Sars_CoV2 In Retreat

The bad news is ~75+% of people fell for the first clot-shot clap-trap. The god news, only ~16-18% fell for all the follow on clot-shot boosters and now the booster notion is dead altogether, dropped like a rock. But then again, now they want to do annual clot-shots and most likely combined for the flu and the covid. Remains to be seen how many covidiots fall for that. My guess, that minuscule number will fit in a teensey dixie cup. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

What really needs to be done in this country to assure actual Healthcare is to allow Naturopathic Medicine to be included on Healthcare plans. Unlike allopathic Medicine Naturopathic Medicine strives to heal without the use of Drugs and Vaccines. Big Pharma has a strangle hold on the Healthcare Industry and society really isn't all that healthy because of it.

What really needs to be done in this country to assure actual Healthcare is to allow Naturopathic Medicine to be included on Healthcare plans. Unlike allopathic Medicine Naturopathic Medicine strives to heal without the use of Drugs and Vaccines. Big Pharma has a strangle hold on the Healthcare Industry and society really isn't all that healthy because of it. Originally Posted by Levianon17

What we need to do is the simple math. There are no less than 150 Million of us, aka Americans versus only about 250 or so Congress critters that need to go and plenty of lamp posts and natural hemp rope to go around in DC. Viva le French revolution! The rest -- we can sort out later. Hamilton pretty much eluded to that in the Federalist Papers, Federalist #46 in particular.

In the meantime, we could just do away with government sponsored censorship.

I'd like to see naturopathetic medicine cure gonorrhea or chlamydia....

I'd like to see naturopathetic medicine cure gonorrhea or chlamydia.... Originally Posted by reddog1951

Some conditions may require the use of Antibiotic but for short periods of time only. Just like an injury may require medications to suppress pain.

The link is in post #71 of this thread. It was in response to lev17's posted misinformation. Nothing of substance? It refuted lev17's claim about his bullshit about transmission.
The link did exactly what it was supposed to do. There was no mention of the video in the link (post #71 this thread).
The politifact link came from post #20 in response to post #19 which claimed Biden and Harris didn't trust the vaccine.

Interpretation is subjective? It couldn't be more straight forward. This video used partial quotes to convey a different message other than the message the full quote conveys.
Did the video use statements that had been edited? Yes.
From the politifact link.

"The TikTok video was posted on TikTok on May 11 and we found it was still being widely shared on Facebook in mid-July, more than a month after it was reposted there.

A June 15 Facebook post showing the video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed."
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...accines-not-v/

Even though facebook flagged it, they didn't take it down.
Post #91 includes the quoted post I was responding to.

So you didn't see the video but you say it sounds less misleading than other videos out there? That's as subjective as it gets. Politifact wasn't subjective. They factually pointed out that context containing important information was removed from the quotes.

The "article", was used to point out misinformation being posted about the method of cov19 transmission. The politifact article was posted to in response to a false claim about some quotes from Biden and Harris.

It's funny you complain about having to look for a link mentioned in the thread but issue a pass to flagrant and frequent false and misleading claims on a multitude of subjects by numerous posters.
What's up with that?

In the future, if somebody quotes someone or something, just enter a sentence of the quote into google.
Also, I don't do tik tok, rumble, twitter, facebook, or any of those either. Because of exactly what we're talking about.

Yes, my post stands on it's own. Because the information is correct. The quotes were edited to mislead the public about statements made by the president and vice president.
Once again you didn't read the links. Politifact clearly said the video was still on facebook. Facebook flagged the tik tok video but didn't remove it. It was still there in the middle of July. You're still heavy on using opinion as fact. Where are your links to back up your claims?

WHAT ARTICLE? Where was your link? Apparently we're supposed to search and find your source. Well, I just did, and there's nothing in it of substance that you didn't already quote, except mention of a Tik Tok video behind the bold black text in your post. And that Faceboook flagged and apparently removed the video from its site, as it has with other videos where politicians and others spread COVID misinformation. Your post stands on its own. And your and Politifact's interpretation is every bit as subjective as mine.

I haven't seen the video, and won't because I don't do Tik Tok. It sounds less misleading than a lot of political videos out there, from both Democrats and Republicans.

I was first in line for my age group to get the vaccine in February of 2021. I might have died from a COVID infection before the FDA ever approved the vaccines if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden had been president. I've since gotten boosters and never got a COVID infection to my knowledge. Thank goodness I didn't listen to BiKamala's fearmongering!

Thank you Big Pharma, especially Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech! And thank you President Trump and your team at the White House, DHHS, CDC, and NIH, who helped make the COVID vaccines available in record time!
What do Trump's legal problems, peoples' faith in election results, and my intelligence or lack thereof have to do with SARS_CoV2? Originally Posted by Tiny

What does any of your extraneous bullshit have to do with a post proving someone lied in a video? Go back to the examples you included. Look at the context they are used in. Just like my posts comment on the importance of context.

The link is in post #71 of this thread. It was in response to lev17's posted misinformation. Nothing of substance? It refuted lev17's claim about his bullshit about transmission.
The link did exactly what it was supposed to do. There was no mention of the video in the link (post #71 this thread).
The politifact link came from post #20 in response to post #19 which claimed Biden and Harris didn't trust the vaccine.

Interpretation is subjective? It couldn't be more straight forward. This video used partial quotes to convey a different message other than the message the full quote conveys.
Did the video use statements that had been edited? Yes.
From the politifact link.

"The TikTok video was posted on TikTok on May 11 and we found it was still being widely shared on Facebook in mid-July, more than a month after it was reposted there.

A June 15 Facebook post showing the video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed."
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...accines-not-v/

Even though facebook flagged it, they didn't take it down.
Post #91 includes the quoted post I was responding to.

So you didn't see the video but you say it sounds less misleading than other videos out there? That's as subjective as it gets. Politifact wasn't subjective. They factually pointed out that context containing important information was removed from the quotes.

The "article", was used to point out misinformation being posted about the method of cov19 transmission. The politifact article was posted to in response to a false claim about some quotes from Biden and Harris.

It's funny you complain about having to look for a link mentioned in the thread but issue a pass to flagrant and frequent false and misleading claims on a multitude of subjects by numerous posters.
What's up with that?

In the future, if somebody quotes someone or something, just enter a sentence of the quote into google.
Also, I don't do tik tok, rumble, twitter, facebook, or any of those either. Because of exactly what we're talking about.

Yes, my post stands on it's own. Because the information is correct. The quotes were edited to mislead the public about statements made by the president and vice president.
Once again you didn't read the links. Politifact clearly said the video was still on facebook. Facebook flagged the tik tok video but didn't remove it. It was still there in the middle of July. You're still heavy on using opinion as fact. Where are your links to back up your claims?

What does any of your extraneous bullshit have to do with a post proving someone lied in a video? Go back to the examples you included. Look at the context they are used in. Just like my posts comment on the importance of context. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

What Harris said is typical Liberal Stupidity. Trump shouldn't have been an issue in association with the Vaccine rollout. I didn't trust the Vaccine and it didn't matter who the dam president was and I was right in not trusting it. Those that went ahead and took it good luck to ya.

The link is in post #71 of this thread. It was in response to lev17's posted misinformation. Nothing of substance? It refuted lev17's claim about his bullshit about transmission.
The link did exactly what it was supposed to do. There was no mention of the video in the link (post #71 this thread).
The politifact link came from post #20 in response to post #19 which claimed Biden and Harris didn't trust the vaccine.

Interpretation is subjective? It couldn't be more straight forward. This video used partial quotes to convey a different message other than the message the full quote conveys.
Did the video use statements that had been edited? Yes.
From the politifact link.

"The TikTok video was posted on TikTok on May 11 and we found it was still being widely shared on Facebook in mid-July, more than a month after it was reposted there.

A June 15 Facebook post showing the video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed."
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...accines-not-v/

Even though facebook flagged it, they didn't take it down.
Post #91 includes the quoted post I was responding to.

So you didn't see the video but you say it sounds less misleading than other videos out there? That's as subjective as it gets. Politifact wasn't subjective. They factually pointed out that context containing important information was removed from the quotes.

The "article", was used to point out misinformation being posted about the method of cov19 transmission. The politifact article was posted to in response to a false claim about some quotes from Biden and Harris.

It's funny you complain about having to look for a link mentioned in the thread but issue a pass to flagrant and frequent false and misleading claims on a multitude of subjects by numerous posters.
What's up with that?

In the future, if somebody quotes someone or something, just enter a sentence of the quote into google.
Also, I don't do tik tok, rumble, twitter, facebook, or any of those either. Because of exactly what we're talking about.

Yes, my post stands on it's own. Because the information is correct. The quotes were edited to mislead the public about statements made by the president and vice president.
Once again you didn't read the links. Politifact clearly said the video was still on facebook. Facebook flagged the tik tok video but didn't remove it. It was still there in the middle of July. You're still heavy on using opinion as fact. Where are your links to back up your claims?

What does any of your extraneous bullshit have to do with a post proving someone lied in a video? Go back to the examples you included. Look at the context they are used in. Just like my posts comment on the importance of context. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

Here's what I believed was your source. You confirm it is above.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...accines-not-v/

Here's the link within your source to the Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/JenniferCas...type=2&theater

The link says, "This Video Isn't Available Anymore."

So what's your basis for believing that Facebook did not take down the video? All you have to go on is Politifact's statement it was still up in mid July of 2021. Perhaps you could provide a link to the video on Facebook? And if you manage to find one, please note I wrote Facebook apparently took it down.

As I understand it, TikTok is not allowed on U.S. government issued mobile devices, or certain mobile devices used by employees of government contractors. There are security concerns, because of the relationship between TikTok and the government of the Peoples Republic of China. So I'm not going to view a video there. You say you don't do TikTok or Facebook. So I guess you haven't seen the video either?

I stick with what I said. The quotes in the Politifact article when read in their entirety suggest BiKamala were fearmongering for political purposes.

As to your bold text, I've debunked more false and questionable COVID claims than any other poster in this forum, including SpeedRacer, adav8s28, and Reddog. It was my hobby for a while. Try searching posts by Tiny with texassapper in the text.

Here's what I believed was your source. You confirm it is above.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...accines-not-v/

Here's the link within your source to the Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/JenniferCas...type=2&theater

The link says, "This Video Isn't Available Anymore."

So what's your basis for believing that Facebook did not take down the video? All you have to go on is Politifact's statement it was still up in mid July of 2021. Perhaps you could provide a link to the video on Facebook? And if you manage to find one, please note I wrote Facebook apparently took it down.

As I understand it, TikTok is not allowed on U.S. government issued mobile devices, or certain mobile devices used by employees of government contractors. There are security concerns, because of the relationship between TikTok and the government of the Peoples Republic of China. So I'm not going to view a video there. You say you don't do TikTok or Facebook. So I guess you haven't seen the video either?

I stick with what I said. The quotes in the Politifact article when read in their entirety suggest BiKamala were fearmongering for political purposes.

As to your bold text, I've debunked more false and questionable COVID claims than any other poster in this forum, including SpeedRacer, adav8s28, and Reddog. It was my hobby for a while. Try searching posts by Tiny with texassapper in the text. Originally Posted by Tiny

You're making me laugh. You've never debunked anything you only defended the official narrative and anyone with an ounce of sense should know it was pure fiction.

You're making me laugh. You've never debunked anything you only defended the official narrative and anyone with an ounce of sense should know it was pure fiction. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Give me some credit. More often than not I used research papers, statistics like total deaths and deaths by age group, or mathematics to make a point, instead of pieces written by know nothing, biased journalists, like ones sometimes found on Politifact. And I did not always defend the official narrative. For example, I recognized that thousands, mostly the very old, probably died from COVID vaccines and boosters in the USA. And I cited research, lots of it, showing benefits of masks in March, 2020, when Fauci and the CDC were recommending we not wear them:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...light=shithole

Take a look at the link. At that time you were defending the official narrative. Although admittedly we were both biased. The mask and aviator glasses were helpful to me in getting women because I have a large nose and protruding eyeballs. I’m not “hot as fuck and dangerous” like you, lol. See post #11 in the old thread.

Give me some credit. More often than not I used research papers, statistics like total deaths and deaths by age group, or mathematics to make a point, instead of pieces written by know nothing, biased journalists, like ones sometimes found on Politifact. And I did not always defend the official narrative. For example, I recognized that thousands, mostly the very old, probably died from COVID vaccines and boosters in the USA. And I cited research, lots of it, showing benefits of masks in March, 2020, when Fauci and the CDC were recommending we not wear them:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...light=shithole

Take a look at the link. At that time you were defending the official narrative. Although admittedly we were both biased. The mask and aviator glasses were helpful to me in getting women because I have a large nose and protruding eyeballs. I’m not “hot as fuck and dangerous” like you, lol. See post #11 in the old thread. Originally Posted by Tiny

The mask issue indicates that the virus is in the environment in other words "Airborne" which also means it's a mode of transmission. That idea cannot be true because Viruses are not alive. So anything that you read in association with that concept is the narrative.

The mask issue indicates that the virus is in the environment in other words "Airborne" which also means it's a mode of transmission. That idea cannot be true because Viruses are not alive. So anything that you read in association with that concept is the narrative. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Andrewes and Glover proved airborne transmission of the influenza virus in ferrets 10 feet away from each other. Palese proved airborne transmission of influenza in Guinea pigs separated by 3 feet. There have been similar experiments in laboratory rats proving airborne transmission.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550509/

I remember reading about COVID being transmitted by air in laboratory rats that were caged separately but am too lazy to look it up. In certain instances a partition of mask fabric was placed by the cage of the uninfected animal, and that reduced the probability of infection.

The control groups of laboratory animals, which aren’t exposed to the airborne virus, are fed and maintained identically to the animals exposed to the virus. And they don’t get the disease.

Ha! Levianon, In case you read my message before I edited it, TB is actually bacterial. So the first part of my post WAS bull shit. However, I stand by the rest!

I found the paper for the last study, which actually used hamsters, not rats, exposed to the COVID virus,

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._2019_COVID-19

Andrewes and Glover proved airborne transmission of the influenza virus in ferrets 10 feet away from each other. Palese proved airborne transmission of influenza in Guinea pigs separated by 3 feet. There have been similar experiments in laboratory rats proving airborne transmission.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550509/

I remember reading about COVID being transmitted by air in laboratory rats that were caged separately but am too lazy to look it up. In certain instances a partition of mask fabric was placed by the cage of the uninfected animal, and that reduced the probability of infection.

The control groups of laboratory animals, which aren’t exposed to the airborne virus, are fed and maintained identically to the animals exposed to the virus. And they don’t get the disease. Originally Posted by Tiny

So hamsters can be infected by SarsCov2? Do you really believe that? How did these Hamsters contract the virus in the first place? Jamming two cages together each populated with Hamsters one with sick Hamsters and one with healthy Hamsters doesn't really prove much. It's not a real world scenario. So it's highly speculative in terms of airborne transmission. But it may sound compelling.

...So the first part of my post WAS bull shit. However... Originally Posted by Tiny

Wouldn't it just be better to try and salvage your dignity?

Latest peer-reviewed study destroys any dignity left for these so-called “Covid experts”
July 29, 2023

Covid experts are likely scrambling for cover as a new peer-reviewed study has been released. If any of them had any remaining dignity after all the politics, lies, and cover-ups, this study would surely wipe it out. But in the end, it’s not the experts who suffer the most; it’s all the people they deceived. According to the findings, heart-related Injuries from a Moderna C•19 Booster Dose were 3000x higher than thought. Researchers found a staggering 1 in 35 healthcare workers at a Swiss hospital had signs of heart injury associated with the booster dose.

So, this study basically tells us that in order to treat a bad “cold,” governments around the world created heart conditions in millions of people. The kicker is that the booster appears to impact woman more...

I don't know why anyone has not mentioned this before: THEY LIED TO YOUR FACE, JIGGERED THE NUMBERS, CENSORED DISSENT AND TRIED TO COVER IT AL UP!

Wouldn't it just be better to try and salvage your dignity?

Latest peer-reviewed study destroys any dignity left for these so-called “Covid experts” Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

A. I'm not a COVID expert
B. Revolver is the outfit that should be trying to salvage dignity after that piece of work
C. I want to make darn sure you see my complete reply so am going to move it to the next page.