What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Covid Vaccine Thread - what's your take on them?

OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
Science isn't done by consensus. It only takes one scientist to begin the process of toppling mistaken dogma. Furthermore, there is far more than one doctor who is questioning the mainstream narrative regarding Covid. Take the Great Barrington Declaration, for example. If you haven't heard of it, it's understandable. Google has been censoring it, after all.

Science is accepted by consensus and peer review. You can find acceptance with objective individuals when your viewpoint has so things.

Has so things?

In any case, I'd like to share something that I read in a book concerning something Karl Popper once said. For background, Wikipedia describes Karl Popper as "one of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science". Here's my share:
**...In order to avoid this mistake and spot real science from pseudoscience, famous science philosopher Karl Popper proposed that real science should be based on the principle of “falsifiability”38 — always looking for evidence which might show that your theory is wrong.39

Let me give you an example. Let’s say you take the hypothesis “All swans are white.”

To prove this statement, most people would be tempted to start counting white swans. But as Magda Havas, PhD explains, “no number of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black swan disproves it.”

**

Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology (p. 24). Kindle Edition.
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Science isn't done by consensus. It only takes one scientist to begin the process of toppling mistaken dogma. Furthermore, there is far more than one doctor who is questioning the mainstream narrative regarding Covid. Take the Great Barrington Declaration, for example. If you haven't heard of it, it's understandable. Google has been censoring it, after all.

Science is accepted by consensus and peer review. You can find acceptance with objective individuals when your viewpoint has so things.

Has so things?

In any case, I'd like to share something that I read in a book concerning something Karl Popper once said. For background, Wikipedia describes Karl Popper as "one of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science". Here's my share:
**...In order to avoid this mistake and spot real science from pseudoscience, famous science philosopher Karl Popper proposed that real science should be based on the principle of “falsifiability”38 — always looking for evidence which might show that your theory is wrong.39

Let me give you an example. Let’s say you take the hypothesis “All swans are white.”

To prove this statement, most people would be tempted to start counting white swans. But as Magda Havas, PhD explains, “no number of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black swan disproves it.”

**

Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology (p. 24). Kindle Edition.
Yes. There is no absolute certainty. That does not mean that the rational thing to do is to believe that which has less evidence when something with more evidence is available.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
In any case, I'd like to share something that I read in a book concerning something Karl Popper once said. For background, Wikipedia describes Karl Popper as "one of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science". Here's my share:
**...In order to avoid this mistake and spot real science from pseudoscience, famous science philosopher Karl Popper proposed that real science should be based on the principle of “falsifiability”38 — always looking for evidence which might show that your theory is wrong.39

Let me give you an example. Let’s say you take the hypothesis “All swans are white.”

To prove this statement, most people would be tempted to start counting white swans. But as Magda Havas, PhD explains, “no number of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black swan disproves it.”

**

Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology (p. 24). Kindle Edition.

Yes. There is no absolute certainty. That does not mean that the rational thing to do is to believe that which has less evidence when something with more evidence is available.

I'm glad we agree on the black swan bit. As to evidence, it's not all about quantity. It's also about -quality-. Have you read Dr. Ken Biegeleisen's article in full?

Furthermore, I haven't actually seen any evidence that more scientists with knowledge of diseases approve of the policies that most governments are enacting in relation to Covid. I -do- have evidence that a great many of them disagree with them. Have you taken a look at The Great Barrington Declaration?
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
In any case, I'd like to share something that I read in a book concerning something Karl Popper once said. For background, Wikipedia describes Karl Popper as "one of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science". Here's my share:
**...In order to avoid this mistake and spot real science from pseudoscience, famous science philosopher Karl Popper proposed that real science should be based on the principle of “falsifiability”38 — always looking for evidence which might show that your theory is wrong.39

Let me give you an example. Let’s say you take the hypothesis “All swans are white.”

To prove this statement, most people would be tempted to start counting white swans. But as Magda Havas, PhD explains, “no number of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black swan disproves it.”

**

Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology (p. 24). Kindle Edition.

Yes. There is no absolute certainty. That does not mean that the rational thing to do is to believe that which has less evidence when something with more evidence is available.

I'm glad we agree on the black swan bit. As to evidence, it's not all about quantity. It's also about -quality-. Have you read Dr. Ken Biegeleisen's article in full?

Furthermore, I haven't actually seen any evidence that more scientists with knowledge of diseases approve of the policies that most governments are enacting in relation to Covid. I -do- have evidence that a great many of them disagree with them. Have you taken a look at The Great Barrington Declaration?
Dr. Ken Biegeleisen's article is neither quantity or quality. You think it is "quality" because it supports your belief. I will go back to UFOs. I have talked to people who believe earth is getting UFO visits. Their arguments look a lot like yours: a few scientists giving opinions in favor of UFOs landing on earth, and a couple of grainy photos of a saucer-shaped object. How would you talk those UFO believers?
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
12,477
Reaction score
5,960
Points
400
I accept scientific research myself, the kind that isn't bought by big business.

Scientific research is very often big business.

True. You might consider questioning whether some of that scientific research that big business paid for has become somewhat corrupt. I recently read
an article from a doctor who explained why he won't be taking the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Ken Biegeleisen, the doctor in question, studied virology and is the author of multiple studies on virology and DNA/protein structure. He says a fair amount about the other covid vaccines as well. My favourite part is his conclusion:
**
...we’re all being pressured into taking hastily prepared genetic vaccines, which are likely to transform our heredity, permanently. Is there any reason for this, other than countless billions of dollars in windfall profits?

It is my view that the massive and barely studied global human genetic experiment going on right now is the biological equivalent of a drunk driver, speeding down the highway with impunity at 60 mph — at night without headlights — because he says that “he knows the road.”

Most sensible people are wary about “GMO,” even in food. Now we’re going to genetically modify ourselves? Why? What madness is this?

**

Food for thought.
Well, we have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years by cross breeding, grafting, etc. Corn, for instance, could have never been a staple crop if it had not been modified over the years. GMO only speeds up the process making it easier to 'cross breed' even with unlike entities. I realize that scares most people but with all the GMO scare on the Internet it's hard to get reliable objective information.

As far as the COVID vaccine is concerned, my main complaint is that we never needed in for a Flu with a 95% to 99% rate of survival. I personally don't think the vaccine is much of a threat the biggest threat is the government pushing it, closing the economy down, closing schools down and making US wear TWO GodDamn masks even after the much vaunted vaccine that they told us was supposed to kill the virus!!
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
I accept scientific research myself, the kind that isn't bought by big business.

Scientific research is very often big business.

True. You might consider questioning whether some of that scientific research that big business paid for has become somewhat corrupt. I recently read
an article from a doctor who explained why he won't be taking the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Ken Biegeleisen, the doctor in question, studied virology and is the author of multiple studies on virology and DNA/protein structure. He says a fair amount about the other covid vaccines as well. My favourite part is his conclusion:
**
...we’re all being pressured into taking hastily prepared genetic vaccines, which are likely to transform our heredity, permanently. Is there any reason for this, other than countless billions of dollars in windfall profits?

It is my view that the massive and barely studied global human genetic experiment going on right now is the biological equivalent of a drunk driver, speeding down the highway with impunity at 60 mph — at night without headlights — because he says that “he knows the road.”

Most sensible people are wary about “GMO,” even in food. Now we’re going to genetically modify ourselves? Why? What madness is this?

**

Food for thought.
Well, we have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years by cross breeding, grafting, etc.

Cross breeding plants is a far cry from gene editing. To learn a bit of the difference, I think this article is good:


As far as the COVID vaccine is concerned, my main complaint is that we never needed in for a Flu with a 95% to 99% rate of survival.

I also clearly agree that we don't need it.

I personally don't think the vaccine is much of a threat the biggest threat is the government pushing it

I think its threat potential increases the more people take it. It's just a matter of numbers. I doubt there would be be over 2000 death reports and 7000 serious injury reports to VAERS if millions of Americans hadn't been taking these vaccines.

, closing the economy down, closing schools down and making US wear TWO GodDamn masks even after the much vaunted vaccine that they told us was supposed to kill the virus!!

Yeah, a lot of promises that are now being shown to be bogus. Hopefully people will learn something from this.
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
I accept scientific research myself, the kind that isn't bought by big business.

Scientific research is very often big business.

True. You might consider questioning whether some of that scientific research that big business paid for has become somewhat corrupt. I recently read
an article from a doctor who explained why he won't be taking the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Ken Biegeleisen, the doctor in question, studied virology and is the author of multiple studies on virology and DNA/protein structure. He says a fair amount about the other covid vaccines as well. My favourite part is his conclusion:
**
...we’re all being pressured into taking hastily prepared genetic vaccines, which are likely to transform our heredity, permanently. Is there any reason for this, other than countless billions of dollars in windfall profits?

It is my view that the massive and barely studied global human genetic experiment going on right now is the biological equivalent of a drunk driver, speeding down the highway with impunity at 60 mph — at night without headlights — because he says that “he knows the road.”

Most sensible people are wary about “GMO,” even in food. Now we’re going to genetically modify ourselves? Why? What madness is this?

**

Food for thought.
Well, we have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years by cross breeding, grafting, etc. Corn, for instance, could have never been a staple crop if it had not been modified over the years. GMO only speeds up the process making it easier to 'cross breed' even with unlike entities. I realize that scares most people but with all the GMO scare on the Internet it's hard to get reliable objective information.

As far as the COVID vaccine is concerned, my main complaint is that we never needed in for a Flu with a 95% to 99% rate of survival. I personally don't think the vaccine is much of a threat the biggest threat is the government pushing it, closing the economy down, closing schools down and making US wear TWO GodDamn masks even after the much vaunted vaccine that they told us was supposed to kill the virus!!
mRNA vaccines do not alter the DNA of the person receiving the vaccine. So it isn't gene therapy. The problem with covid-19 is that it is pretty deadly to older people. From the beginning of the pandemic, ideally there needed to be some kind of social structure where younger people could live their lives fairly normally while older people are protected. That has not happened anywhere in the world. I think it is just too big and too sudden a change and just too much to ask.

I do not see any problem with wearing a mask indoors in public places. I will have a problem with it if the mandate remains after we reach herd immunity. Until then, I look at complaints about masks as akin to pointless conspiracy theories. We are not being pointlessly controlled by the government just like we are not being controlled by the government by highway speed limits. I have been vaccinated and I wear a mask were mandated because I realize that not everyone is vaccinated and although I no longer have a significant viral load and am minimally contagious, it is impossible to tell just by looking who has been vaccinated when compared to the anti-vaxxer who could be contagious. So everyone must wear a mask.
 
Last edited:

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
12,477
Reaction score
5,960
Points
400
mRNA vaccines do not alter the DNA of the person receiving the vaccine. So it isn't gene therapy. The problem with covid-19 is that it is pretty deadly to older people. From the beginning of the pandemic, ideally there needed to be some kind of social structure where younger people could live their lives fairly normally while older people are protected. That has not happened anywhere in the world. I think it is just too big and too sudden a change and just too much to ask.

I do not see any problem with wearing a mask indoors in public places. I will have a problem with it if the mandate remains after we reach herd immunity. Until then, I look at complaints about masks as akin to pointless conspiracy theories. We are not being pointlessly controlled by the government just like we are not being controlled by the government by highway speed limits. I have been vaccinated and I wear a mask were mandated because I realize that not everyone is vaccinated and although I no longer have a significant viral load and am minimally contagious, it is impossible to tell just by looking who has been vaccinated when compared to the anti-vaxxer who could be contagious. So everyone must wear a mask.
Define 'pretty deadly.' Shutting down the U.S. economy, telling folks to stay home, shutting down schools, etc, is not a conspiracy theory....It REALLY HAPPENED! A Flu with at worst a 95% SURVIVAL rate is not "pretty deadly." Also, the bulk of elderly deaths was because Cuomo shoved old people with covid together in care homes instead of taking them to the hospital. Ineptitude and power can be a deadly combination.
 
Last edited:

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
mRNA vaccines do not alter the DNA of the person receiving the vaccine. So it isn't gene therapy. The problem with covid-19 is that it is pretty deadly to older people. From the beginning of the pandemic, ideally there needed to be some kind of social structure where younger people could live their lives fairly normally while older people are protected. That has not happened anywhere in the world. I think it is just too big and too sudden a change and just too much to ask.

I do not see any problem with wearing a mask indoors in public places. I will have a problem with it if the mandate remains after we reach herd immunity. Until then, I look at complaints about masks as akin to pointless conspiracy theories. We are not being pointlessly controlled by the government just like we are not being controlled by the government by highway speed limits. I have been vaccinated and I wear a mask were mandated because I realize that not everyone is vaccinated and although I no longer have a significant viral load and am minimally contagious, it is impossible to tell just by looking who has been vaccinated when compared to the anti-vaxxer who could be contagious. So everyone must wear a mask.
Define 'pretty deadly.' Shutting down the U.S. economy, telling folks to stay home, shutting down schools, etc, is not a conspiracy theory....It REALLY HAPPENED! A Flu with at worst a 95% SURVIVAL rate is not "pretty deadly." Also, the bulk of elderly deaths was because Cuomo shoved old people with covid together in care homes instead of taking them to the hospital. Ineptitude and power can be a deadly combination.
You do realize that when I used the term "pretty deadly", that was clearly in reference to older people, not the general population as you suggested. As for Cuomo, yes, he blew it. But what is relevant to what I said was that those older folks died who were in care homes with covid patients, which proves my point that covid is pretty deadly to older people.
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
42,643
Reaction score
16,197
Points
2,320
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
I'm not at all anti-vaccine, but I will not be getting any of the COVID jabs.

I prefer my vaccines with several more years of clinical trials.

I am anti vaccine, but I still commend you for at least waiting a few more years for them to complete their clinical trials.
I wouldn't call what's going on "clinical trials" -- it's more like Mengele-like human experiments.

Injecting young children with all sorts of evil stuff was his speciality.

For some reason he loved twins.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
mRNA vaccines do not alter the DNA of the person receiving the vaccine.

This statement of yours makes me strongly believe that you didn't actually fully read Dr. Ken Biegeleisen's article regarding the Covid Vaccines. Had you read it, you would know that the issue of whether or not mRNA vaccines can alter a person's DNA is by no means a settled matter. I'll make it easy for you- go to the section titled "What about RNA vaccines?".
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
mRNA vaccines do not alter the DNA of the person receiving the vaccine. So it isn't gene therapy. The problem with covid-19 is that it is pretty deadly to older people. From the beginning of the pandemic, ideally there needed to be some kind of social structure where younger people could live their lives fairly normally while older people are protected. That has not happened anywhere in the world. I think it is just too big and too sudden a change and just too much to ask.

I do not see any problem with wearing a mask indoors in public places. I will have a problem with it if the mandate remains after we reach herd immunity. Until then, I look at complaints about masks as akin to pointless conspiracy theories. We are not being pointlessly controlled by the government just like we are not being controlled by the government by highway speed limits. I have been vaccinated and I wear a mask were mandated because I realize that not everyone is vaccinated and although I no longer have a significant viral load and am minimally contagious, it is impossible to tell just by looking who has been vaccinated when compared to the anti-vaxxer who could be contagious. So everyone must wear a mask.
Define 'pretty deadly.' Shutting down the U.S. economy, telling folks to stay home, shutting down schools, etc, is not a conspiracy theory....It REALLY HAPPENED! A Flu with at worst a 95% SURVIVAL rate is not "pretty deadly." Also, the bulk of elderly deaths was because Cuomo shoved old people with covid together in care homes instead of taking them to the hospital. Ineptitude and power can be a deadly combination.
You do realize that when I used the term "pretty deadly", that was clearly in reference to older people, not the general population as you suggested. As for Cuomo, yes, he blew it. But what is relevant to what I said was that those older folks died who were in care homes with covid patients, which proves my point that covid is pretty deadly to older people.

There's something that I think neither of you may be accounting for- false positive tests and labelling anything that could possibly be a Covid death a Covid death. Here in the province of Ontario, Canada that I live in, a journalist friend of mine dug deep to find out just how far this mislabelled went. Pretty far it turns out:
 

amethyst

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,489
Reaction score
1,042
Points
2,025
listen to what she says about aids, patents, and how the synthetic gel takes over your immune system.

 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
986
Points
893
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda

On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.

The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
listen to what she says about aids, patents, and how the synthetic gel takes over your immune system.


I listened to the first 7 minutes, then did some online searches to find out more about Carrie Madej and her claims. I found the following article from Vice on her:

Some things in the article that they claim she believes or has said sound a bit far fetched, but I'll leave that alone for now. I did a search on RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense website and couldn't find any mention of her name, I did find an article over at Dr. Mercola's site regarding a video she made. I've always been a much bigger fan of articles when debating as opposed to videos, so I'll just include the article I'm bringing up here for future reference:
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda

On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.

The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.

Again, all the focus is on the messenger (in this case, the site) and not on the message. I said in the OP that, if certain claims concerning the LifeSite News site were true, I was opposed to them. That being said, the article I referenced in the OP seems to be on point.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top