Posted on 07/22/2022 9:25:07 PM PDT by grundle
Congrats to you on having a kind and understanding boss instead of a bean-counting jerk.
And double congrats on your recovery: prayers up that your side effects from your jab are done with.
Apparently you failed to read my second sentence. There were only two.
Also, 20 years ago, not all news was instantly transmitted the world around in seconds online. And I would say a considerably higher number of people are considered "celebrities" these days. Apples to oranges.
And apparently I failed to re-read my post. There were three sentences. I meant the third, not second. I have no doubts nefarious things are occurring with the “vaccines.”
Meanwhile, here’s another unattended unexpected...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-melanie-rauscher-dead-35-27563716#
There’s still more wrong with this piece. Apparently Root didn’t bother to check out the sources he cited for his claims any more than he bothered to check causes for the celebrity deaths he listed.
The source he cited for his claim that “The Covid vaccine damages and destroys the immune system like a form of AIDS” is a letter to the editor of the Virology Journal* by a Japanese doctor, which in turn was entirely based on a gross misrepresentation or misunderstanding of a study published in The Lancet**. If you check out The Lancet study, you find it says no such thing. It does show the vaccines’ efficacy wanes considerably over time (and recommends boosters):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8816388/
The source for his claim that “91% of those in the UK who have died of Covid this year are triple or quadruple vaccinated” is none other than The Expose (eye roll), that paragon of journalistic integrity that has brought us such crackpot claims as the vaccines being full of graphene oxide and snake venom — oh, and they gives you monkeypox, too.
As for the article and claim itself, it was already discussed on this thread:
It was a remarkably reasonable and sane thread for once, considering the source and subject matter. Most questioned the numbers, and rightfully so, as The Expose is notorious for “lies, darn lies, and (twisted) statistics”:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4080210/posts
I provided links to the original source The Expose claimed to have used and showing the numbers here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4080210/posts?page=54#54
Yes, Grundle, your skepticism was warranted. I’d take anything this guy said with a shovel full of salt.
*Virology Journal has a miserably low ranking:
https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/130035
** The Lancet is of course highly ranked and reputable (but not infallible):
https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/16590
She probably died from snorting dust cleaner:
“Naked and Afraid” contestant Melanie Rauscher has died under mysterious circumstances in Arizona — her body was recently found near cans of dust cleaner, TMZ has learned.
https://www.tmz.com/2022/07/24/naked-afraid-melanie-rauscher-dead-dies/
Yes, it can kill you:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/duster-drug
The exact same thing I heard from a friend that is a nurse at a hospital. And the exact same thing friend that was hospitalized for this condition said he was told by the doctor treating him.
I hate to butt in, but I have some questions.
Isn’t there already a walled garden on the site that is carefully patrolled and guarded against dissent? Or have the rules that govern that thread now been extended to the rest of the board?
If that’s the case, how are we supposed to know which threads can be commented on, and which are off limits? At what point does a thread become immune to contrary opinion? And who determines who gets to speak once the acceptable point of view of the thread has been established?
Just trying to get a little clarity here.
*chuckles*.
Next to internet typos, one of the most frustrating things: making an error while refuting someone else.
It’s all good.
I have no idea about walled gardens. To your other point I think it is very obvious that certain posters insult others points of view as “embarrassing”, conspiracy theories, “kool-aid drinkers”, etc. and say these things over and over again. Read these threads. But, you are smart enough to figure it out, I’m sure.
Good grief you write so well.
Your ability to explain your thoughts and in historical context is extremely good.
How can you get an Editorial Column? Someplace big.
Of course if I ever disagree with you on any given topic I’ll have to ignore your comments and pretend I never saw them. 😆
A book on this very topic taking us through Q and the Pandemic and all of the wonders thereof to date, I wonder if it would do well.
There are a lot a families broken up due to these subjects.
Not just couples but Grandparents not welcomed anymore, siblings estranged, etc.
Then there are situations were families have a common bond.
For example the Liberal Democrats in my family and I both agree the cultish behaviors, bizarre conspiracy life is harmful to participants mentally, socially and even with personal health sitting on the internet for hours and hours days and weeks at time looking to save the world by posting “solid” evidence Joe Biden’s ears are not the same.
It kept us together even though in politics we are light years apart.
A historical book, chronologically carrying us until now or whenever you finish the book would give generations from now the knowledge that the whole world isn’t batshit crazy. 😆🤣😂
Included of course, how did it all happen? So many contributing factors. Dishonest media, corrupt government, and simple a void, to name a few.
Thanks for posting. HOORAY W.A.R.
R. I.P. dear friend, Doug.
BTTT
“No, it means that unlike you, he’s able to think for himself.”
I know how you think. And it’s pretty amusing.
I remember the time that you copied an entire PubMed article, graphs and all, and then got the conclusion entirely wrong. Oops.
Someone on the thread asked what the study said so I showed him where to find the clearly marked *conclusion* in the article which was exactly the opposite of what you were claiming.
I don’t know if you simply aren’t bright enough to read these studies or you were counting on no one bothering to wade through the one that you posted. Either way thanks for laugh.
How’s the Daily Expose doing these days? You still mining that one for the latest in cutting edge medicine?
“By looking at the fatality rate and who was dying (elderly with co-morbidities). This was known very early on, “
So you can point to information published “early on” to back this up, right? Something from Nature or NIH?
“The first 500 links you view are a good start.”
I bow to the expertise of a boilerplate authority.
Having read the 500 you will certainly be able to select 10 that are particularly outstanding. List them here and I’ll see what you find to be convincing.
“Trump seemed to know. He said it would all clear up in the Spring (of 2020).”
The Trump that initiated Project Warp Speed with the goal of creating vaccines by January 2021?
The same Trump who remains proud of those vaccines and recommends them?
I’ll leave you and your new pal Birx to sort out what she meant. It looks like she was doing what most people do, make up something that sounds good and then run with it, the facts be damned.
“How does that comport with your knowledge of virology?”
Well I’m sure that from your own extensive training you know that vaccines teach your immune system to fight a particular pathogen. That’s what they have done since Edward Jenner used cowpox inoculations.
They aren’t a guarantee that you won’t get sick. Flu vaccines are only 40%-60% effective. Yet they are still vaccines.
So the absence of evidence is proof. Got it.
“The ‘vaccines’ are causing long lasting damage all over the country”
Really? Did you find that reported in Daily Expose when you were doing your research?
Yes, the omnipotent all-knowing Trump. Of course that's sarcasm. Funny how so many people who will still vote for Trump disagree with him on this. Could it be that goes to show that distrusting the jab is an indication of independent thinking?
You, on the other hand, seem to have a one track mind. You have faith only in your approved list of scientists and their sacrosanct institutions and publications. If they're not funded by the money grubbing pharmaceutical companies (you think they're not?), then these outsider scientists, institutions, and publications are only worthy of your derision. For you, like the old joke "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true", it's "I read it in Scientific American, so it must be true".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.