Why COVID vaccines cannot work, & irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaxx

a reply to: McGinty

Why is it that people keep wanting to ignore that even far leftist doctors used to admit cloth and surgical masks do not work for viruses?

Even in the N95 masks 5% viruses can get through. Note this doctor states all viruses can get through even on N95 masks starting around 30 seconds...



Also notice that this doctor admits he only wears a mask because of people's fears. He doesn't want people to think he doesn't care about them. But these masks do not stop the SARS/CoV-2 virus, or ANY virus...

I find it ironic and rather ludicrous how some people seem to be completely ignorant about how small a virus is and how small water dropplets themselves can be and are.

Even the SARS/CoV-2 viruses that are in large water droplets that hit your mask, those water droplets permeate all the way outside and inside a mask, and due to your own breathing the water droplets evaporate faster which leave the virus itself, without any help from any water droplet, to either be inhaled again or be exhaled and it floats in the air for several seconds which is more than enough to infect someone else, or several people that are close enough.

Having yourself in front of a mirror coughing with your mouth open against the mirror is not going to show you the small water droplets that people exhale even from their noses.

The human eye can see about 10μ size particles, but water particles/droplets we exhale through our nose and even a portion of the water droplets we exhale through our mouths can be and are much less than 1μ. The human eye does not see them, and having yourself recorded and slowing down the video is not going to show you all the water droplets you exhale.

If you have either a cloth mask, or a surgical mask but you are close to someone who is asymptomatic but has the SARS/CoV-2 virus, and even if that person is also wearing a surgical or cloth mask, you will get infected because some of the virus will get through both masks every single time you are close to someone who has COVID-19. Even with an N95 mask 5% of the virus will get through and that is more than enough to infect you and anyone else close enough.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I'm failing to find any evidence that this has been submitted for any kind of peer review, or even published through a mainstream source. I'm just getting clickbait sites and fake articles coming up.

Surely something of the magnitude would have at least been put through the system.

Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

...

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-​reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-​review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Case in point:

Lancet lied About Hydroxychloroquine? (playlist)

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”

None of that has happened. And because of that (and other reasons), the “high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity” has only gotten worse in the scientific community. Advancing hand-in-hand with the phenomena of scientism.

Part 19—17th to 19th century—Christendom Grapples With World Change (Awake!—1989; Religion’s Future in View of Its Past)

... Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. ...

Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth (Awake!—1993)

...

Who Are the Victims?

Anyone misled into believing pseudoscientific theories becomes a victim. But even believing scientific truths poses a danger. The spectacular scientific advances resulting from the scientific revolution deceived many into believing that now nothing was beyond reach.

This belief was intensified as scientific progress continued to erode the antiscientific attitude false religion had once fostered. Commerce and politics began recognizing science as a powerful tool to be used in achieving their goals, be it monetary reward or consolidation of political power.

Clearly stated, science was slowly developing into a god, giving rise to scientism. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

...

That being said, I take the claims of the article in the OP as much with a grain of salt as I would any so-called "peer reviewed"* paper. (*: which often consists merely of a stamp of approval by an editor at some scientific journal, sometimes without even reading the paper, let alone duplicate its results). And I've yet to find the first scientific journal that makes honesty, accuracy and (scientific) integrity their main priority rather than number of subscriptions and other streams of revenue* as it is now. *: including government grants, donations and advertisements (including those advertisements dressed up as peer reviewed scientific papers presenting the picture that something like the medical industry and Big Pharma wants to see presented and promoted for financial gain)

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
When you get experts, who have never been anti-vaxx, in the tens of thousands saying these vaccines are causing serious health problems, including death, and are not stopping COVID-19 but are making the pandemic much worse, why is it that we still get people believing the liars, like Fauci, Collins, et al?
...

It's called "MASS FORMATION."

It is a very real and scientifically based phenomenon. Look it up. (I recommending using duckduckgo.)

ETA: This might be helpful.

Also, search for Mattias Desmet Mass Formation on Bitchute. He explains is very well.
:

Thank-you. "Mass Formation" has hit a nerve with the Twitter gorilla lady censurer.

originally posted by: incoserv

It's called "MASS FORMATION."

It is a very real and scientifically based phenomenon. Look it up. (I recommending using duckduckgo.)

...

It's the effect of (mass) propaganda. Something both CNN and Fox News excel at (and the so-called "scientific community" for that matter, especially in the medical sciences if we're talking about the Fauci's of this world; also note the bolded phrase in the article I quoted from in my previous comment). Note the advice in the article in my signature:

... Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks [whereislogic: discussed on the previous page for this article], you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: ...

Use discernment: ...

Put information to the test: ...

Ask questions: ...

Do not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists. The command given at Exodus 23:2 serves as a good principle: “You must not follow after the crowd for evil ends.”

...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Preceding page (1st page), in case you want to have a look at a summary or overview of those "tricks" mentioned (where I added my remark above):

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I agree, there’s common misconceptions about masks’ protection, as well as many other elements of distancing and pathology.

However, I don’t know if the science his invalidated this, but there were theories that how many covid particles one came into contact with -the viral load - could determine how severely the virus effected you. Of course the individuals existing health status and other variables are involved, but these would be exacerbated by the size of the ‘viral load’.

If this is indeed the case, then however imperfect, would it not be the case that a mask may indeed somewhat lower that viral load?

Even though covid particles are smaller than the weave of most masks, might they not still catch some of those particles, therefore lowering the viral load, leading to a less severe infection (if viral load is a factor) ?

The point is that perhaps it’s not as binary as masks not being able to prevent infection so they are pointless.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
...

... It’s near medical consensus among real doctors (e.g. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Judy Mikovits, et al.) that vaxxed people will die anywhere from 2-5 years after the injections if they survive the initial few months.

thecovidblog.com...

"will die" means the same thing as "will certainly die", unlike the expression "could die", which would mean the same thing as "could potentially die" (a bit more nuanced). So let's analyze what that statement, as it is phrased now is really claiming (predicting).

Since almost 50% of the world population has now been vaccinated, this prediction claims that almost 50% of the world population will certainly die before 2027. Isn't that claim, as it is phrased there, a little extreme, to the point of being detrimental to any doctor who actually wants to seriously warn for potential negative side-effects of vaccination including death? Isn't quoting from that blog, when they phrase things like that, detrimental to the points you are trying to make in your comment, or the warnings raised in the document you quoted from at the start of your comment?

Have you ever heard of the term COINTELPRO on ATS? Where the FBI infiltrates political organizations and gets them to make such extreme claims that the more nuanced or reasonable claims are basically ignored by most people because it's then seen as 'more of the same' (outrageous stuff). Sort of like the way Alex Jones and David Icke's claims are really so 'out there', that any suggestion regarding corruption motivated by greed amongst politicians and bureaucrats is seen as the same type of conspiracy entertainment (I prefer the term "entertainment" over the other 4-letter word that starts with "p" and ends with "n").

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: AaarghZombies

One thing is already a fact, the jabs are not vaccines, with that cleared, the pharma got too greedy and been soo corrupted they do not want to give immunity permanently to anyone, or cure anything, even if they could, but a steady jabbing with a gene therapy that will stop working within weeks of been injected in the hope that people will be hooked on the jabs for life at a pace of a monthly infusion, the problem is that the human body is unpredictable and it will fight back, because one size do not fit all, something pharma knows but do not give a crap.

Hopefully people are no stupid, they are not going to let pharma get away with it.

The sad reality is, that most people are so naive that Big Pharma has already gotten away with these sort of scams for decades. I see no improvement on that front in the near future. And if you go back in time a bit more, you can say the same of others in the medical profession and their victims (before there was such a thing as Big Pharma). Things have only gotten worse since these times (and these sort of scams have become bigger and more profitable in a society that has become more and more materialistic, greedy, ignorant and naive, displaying a lack of wisdom, prudence, insight or understanding):

The situation has made the advice in the article linked in my signature (and the warnings on the preceding page not linked in my signature) more pertinent than ever. Just like these descriptions, warnings and the advice at Ephesians 4:14:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I'm failing to find any evidence that this has been submitted for any kind of peer review, or even published through a mainstream source. I'm just getting clickbait sites and fake articles coming up.

Surely something of the magnitude would have at least been put through the system.

Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

...

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-​reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-​review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Case in point:

Lancet lied About Hydroxychloroquine? (playlist)

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”

None of that has happened. And because of that (and other reasons), the “high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity” has only gotten worse in the scientific community. Advancing hand-in-hand with the phenomena of scientism.

Part 19—17th to 19th century—Christendom Grapples With World Change (Awake!—1989; Religion’s Future in View of Its Past)

... Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. ...

Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth (Awake!—1993)

...

Who Are the Victims?

Anyone misled into believing pseudoscientific theories becomes a victim. But even believing scientific truths poses a danger. The spectacular scientific advances resulting from the scientific revolution deceived many into believing that now nothing was beyond reach.

This belief was intensified as scientific progress continued to erode the antiscientific attitude false religion had once fostered. Commerce and politics began recognizing science as a powerful tool to be used in achieving their goals, be it monetary reward or consolidation of political power.

Clearly stated, science was slowly developing into a god, giving rise to scientism. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

...

That being said, I take the claims of the article in the OP as much with a grain of salt as I would any so-called "peer reviewed"* paper. (*: which often consists merely of a stamp of approval by an editor at some scientific journal, sometimes without even reading the paper, let alone duplicate its results). And I've yet to find the first scientific journal that makes honesty, accuracy and (scientific) integrity their main priority rather than number of subscriptions and other streams of revenue* as it is now. *: including government grants, donations and advertisements (including those advertisements dressed up as peer reviewed scientific papers presenting the picture that something like the medical industry and Big Pharma wants to see presented and promoted for financial gain)

None of those links references the article in question.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I agree, there’s common misconceptions about masks’ protection, as well as many other elements of distancing and pathology.

However, I don’t know if the science his invalidated this, but there were theories that how many covid particles one came into contact with -the viral load - could determine how severely the virus effected you. Of course the individuals existing health status and other variables are involved, but these would be exacerbated by the size of the ‘viral load’.

If this is indeed the case, then however imperfect, would it not be the case that a mask may indeed somewhat lower that viral load?

Even though covid particles are smaller than the weave of most masks, might they not still catch some of those particles, therefore lowering the viral load, leading to a less severe infection (if viral load is a factor) ?

The point is that perhaps it’s not as binary as masks not being able to prevent infection so they are pointless.

If people had bothered to watch those covid briefings made under Trump they would know that there are multiple steps that you can take, and that each step will REDUCE your level of risk. Mask wearing reduces your risk a little, social distancing reduces your risk a little, hand washing reduces your risk a little, ventilating rooms reduces your risk a little. And so on.

Each measure that you take might on it's own only be somewhat effective but when you combine them they make a real difference.

For example, I don't believe that having motion activated lights in my yard will give me 100% protection form a home invader, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth putting up. The same for CCTV, it's not 100% assured to prevent a home invasion, but it's still worth having. My 2A rights won't 100% assure me protection form a home invader either, but you're still going to need to prey my Mossberg out of my cold dead hands. The same with sturdy doors, deadbolts, and so on.

None of these will individually 100% protect my family, but when you have them all together you're going to need to be awfully sure of yourself before setting foot on my property with ill intent. You're also going to need to have some serious knee pads because those suckers will be the first things that I take out.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Seems to be a bit of a thing on ATS that any thread with "Irrefutable Proof" or "100% Proof" in the title is never anything of the sort.

Like this one.

Good point. It seems to be a marketing or propaganda expression and trick (marketing and propaganda are very similar), you could probably sum it up with the word "exaggeration", like the blog quoted by StoutBroux and in particular the claim and prediction I responded to. Of course, that doesn't mean that irrefutable proof never exists regarding any subject, as the agnostically inclined (or indoctrinated) person might argue as they express their belief in the philosophy of relativism.

If you don't know what that philosophy is or want to know some background about it, check out this article:

“What Is Truth?” (1995)

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

None of those links references the article in question.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Wasn't it also obvious that I was responding to your usage of the term "peer review" and your possible view regarding and potential trust in the efficacy and adequateness of the peer review system or science journals at weeding out fraud and pseudoscience from their publications? I did bold it after all in your comment.

Did you also notice what I said after "that being said", anticipating a particular type of polarized reaction to my comment (as affected by the phenomena of scientism and its 'gurus' like Isaac Asimov)?

Remember, it's not really up to me to defend or support the claims or findings presented in the document quoted in the OP. Especially not in light of what I said after "that being said". Are you familiar with the expression of 'taking something with a grain of salt' (perhaps English is not your mother language, although the expression is the same in Dutch, so perhaps other languages as well)?

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

None of those links references the article in question.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Wasn't it also obvious that I was responding to your usage of the term "peer review" and your possible view regarding and potential trust in the efficacy and adequateness of the peer review system or science journals at weeding out fraud and pseudoscience from their publications? I did bold it after all in your comment.

Did you also notice what I said after "that being said", anticipating a particular type of polarized reaction to my comment (as affected by the phenomena of scientism and its 'gurus' like Isaac Asimov)?

Remember, it's not really up to me to defend or support the claims or findings presented in the document quoted in the OP. Especially not in light of what I said after "that being said". Are you familiar with the expression of 'taking something with a grain of salt'?

So, based on what you've said here, you were attempting to disregard at my very real concerns that the OP's data had not undergone any form of independant review by linking in to several completely unrelated articles which themselves reference completely unrelated article. Including, and I can't stress this enough, articles hosted by the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Do you have any evidence at all that the OP's data has in any form been evaluated, reviewed, verified, or even fact checked by anybody?

Or is your entire argument based on the fact that a religious publication disagreed with the data from a completely different study?

If I had evidence that the shot was harmful, and I could prove it, I'd 100% publish it in the most reputable journals of the time. Simply getting past peer review would put my name up in lights. I'd be a shoe-in for tenure.

Journals would fight for a study like that, money can't buy that kind of publicity.

IF it could be proven to be true.

I'd have every conservative group pushing every alternative to the vax lining up to throw money at me.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Prejudice doesn't become you. Neither does reading something into someone's commentary that simply isn't there, perhaps because that's what you want to see in my commentary. Nor does ignoring questions by not responding to them make for a productive conversation (rhetorical questions can be responded to, but not all my questions were rhetorical). Nor does ignoring everything someone says that doesn't fit into what you want to see in their commentary. So I'll leave it at that. There's no real conversation here anyway.

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: 1947boomer

Could these figures reflect behavioural patterns?

We see the infection rate rise for the double-dosed. Could that be because after 2 doses they wrongly assume they’re immune from infection? Whereas in reality they can still catch covid with the vaccine giving them more protection from severe illness. So these idiots stop distancing etc and get themselves and others around them infected.

Those with just one dose have the lowest infection rate of all. Imo that strengthens my theory…

If the vaccine was causing infection, then it’s far more likely those with 1 dose would have a higher, or at least the same infection rate as those with no doses. Instead it’s far lower… Why?

2 DOSES = believing they are immune, so their relaxed distancing and fewer covid symptoms causes more of them to be infected.

NO DOSES = more vulnerable to infection - plus a proportion of them have no doses because they don’t believe in covid, making them most likely of all to become infected.

1 DOSE = believing in covid enough to get a jab, but do not yet believe they have immunity until they get the second dose, so they will be the most careful demographic of all, resulting in the figures we see in the graph.


ETA: the point is that infection figures can’t give us an accurate picture of what’s happening because of the behavioural variables. Hospital admissions and moreover covid deaths are a more accurate picture. Though these figures are still vulnerable to human error and political/corporate manipulation.

Whether this is a plandemic is up for debate, but the corporate entities’ rush for the vaccines-forever goldmine is naive to deny.

Pay attention everyone, this is how you make a case for something. Rather than flying into each other's hairs (I guess the expression in English is getting into someone's hair, but it seems to have a slightly different meaning than the Dutch version that uses "flying" to indicate some sort of attack as well, elkaar in de haren vliegen in Engels - Nederlands-Engels Woordenboek | Glosbe, ah, now I'm seeing the English expression in the examples under that link: "be at each other's throats").

Makes sense to me (McGinty's comment). I'm not that fond of the usage of the term "idiots" though, it's a little disrespectful, derogative, and possibly may come across as being a bit arrogant, self-assuming, haughty and as having an overestimation of self (as if not all of us have a certain level of idiocy or foolishness that pops up from time to time, humility helps with recognizing that reality and then avoiding pointing fingers too much, or at least try to use more polite terminology when trying to point it out in the behaviour of others; in that light, may I suggest the term "foolishness" or "those who are being foolish" instead, that may be more easily digested by those who feel addressed, it's a little less harsh than "idiots").

I feel it's safe pointing that out, McGinty seems reasonable enough to be able to distinguish the usefulness of constructive criticism as opposed to useless negative criticism or trolling. Then again, I haven't really disagreed with him or argued against him yet. Or pointed out something that he might be a little touchy about, hitting a touchy snare as the Dutch expression goes* (at least not as far as I can remember on ATS). *: google translation translates that to "touch a nerve". Which seems I have inadvertently done when quoting some of those who feel that:

The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce.

Source: Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

a reply to: whereislogic

You didn't read the source, did you?

You just googled something and posted the summary that came up thinking that it was a scientific journal because it uses a Journal like format, and you didn't realize that it was written by a faith group.

This is literally one of the most hilarious things that I've seen all day. You posted a quote from the Jehovah's Witnesses thinking that it was a scientific journal.

IF you want me to answer a serious question you're going to need to ask a serious question, so, what was your question, remind me?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
Not really, remember that even after people got vaxxed Fauci and company kept saying people had to mask up.

I even remember when Fauci and others in the leftwing media (including in my country) were advising people not to wear masks, arguing that it wouldn't work anyway because people were too stupid (not in so many words) to know how to use them correctly for the maximum effect (apparently they couldn't learn either), and therefore would give a false sense of security, and because they were needed in medical care and there were shortages (apparently they gave the impression that this even counted for dustmasks and gasmasks sold in home improvement stores that will never be used in hospitals and the health care sector, since I noticed they took them all off the shelves in home improvement stores in my country while they were readily available by the manufacturers, with plenty of news stories about donations of these masks to the government, which seemed to be some sort of excuse for them not being available in the home improvement stores anymore). It came across as a deliberate attempt to keep the public from wearing masks or having access to them and in so doing mitigating the spread of Covid.

This was when Trump was saying that even a scarf was better than nothing. For once he was making sense, but a perfect setup for those who already didn't trust a single word coming out of his mouth. Just like the hydroxychloroquine scenario a little later (mentioned alongside the highly toxic and useless American product, Remdesivir, as supposedly being equally promising and equally well researched). A perfect setup, and Fauci standing right besides him knocking in the assist with the topic of the so-called "gold standard" randomized controlled trials (a marketing term to promote the most easily manipulated type of medical trial for presenting a misleading picture) to knock down the conclusive research into HCQ that showed that it not only works, it works extremely well. While re-affirming the supposed promising nature of the highly toxic Remdesivir as Trump did when putting HCQ on equal footing. So HCQ was dragged down by Fauci, but not Remdesivir (which unlike HCQ, was being used in hospitals to make things worse for patients as a result of this game these 2 were playing when they were clearly on the same team, yet doing a little WWF, or WWE wrestling-act for the benefit of both spectrums of the political arena, left and right, playing both sides for fools and pitting them against eachother for their own gain; as it's done in politics all the time while the military elite and corporate elite call the shots for both the rightwing and the leftwing puppet governments).

Details regarding Remdesivir vs HCQ (video from Apr 21, 2020):

More fraud in science to cast a negative light on the efficacy of HCQ in the treatment of Covid-19 and exaggerate its side-effects:




By the way, Ivermectin also doesn't work, you can't realistically achieve the required concentrations in human patients for any significant positive effect. Long story. But it's telling regarding the competency of those who now recommend both HCQ and Ivermectin (especially those with a preference for Ivermectin) who did not recognize this from the first in vitro study of Ivermectin in relation to Covid-19, which was obviously using unrealistic concentrations of Ivermectin that could never be achieved in human patients to show any positive effect at all, and intentionally did not point that out in the paper that launched that particular bandwagon that fooled so many doctors who didn't look carefully at the paper (or didn't want to admit that either, seeing that they were getting into trouble with licensing boards for prescribing HCQ but not getting into trouble over Ivermectin, because it didn't work anyway so it was no threat to those profiting from Covid-19 and treatments that make things worse for the patient, such as your average IC treatment with intubation or treatment with Remdesivir, ka-ching).

Oh, coming back to the term "false sense of security" as it was used in relation to masks, I have not seen the same term being used in the media in relation to vaccines in the manner pointed out (not spelled out) by McGinty in his point about "2 DOSES". Funny isn't it? The term seems more appropiate in that case, especially seeing the number of new cases in Nov-Dec 2021 in comparison with Nov-Dec 2020 (in my country those numbers were sometimes 3 times as large in 2021 as in 2020). Also seeing that nobody I have heard was under the impression in April 2020 that masks were full-proof or provided full-proof security, they were generally thought of exactly as the leftwing media intended them to be thought of, as not working at all or being near utterly useless for the general public (which in my country lasted as long as up to Nov-Dec 2020 when they finally made them mandatory in some places). And by some people thought of as 'better than nothing' (a minority that was less affected by the media and more capable of using their own common sense rather than blindly trusting the 'experts' on TV not to be on the side of Corona for financial gain or career prospects, touting the party lines of Big Pharma and Big Health Care). What I'm trying to say is, that nobody in my country seemed to be getting a false sense of security from wearing masks (in 2020) as suggested they would by the leftwing media. On the other hand, people do seem to be getting a false sense of security from being vaccinated and the accompanying regulations (i.e. access to café's, bars, etc. without masks when carrying proof of being vaccinated with 2 doses, and I experienced a medical worker asking me to take off my mask after my first shot when waiting for side-effects cause he couldn't see my face in the waiting room, after the 2nd shot I waited outside, and I was the only one outside during that 15 minute waiting period; thinking to myself, 'why don't they just put up a party tent for that waiting period, oh yeah, too cheap in comparison to this whole building with expensive air circulation system, deprives some people of their profits setting up all these vaccination buildings, raking up the medical bill and my mandatory health insurance bill').

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
Not really, remember that even after people got vaxxed Fauci and company kept saying people had to mask up.

I even remember when Fauci and others in the leftwing media (including in my country) were advising people not to wear masks, arguing that it wouldn't work anyway because people were too stupid (not in so many words) to know how to use them correctly for the maximum effect, and therefore would give a false sense of security,

All of which are completely valid reasons.

At the time we also through that Covid was more like SARS, IE primarily transmitted by surface contact.

They changed their advice when the situation changed later on. Which again is a perfectly valid thing to do.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
in reply to: McGinty

If people had bothered to watch those covid briefings made under Trump they would know that there are multiple steps that you can take, and that each step will REDUCE your level of risk. Mask wearing reduces your risk a little, social distancing reduces your risk a little, hand washing reduces your risk a little, ventilating rooms reduces your risk a little. And so on.

Yes, yes, yes, but none of those things, either separately or even when combined, add up to even remotely justifying enforced lockdowns/business closures or mandates for any or all of them.

Not even remotely.

So, please, just hurry up and move to China and spare us...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
in reply to: McGinty

If people had bothered to watch those covid briefings made under Trump they would know that there are multiple steps that you can take, and that each step will REDUCE your level of risk. Mask wearing reduces your risk a little, social distancing reduces your risk a little, hand washing reduces your risk a little, ventilating rooms reduces your risk a little. And so on.

Yes, yes, yes, but none of those things, either separately or even when combined, add up to even remotely justifying enforced lockdowns/business closures or mandates for any or all of them.

Not even remotely.

So, please, just hurry up and move to China and spare us...

If you read my comment I said that they explained everything in detail, I didn't say that I agreed with all of their conclusions.

On the other hand, Covid has killed more Americans than WWII, and I'm not even sure that anybody has yet been able to calculate how it has cost citizens to pay for things like critical care.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
in reply to: tanstaafl

If you read my comment I said that they explained everything in detail, I didn't say that I agreed with all of their conclusions.

Very unclear from your words, and everything I've seen you post says otherwise... for example:

On the other hand, Covid has killed more Americans than WWII,

This makes it perfectly clear you are woefully uninformed, and believe and continue to spread their lies.

The vast majority of people they (and you) claim to have been killed by Covid were murdered due to intentionally withholding safe and effective treatments, or only allowing extremely toxic treatments (like Remdesivir).

and I'm not even sure that anybody has yet been able to calculate how it has cost citizens to pay for things like critical care.

None of which would have been necessary had the safe and effective treatments been used.