Quote from: franky1 on March 19, 2020, 12:20:30 PM

the reason for, what you call 'getting triggered' is simple
many people on this forum in many topics form 'ideas' and 'hypothesis' and make 'ICO prospectuses' but initial they word it as fact/sustainable project. helpful info. but then later go back and say that they are not doing harm, its only an idea/hypothesis

they lack actually doing real research to back up their info. instead they just search quotes that sound like it supports their idea. but dont actually critically think if their ideda is fact or fiction.

I lack the ability to ignore everything but a single 'corp/gov approved' storyline no matter how ridiculous it might be. Little thing called 'Occam's Razor' interferes. I wouldn't say I envy people who don't have a problem doing it even though I'm sure it makes your life a lot less mentally demanding.

Quote from: franky1 on March 19, 2020, 12:20:30 PM

its like flatearthers. instead of actually experimenting and realising the earth is curved. they just google any quote that suggests its flat. and then use them niave quotes or mis represent the quote to entangle it into the fiction of their idea

Flat earth is a psy-op created for lazy idiots to use when they are losing an aurgument. Nobody believes it.

Quote from: franky1 on March 19, 2020, 12:20:30 PM

..
as for putting numbers to it. and answering why covid19 is more serious than 2002's sars.. the answer is simple R0
2002s sars only had a transmission rate of near 1
this means in a 14 day period with all the people you come into contact with your probably only going to pass it onto 1 person
with the 2019 varient its more like 3

now if you know anything about pyramid scams and odds and ratios' and multiplication (all math/numbers games) you would know simple stuff like
fortnight: 1 2 3 4 5 6
2002: 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.8
2019 2.6 6.8 17.6 45.7 118.8 308.9

(simple note: the 6th fortnight 4.8/308 numbers are not numbers of people dying/severe. thats numbers of people getting it. the numbers of severe/ symptomatic/critical are much lover)

over 12 weeks alot more people are getting 2019
and no. dont even try t say that R0 is just some myth pulled out of my ass.. its actually a thing

the other thing is that when someone gets the symptoms (smal amount who actually feel it) with 2002 it was 2 days from infection. and those people usually call into work and have a few sick days and stay in bed
however 2019 varient is not noticed for 5-7 days meaning overall they touch more people, they visit vulnerable people thinking they are fine and so pass it on without knowing.

the third thing is the virus. although it is sars/corona base. it is not the exact same as 2002. this 2019 one can cause pneumonia. meaning its stronger than 2002 in all the ways i explained in this post.

You bring up some irrelevant and simplistic concepts that everyone already knows and accepts why? How many brownie points do you think you deserve for this rather pathetic exhibition?

Quote from: nullius on March 18, 2020, 11:05:29 AM

Quote

Hey, anti-vaxers, here is a challenge for you: I will publicly support you, if you will be the first to step up and declare that much though we may wish otherwise, we need some more dead kids in each generation—to prevent unlimited mass suffering and potential extinction in all the generations yet unborn.

I need not reach the question of how bad the side effects of vaccines are or aren’t. Of course, all medicines have side effects. Whether vaccines are benign except in a few rare, unfortunate cases, or causing widespread injuries about which The Truth is suppressed by The Medical Establishment, the answer is irrelevant to me.

[...] I don’t need to know medicine: I know history. People used to have eight, ten, or even twenty (yes, literally, twenty) kids with the knowledge that some would die, and others would survive...

tvbcof, want to take up my challenge here, where I can’t use self-mod powers to “censor” you? Stop being a wimp. Speak up for The Truth!

Glad to do it Mr. 'we need dead kids':

You guys crow all day long about being 'evidence based' and 'data driven', right? Well then, how about a vaxxed vs. non-vaxxed study to get some numbers?

It's actually a very simple study. Could at present be done to a statistically valid level by just evaluating existing data which is contained in secret databases. There is one catch:

- The study protocols need to be negotiated in public, the negotiations have to include individuals who are not tied to corp/gov and who respected by us realskeptics, and there needs to be auditable assurance that the protocols are adhered to.

Such a study will never happen. The corp/gov bodies who hold all the power at present have said plain and simple that they will NEVER do such a study. It fairly obvious to me that the reason is that they know exactly what they will find and they have no interest in finding it.

They would find the same thing this study found, except probably a lot worse.

Edit:

Just in case people don't get it, in order to calculate the number of 'dead kids', (and kids who are simply given life-long neurological disorders, autoimmune diseases, etc) we need the numbers that can be expected from the different vaccine regime options we have to choose from.

We are sitting at a point where 1 in 2 children are on perscription meds already, or some crazy thing like that. Autism has gone from 1/10,000 when I was a kid to something like 1/40. Not having things like the vaxxed vs. un-vaxxed study allows corp/gov to say 'we have no information' that vaccines can cause blah, blah, blah.

Some people, including myself, strongly suspect that we are FAR past the point where the number of 'dead kids' is worth protecting people from things like chicken-pox, mumps, etc which hardly ever killed anyone. And, in fact, probably contributed to healthy 'herd immunity' back when they were allowed to run their natural course.

But without proper studies these kinds of cost/benefit scenarios cannot be computed. We now know that the CDC does NOT have the 'mountains' of studies showing no association between vaccines and health outcomes because www.icandecide.org sued them. In fact they could not produce ANY valid ones which were responsive to the FOIA request. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJUjnY_FGNQ