0
   

Why Life Jackets Should Be Mandatory

 
 
Glennn
 
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2021 09:49 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GukIoZ8d3Ew&feature=emb_imp_woyt

That guy's a genius.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,731 • Replies: 52

 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 01:02 am
@Glennn,
Yeah. Didn't change my mind about vaccinations, but he is good.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 05:16 am
Hard to believe someone went to that much effort attempting draw an inept analogy between individuals drowning and people catching an aerosol-spread contagious disease.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 09:23 am
@hightor,
Before addressing you, I have to keep in mind that you believe that giving the experimental injection to hospice patients will allow for them to hug their loved ones again. That was funny, seeing you on that bandwagon.

Do you still believe that? Obviously you do.

Speaking of silly beliefs, what's really hard to believe is that you still think that the experimental injection offers you anything like immunity. How many life jackets did they tell you you need?

Do you have a limit to the amount of ineffective, experimental injections you're willing to accept before calling it a failure?
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 03:23 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Didn't change my mind about vaccinations . . .

Vaccinations? Who said he was talking about the experimental injection? But now that I think about it, I can see how one might get the idea that he's actually talking about them. After all, the experimental injection's performance does parallel the performance of lifejackets that need to be replaced regularly, and that only work if everyone puts one on.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 03:41 pm
@Glennn,
The guy has at least three (maybe more) videos on the same theme. I have no doubts. You are entitled to your own conclusions.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 03:58 pm
@roger,
Quote:
I have no doubts.

About what?

They gave you a faulty test, and you give them your trust?
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 05:45 pm
@Glennn,
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I've given you and your thread all the time I can spare.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 10:45 pm
@roger,
Quote:
I have no idea what you are talking about . . .

Only because you're being forgetful, roger.

The pandemic was predicated on the number of cases; the number of cases was predicated on the results of the PCR-test; the PCR-test did not include clinical presentation or observation; the PCR-test does not distinguish between Covid and influenza or other pathogens; the PCR-test does not tell you whether a virus is dead or alive; the PCR-test does not tell you that someone is sick or how sick they are. Thus, the PCR-test was the worst choice among the available alternatives.

Follow me so far?

Don't want to follow me that far? Well, we're into it now.

Now, in view of how you were deceived concerning covid case numbers via the PCR-test, what kind of faith will it take for you to ignore that deception and continue defending the experimental injection pushed by the same people who brought you they knew was guaranteed to spit out meaningless results?

There. Now you can't pretend to not know what this is about.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 11:08 pm
EDIT:

Now, in view of how you were deceived concerning covid case-numbers via the PCR-test, what kind of faith will it take for you to ignore that deception and continue believing the deceivers and the experimental injection they're pushing? Remember, they all knew that the PCR-test was guaranteed to spit out meaningless results?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 06:43 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
Before addressing you, I have to keep in mind that you believe that giving the experimental injection to hospice patients will allow for them to hug their loved ones again.

I have never expressed that belief, nor have I ever said or written anything about anyone "hugging their loved ones".

You didn't address my point and, from your response, I doubt that you will as you just use other people's replies as springboards to spout non sequiturs and pre-packaged misinformation.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 09:39 am
@hightor,
Linkat said:

By helping prevent these patients from contracting COVID-19, the vaccine helps prevent additional pain and symptoms that could compound with their current condition, along with possible death from the virus. It also adds protection for caregivers, family and loved ones who might spend time with those receiving hospice and palliative care.

And you said: "Good work. That makes perfect sense."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your memory has become self-serving to the point where you've forgotten that the experimental injection does not confer immunity or prevent transmission.
Quote:
you just use other people's replies as springboards to spout non sequiturs and pre-packaged misinformation.

Okay, go ahead and tell me why you believe the information I've offered is prepackaged. Fill me in on the what the fraudulent PCR-test really is.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 10:14 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
Linkat said...

Exactly. And I complimented Linkat for finding that response and posting it, which summarizes the pro-vaccination position. The same response could be made about the seasonal flu vaccines, which don't confer lifelong immunity either. Public health officials use that argument when people question the efficacy of those vaccines as well. I said nothing about "hugging loved ones".

So are you going to explain why a life jacket which allows you to float safely in water (but only if you wear it properly) is analogous to combating a contagious airborne virus with mRNA vaccines? You call these "experimental injections" – do you really consider life jackets to be "experimental"?

Quote:
Okay, go ahead and tell me why you believe the information I've offered is prepackaged.

I believe all your opinions about the PCR test are the result of things you have read. If, in reality, you are truly an experienced microbiologist who has done independent research on polymerase chain reactions, then provide convincing evidence. Otherwise it is reasonable for anyone to assume that your beliefs are based on the conclusions of others.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 12:40 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I complimented Linkat for finding that response and posting it, which summarizes the pro-vaccination position.

Linkat posted misinformation regarding hospice patients being able to hug their loved ones before dying if they receive the experimental injection. You responded by saying that that makes perfect sense to you. I pointed out the folly of that falsehood; specifically, the time issue between first dose and second dose and booster, and the fact that the experimental injection does not confer immunity. Did you got caught up in the media's headlong dive into supporting tony's claim that herd immunity will be achieved? If you still believe that the experimental injection prevents infection and transmission, then you're still caught up in it.

I'm sorry to hear that the flu vaccine is a crap-shoot of sorts.
Quote:
I believe all your opinions about the PCR test are the result of things you have read.

Here's how caught up you are in the frenzy of it all. Even when your trusted "experts" tell you point blank that the PCR-test doesn't work, you think it's something I heard from a second or third source.

Quote: “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

Do you believe them? I mean, it's what I've read . . .
Quote:
So are you going to explain why a life jacket which allows you to float safely in water (but only if you wear it properly) is analogous to combating a contagious airborne virus with mRNA vaccines?

You need only one life jacket to keep from drowning. You, on the other hand, have accepted a treatment that you'll need over and over and over again. No one hands you a life jacket and then tells you that when--not if--the first one fails, put on another one and continue changing them out as they are made available to you. You have no idea how many treatments you're going to require for a problem you don't have, do you?
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 02:55 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
I pointed out the folly of that falsehood; specifically, the time issue between first dose and second dose and booster, and the fact that the experimental injection does not confer immunity.

I doubt that I stayed on your thread long enough to notice; I can only take you in small doses.

Quote:
Do you believe them? I mean, it's what I've read . . .

Do a search for that statement and nearly every hit is from anti-vax, covid-denying, "alternative medicine" sites. The original statement from the CDC was released early in the pandemic and has since been updated multiple times.

Quote:
You need only one life jacket to keep from drowning.

No, it actually depends on how many times you find yourself in danger of drowning.

Quote:
You, on the other hand, have accepted a treatment that you'll need over and over and over again.

I know. It's an outrage. It would almost be better to die of covid.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 02:57 pm
I think it is funny to see the two extremes. Neither Glennn nor Hightor are representing the facts completely... the interchange is entertaining nonetheless.

(For the record, I found the original video mildly amusing, I thought they pushed their point way too far).
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 03:01 pm
For those keeping score.

1) Glennn is factually correct to point out the the chance of an unvaccinated person either being hospitalized or dying from covid is very small. Being unvaccinated is a pretty small risk to a young, healthy person.

2) Hightor is factually correct that being vaccinated greatly decreases the risk of you contracting the virus and the chances of serious disease. And vaccination is important to stop the spread of the virus in general.

Neither one can admit that the other has a valid point. And that is why these endless threads are amusing.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 07:11 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I doubt that I stayed on your thread long enough to notice; I can only take you in small doses.

Let me translate that for those who don't understand what your point is. Actually, I don't have to translate anything for anyone. You agreed it made perfect sense to give the experimental injection to people on hospice, and I called you on it. And that's the thing you find difficult to take in any size dose.
Quote:
Do a search for that statement and nearly every hit is from anti-vax, covid-denying, "alternative medicine" sites.

Wow! You mean the CDC was wrong in its initial assessment that the PCR-test doesn't distinguish between covid and the flu or other pathogens, and that they've recently discovered that it does?

How about tony telling you point blank that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will spit out meaningless results? When did he know that? More importantly, why are you letting him off the hook for playing dumb about it while labs all over the world set it too high, thereby ensuring a fraudulent case count. I know you're thinking that the CDC just had no idea at the time

So:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.”Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7wze46md0&t=90s

…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.”The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid”Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” The World Health Organization

Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.”Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.”Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.”Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Take your pick and explain why they have it wrong.
Quote:
I know. It's an outrage. It would almost be better to die of covid.

Yeah sure. You already have better than a 99% chance of surviving it, but you let them get to you, and now you've become hysterical about getting that extra 1% protection so that you don't die. You keep running . . .
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 07:23 pm
@maxdancona,
Max, in the gun thread, I mentioned that it's worth having a gun for home defense because of 160,000 violent encounters with intruders every year in the U.S. You said that, proportional to the population, you like those odds. I was about to ask you why you see the 40,000 firearms deaths as bad odds when you see 160,000 as good odds. However, you realized your mistake and deleted the post before I could reply.

What I'm saying is that no one cares about your assessment of things here since we'll never know if you're saying what you really mean, or whether you'll delete something should it prove a detriment to your argument.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2021 10:16 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn, you seem to devote a lot of time to anger.
 

Related Topics

NICE BOOBS AND A BIG ASS - Discussion by Setanta
why are usa people stinky and clumsy - Question by Setanta
IF . . . - Question by Setanta
OH, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE - Discussion by Setanta
I LOVE PORK ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
OUTRAGE? NO THANKS . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Evil water softener guy - Discussion by Setanta
DAMN THOSE AUSTRIANS ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
This thread IS about race. - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Life Jackets Should Be Mandatory
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.37 seconds on 02/29/2024 at 10:16:09