just jeer at me and label me an anti-vaxer. Note that all the doctors, who are warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines, for their entire careers were pro-vaccines. Suddenly, when they saw dangers with this new technology, the entire pharma and media system turned on them, labelling them as "anti-vax". Can you not see through the thick cloud of darkness, and realise that a doctor - who has been pro-vax for decades, and even being chairman of FDA committees that approve of new vaccines - when that doctor sounds a warning of dangers of a new technology-vaccine, he is not anti-vax. In your Charlie-Brown cloud that shouds you, can you see the logic of what I've written in these two paragraph? I guess just 9,199,999 more to convince... Have you lived long enough to realise that having a university degree does not make a person wise. That extends to medical degrees. Being a doctor does not make that person a wise person. The fact is, most doctors just follow what their medical boards tell them with no research done by themselves. A friend, whose wife is a doctor in Australia, told me that his wife is so busy with medical practice that she did not have time to research the Covid news, watch the (so-called conspiracy videos, etc etc). She just followed the TGA's directions. And you know that Australian doctors can lose their medical licences if they go against the TGA's directives. But he said, when his doctor-wife did take time to study all the data and information coming out, she turned her stance towards realising that the Covid vaccines are dangerous. As another local doctor said to me, even if the doctors realise the Covid vaccines are dangerous, "what can they do"? The doctors cannot do anything because if they are reported as being against the Covid vaccines, they lose their jobs. Here are two videos of Australian doctors who chose to lose their jobs, rather than go along with the sham of the Covid vaccines being "safe and effective". https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.html https://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.html
That was a year ago. Now in late 2023, Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287
Sounds like every doctor is a different opinion then, so there’s no point trying to force anyone’s opinions on anyone else at all. And yes, that works both ways. No one is trying to force an opinion. The aim of the exercise is to let people gain access to information, so that they can make an "informed decision" - rather than forcing them to follow a particular doctor's opinion, simply because that doctor happens to have gotten a job with the government. And forcing people to follow that government doctor's opinion, otherwise you'll lose your job. And forcing ALL Australian doctors to follow protocol for fear of losing their jobs. I realise, on the other hand, that there have to be some regulation and boundaries. Yes, well.. that's not the rhetoric I see on a day to day basis. So you cannot discern the difference between rhetoric versus passion? That's telling. No, I just see these types of things daily for work. The general rhetoric is either: "You're crazy, you're an anti-vaxxer, everything you say is a lie, don't tell me how to live" or "You're crazy you let people tell you how to live. Here's an hour long video that is not relevant at all to what I'm trying to tell you." Basically just both ends of the spectrum. Once the information is out there, it's out there, sure. It's up to everyone else to make their decisions. Just because there's a loud minority (on both sides), doesn't mean that either is correct. What I don't enjoy seeing is people using misinformation to tell their story, which I've seen you do in this thread. Sure, not all of it will be. But some of it just straight up is. That's why I don't make any claims about what's good for people and what's not - unless I've seen directly first hand how things have worked (I.E the steroids discussion with Enzo). There's a reason hearsay evidence isn't allowed in court. You want to share information? Sure, go ahead. But you leave yourself open to everyone trying to fill the holes in that information with gunpowder. - try to use plain, accurate language. (If you indulge in slurs and insults such as "anti-vaxer", then you're gone. No hope. It then becomes an insult-fest). After all, what precisely is an "anti-vaxer"? Which of these fit your personal definition of anti-vaxer? 1) a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous? 2). a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines, and for decades has been seen as an expert in cardiology and medicine, who, suddenly sees data in the year 2021 that sets alarm bells ringing in his professional opinion. And he warns that a new vaccine, entering the market, is dangerous. Is that an "anti-vaxer"? I perceive you, NicCarBel, have NOT taken such precautions. I see that the way you think, and the way you speak, is like a person whose prime influences in life have been celebrities and influencers on TikTok and Instagram. I say that, because you use the term "anti-vaxer" with no prior attempt to define what you mean when you use that expression. Hence, at this stage, you're just one of the crowd. - Obviously, the answer is 1. Are you trying to say you are "a university professor who has been chairman of F.D.A. committees tasked with giving the go-ahead to new vaccines"?
In real terms, my definition of 'anti-vaxer' is - like you said for your first option, "a person who refuses to take literally any vaccination, and regards every vaccination as potentially dangerous", but with the addition of "and has no regard for other people's individual choices that they've not refused to take vaccinations, and forces misinformation upon them." - Lol, I am nowhere near TikTok, celebrities, Instagram or influencers. If you say that, because I've used a term with no prior attempt to define what I mean when using an expression, well... I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary now so you know the meaning of every single word I can possibly use.
Be prudent. Obviously, from what I've written over the last few years, I'm not a university professor in the field of vaccines. But my description was of Dr Peter McCullough, who has been labelled as an "anti-vaxer" because he is warning of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. It's an indictment that the bulk of the following Masses copy the Media in labelling the likes of Dr Peter McCullough as an "anti-vaxer". If I list the names of those who are warning of the Covid vaccines - Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Robert Malone, Dr John Campbell, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Aseem Malhotra, Dr Pierre Kory etc - all these doctors who for decades have prescribed vaccines, and many worked in top levels of the medical or vaccine professions. Suddenly, because they're sounding the warning alarm, they're labelled as "anti-vaxers". This is filthy tactics. No one cares that it is dirty tactics. It is "ad hominem" attacks. It is representative of a society that has lost its morals, that they can resort to this level of dialogue. It's like every person who disagrees with you (not you, but speaking generally) -- you slander in the foulest way, so that your opponents are destroyed by slander, rather than you proving them wrong by facts and scientific debate.
This is how the TV Media does it, and the people become like that, such that Australia is no longer the fair-minded society it used to be. To be honest, this is how both sides do it... Again, why I don't pay attention to media in general. But anyways, I've made my stance on what I consider 'anti-vaxer' to be. Carrying on about who's truth is truer lends credence to what I think about the term 'anti-vaxer' Your definition is actually reasonable. But its not the definition the mainstream media and their audience who lean politically to the left use. Even if you are pro-vaccine in general, they label you anti-vaxer if you express criticism of the *COVID* vaccines specifically. And its more than just an objection to vaccines. An anti-vaxer is also someone who is stupid, below average IQ, uneducated and votes for conservative. The word ant-vaxer has been weaponized poltically. Also fair points. From the anti-vaxers I come across, I wouldn't even say they vote conservative, they generally vote crazy. Or for themselves. After establishing themselves as crazy. “City of Melbourne is last, Yarra is second last and other leftie, greenie, progressive heartlands of the professional middle class are near the bottom too,” he said. “My theory is we have a relatively large cohort of Byron Bay-type lifestylists into alternate medicine who think they know better than the health professionals. “They go to the gym every day, they have their decaf almond latte every morning, and they think they’re immune.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/byron-bay-type-lifestylists-blamed-for-low-vax-rates-in-inner-city-melbourne-20211005-p58xbx.html As I said, crazy
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
"The student went to an “open day” event near Genoa in Italy on the 25th of May where she got vaccinated. She died shortly afterwards on the 18th of June in 2021. In the autopsy they found that she did not have any previous medical conditions and she had not taken any medication. They concluded that it was likely that she died from blood clots as a result of getting the covid vaccine." https://petersweden.substack.com/p/it-has-begun-italy-investigating
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
There never was any risk-benefit evidence that young healthy people should be getting the COVID vaccine. We now know that was because- for that group- the risks actually outweighed the benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
"One of the world’s leading virologists has warned the public that a “massive tsunami” of “chaos” and “death” is about to decimate the global Covid mRNA-vaccinated population. Dr. Bossche warns that a “huge, huge wave” of illness and deaths among those vaccinated for Covid is now “imminent.” The top scientist says this “massive tsunami” will collapse hospitals and cause financial, economic, and social “chaos.”" https://slaynews.com/news/top-virologist-warns-massive-tsunami-death-among-vaccinated-imminent/https://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-398-dr-geert-vanden-bossche-and-the-coming-acute-crisis-of-covid-among-the-vaccinated/
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Imminent like the imminent death of all those 'sportsmen dropping like flies'? That 'imminent'? Sounds like a great plot to a movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_(film)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Imminent ... as in, if you see a massive, noticeable spike in people in their 20's to 40's having heart problems, or dying from heart attacks -- which has not been the norm in the past -- just make a note of it. Please be assured. I am not hoping this will happen. Virtually all my extended family on both sides took the jabs. In Victoria only about 5% didn't. Virtually all my social circle and work colleagues took it. So I am hoping this guy is off-the-planet and totally wrong. But I also have collected over 3,000 links to scientific journal articles, website articles, videos on the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. Taking the totality of those articles as a big picture ... all I can say is, it's not giving a vague pattern. Instead, it's all pointing in one direction. Something to consider, along with your concept of kangaroos: "By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed ... The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries (original word pharmakon in ancient Greek) or their sexual immorality or their thefts." (The Bible, Book of Revelation chapter 9 verses 18-21)
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xImminent ... as in, if you see a massive, noticeable spike in people in their 20's to 40's having heart problems, or dying from heart attacks -- which has not been the norm in the past -- just make a note of it. Please be assured. I am not hoping this will happen. Virtually all my extended family on both sides took the jabs. In Victoria only about 5% didn't. Virtually all my social circle and work colleagues took it. So I am hoping this guy is off-the-planet and totally wrong. But I also have collected over 3,000 links to scientific journal articles, website articles, videos on the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. Taking the totality of those articles as a big picture ... all I can say is, it's not giving a vague pattern. Instead, it's all pointing in one direction. Something to consider, along with your concept of kangaroos: "By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed ... The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries (original word pharmakon in ancient Greek) or their sexual immorality or their thefts." (The Bible, Book of Revelation chapter 9 verses 18-21) Not sure why you're worried about your friends and family. Surely this is just an early version of the rapture which by all accounts is something you'll be welcoming with open arms. Have fun!
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xImminent ... as in, if you see a massive, noticeable spike in people in their 20's to 40's having heart problems, or dying from heart attacks -- which has not been the norm in the past -- just make a note of it. And if it doesn't happen will you admit you were wrong? Seems even you have doubts. Shouldn't you be saying 'when' not 'if'? I mean you have collected over 3000 links. I'd have thought you'd be pretty confident. Maybe your 3 year old prediction of 'sportsmen dropping like flies' that hasn't eventuated has perturbed you a little? Left you a little gun shy.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xImminent ... as in, if you see a massive, noticeable spike in people in their 20's to 40's having heart problems, or dying from heart attacks -- which has not been the norm in the past -- just make a note of it. And if it doesn't happen will you admit you were wrong? Seems even you have doubts. Shouldn't you be saying 'when' not 'if'? I mean you have collected over 3000 links. I'd have thought you'd be pretty confident. Maybe your 3 year old prediction of 'sportsmen dropping like files' that hasn't eventuated has perturbed you a little? Left you a little gun shy. I thought it was a spoiler, not a prediction?
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xImminent ... as in, if you see a massive, noticeable spike in people in their 20's to 40's having heart problems, or dying from heart attacks -- which has not been the norm in the past -- just make a note of it. Please be assured. I am not hoping this will happen. Virtually all my extended family on both sides took the jabs. In Victoria only about 5% didn't. Virtually all my social circle and work colleagues took it. So I am hoping this guy is off-the-planet and totally wrong. But I also have collected over 3,000 links to scientific journal articles, website articles, videos on the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. Taking the totality of those articles as a big picture ... all I can say is, it's not giving a vague pattern. Instead, it's all pointing in one direction. Something to consider, along with your concept of kangaroos: "By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed ... The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries (original word pharmakon in ancient Greek) or their sexual immorality or their thefts." (The Bible, Book of Revelation chapter 9 verses 18-21) Not sure why you're worried about your friends and family. Surely this is just an early version of the rapture which by all accounts is something you'll be welcoming with open arms. Have fun! Gosh, you know about the Rapture? How is that?
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xImminent ... as in, if you see a massive, noticeable spike in people in their 20's to 40's having heart problems, or dying from heart attacks -- which has not been the norm in the past -- just make a note of it. Please be assured. I am not hoping this will happen. Virtually all my extended family on both sides took the jabs. In Victoria only about 5% didn't. Virtually all my social circle and work colleagues took it. So I am hoping this guy is off-the-planet and totally wrong. But I also have collected over 3,000 links to scientific journal articles, website articles, videos on the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. Taking the totality of those articles as a big picture ... all I can say is, it's not giving a vague pattern. Instead, it's all pointing in one direction. Something to consider, along with your concept of kangaroos: "By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed ... The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries (original word pharmakon in ancient Greek) or their sexual immorality or their thefts." (The Bible, Book of Revelation chapter 9 verses 18-21) Not sure why you're worried about your friends and family. Surely this is just an early version of the rapture which by all accounts is something you'll be welcoming with open arms. Have fun! Gosh, you know about the Rapture? How is that? It's called an education. Try it.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
"Pfizer just quietly (with zero media coverage) released the results of an obligatory post-marketing study of the effects of its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant women ... the rate of congenital defects was 4X higher in the group who received the shot. Because there has been ZERO media coverage of these results, Pfizer has not been obliged to address this extremely alarming fact." https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/a-wretched-hive-of-scum-and-villainyhttps://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04754594?
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
(Quote) "... suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813024022323?via%3Dihubhttps://twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/1780290082273902877This is exactly what medical professor Angus Dalgliesh, professor of oncology at St George's, University of London, has been observing among his patients. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBz-jHDy_w
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
here js, how good is this poster. You can just add your cause to the image. This is from anti-vaxxers back in the day protesting against the smallpox vaccine lol
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
This one's just as good. Because they derived the vaccines from cows people were scaremongering that people would be 'infected' by cows. Here's a cheery picture. https://www.virginiaheathromance.com/single-post/2017/03/14/Defeating-the-Speckled-Monster-1 In case the picture didn't embed it's the one in the article with cows erupting from vaccinated people.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
The best thing about all this anti vaccine, 5G, smart cities, ISS is fake, rich elites and name any other conspiracy is the vast majority of it originates from troll farms in Russia and China and then is picked up by gullible fools in the west. They are literally undermining western democracy, faith in the government, institutions, the rule of law and science and fools like Enzo and Rusty are literally cheering them on. I think I read something like 70% of all vaccination misinformation on the internet originated from just 12 people. I'll see if I can find a link. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/17/covid-misinformation-conspiracy-theories-ccdh-reporthttps://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxeshttps://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2021/03/12-people-responsible-more-half-covid-19-vaccine-disinformation-dozen-anti-vaxx
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|