Posted on 10/14/2021 10:20:42 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Lame.
All US Presidents,And their wives.
In #61 above are two red flags which you could address but you won’t because you do not possess the knowledge and experience to competently respond. Instead you launched an ad hominem attack. This is a sure sign of character defect. You would never survive in the scientific community, not even a day.
You should not create threads on science issues because you are not qualified to lead discussions. You may create science related threads if you have enough sense to stay out of the discussion. Clearly,you do not possess such sense.
Oct. 16, 2021 - Dr. Landers said the vaccines decrease your risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death.
October 15, 2021 - New CDC data shows the risk of dying from Covid-19 is 11 times higher for unvaccinated adults than for fully vaccinated adults
Jab: Scientist Discovers Hatching Eggs, Parasites Birthed After Injection (partial transcript, some images from 14 min video, related links)Because you are on some kind of crazy jihad against the vaccines so any anti-vaccine thread sits well with you, no matter how crazy.
Now you are trying to deflect by bringing in other things you found on the internet.
You posted The Guardian’s EPI-PHARE material. How about you stick to the material you posted and respond to the two points in #61?
If you don’t respond to #61, it’s because you can’t. You’re not qualified, that is very clear.
You've revealed your lack of experience and knowledge. It is now clear you are not qualified to be involved in a discussion of an epidemiological presentation. Why you chose to do so is likely rooted in personal problems. Those like myself with substantial experience in medical research and clinical trials can see deficiencies in your response.I don't care what Rand Paul says (from your flaming post: Sen. Rand Paul Grills HHS Sec. Becerra: "Quit Lying To People About Natural Immunity") when President Trump recommends People get vaccinated.You would not have a seat at the table of experts discussing vaccine efficacy. But you are allowed to clutter a conservative forum with slanted opinions typical of the leftust UK Guardian and you do so without critical review instead calling those who advise you to balance your presentation with conflicting studies as "nutty conspiracy theorists." In doing so, you lower the quality of the discourse thereby causing the forum to appear not worthy of participation.
The Guardian article I posted provided the link you posted so credit given to the Guardian.
I responded again in post #84 with two links from the last couple of days that shows the vaccines work.
That's called on-topic.
You are a very befuddled person.
On the one hand you spam me demanding I answer your trolling post (which I did).
On the other hand you keep spamming me that I should not post.
It's clear you have no answer to post #84 and I exposed your crazy agenda in post #85. I spent enough of my time babysitting a dotard online who is critical of the article that actually provided the link you keep insisting I answer but that I should never post about.
Here they are so you can't run away to something else:
1. "Red flag that any reader can see is the small fraction of hospitalizations referenced whereas The Guardian is blasting numbers of tens of millions."
From #61 the EPI-PHARE is quoted. Here it is again.:
You will not be able to explain these two red flag defects of the Guardian/EPI-PHARE material, and there are many, many other defects.
Predictably, you will: (1) Spin the red flags and (2) make a personal attack [ad hominem].
Post #61 was Q Level Crazy Crap that you invented and keep insisting I have a reply for AND that I do not post.
Let me make clear: I don't care what a Qtard thinks of me, the vaccines or anything else...
What makes you believe Q is something to be frowned on? Were you influenced by the media campaign against Q? 94 posted on 10/10/2021, 3:43:11 PM by Hostage (Article V)Me thinks you joined all the hoopla against Q just because. Let’s see what you got against Q. I’ll bet you ain’t got squat. So let’s see your cards. 95 posted on 10/10/2021, 4:03:05 PM by Hostage (Article V)
Very good, you have put on a full display of how you have no qualification to lead a discussion of medical research.
The forum is demeaned by your thread graffiti.
You've revealed your lack of experience and knowledge. It is now clear you are not qualified to be involved in a discussion of an epidemiological presentation. Why you chose to do so is likely rooted in personal problems. Those like myself with substantial experience in medical research and clinical trials can see deficiencies in your response.You didn't like me calling you out as a conspiracy nut. But in the thread where you were defending Q (see links in my previous post), you were also defending Qrazy Lin Wood about his 9/11 conspiracy nut talk...You would not have a seat at the table of experts discussing vaccine efficacy. But you are allowed to clutter a conservative forum with slanted opinions typical of the leftust UK Guardian and you do so without critical review instead calling those who advise you to balance your presentation with conflicting studies as "nutty conspiracy theorists." In doing so, you lower the quality of the discourse thereby causing the forum to appear not worthy of participation.
Me personally, I have no knowledge because I’m not a direct witness. I’m just presenting the other side.It's hysterically funny that you know planes crashed into the World Trade Center because a "trustworthy friend" of a retaliative saw it happen.What I do have are family members in NYC. One of them is very intelligent and even keeled. He has a close friend who he says is trustworthy. My relative says this friend says he witnessed the 2nd plane flying into the Tower.
Legally this is all hearsay, so it doesn’t mean anything unless the direct witness backs it by an affidavit.
But in this case ‘I believe’ it because I know my relative is credible. So there’s one degree of separation but it involves someone I know personally.
This is ‘me’ saying this based on hearsay.
When/if I watch news videos, I am a retail consumer of news. Legally it’s true that I’m watching what others are producing, it’s not direct.
The news media has lost credibility. If Wood says we were played, I’m inclined to think “Yep” but I’d like to know some details. He will need to back up his statements. That’s still in process.
87 posted on 10/10/2021, 1:28:00 PM by Hostage (Article V)
Btw, it's also hysterically funny a Qtard is posting this to me:
You would not have a seat at the table of experts discussing vaccine efficacy.LMAO!
I exposed you as a Qtard conspiracy nut and whatever credibility you thought you had is crushed into the dust.
I call that great medical discussion leadership.
I think the individual that shall not be named is posting from deep in Adolph’s bunker.
;-)
Glad there is an audience, even a coward.
He does seem to be of that vein. Fortunately, I know some Germans that are quite admirable and respectable.
You know you won when the Qtards call you Hitler.
You know you have won when someone calls you a Qtard—when if they had done their homework they would know you have nothing to do with the Q crowd.
I know your type,
You are going to carry this butt-hurt a long time.
We really should get along...we are supposed to be on the same side.
Please—show some good faith and interest in fact-finding rather than propaganda.
You can do it!
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.