Pittsburgh and Forced Vaccination

Research. And be sure to cross-reference everything you read on the subject.

Closest thing I could find: https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/12746

Use Google.

The real issue here is that you're hearing a lot of crackpot junk and it's a pain to prove something doesn't exist. This is particularly so on the internet, when any crank with wifi can churn out all the garbage they like. It's one thing to tell me to put essential oils in my hair to make it shiny. It's another thing altogether when sites like these spread misinformation that literally kills people.

And that's what they are trying to do. Kill people? Not necessarily, although these sites don't seem to care about that. It's more that they want to spread whatever the hell they want to and let it get buried. And then reasonable people such as you and I waste our valuable time trying to find anything.

It's called sealioning, and it is a very real and nasty tactic used by trolls. They make an assertion and expect the person they make it to, to do the legwork to disprove it. This technique exists to waste people's time and patience, get them to stop thinking critically, and to just paste in whatever they find first, without looking closely.

The link I added, above, is from The Pennsylvania Immunization Coalition (PAIC) which (per their website): "is an organization of volunteers consisting of individuals and organizations that have an interest in advancing the mission of timely and effective immunizations for all Pennsylvania residents."

Is it the best source? Maybe. But to find sources to prove something doesn't exist is exceedingly difficult.

In short:
1) Please use Google.

2) Recognize that the more outlandish claims you're hearing are probably junk although not always (after all, in the Tuskegee Experiment, Black men weren't treated for syphilis as a part of 'science'). But, to use a metaphor, when you hear hoofbeats, you should usually be thinking they're being made by horses and not zebras.

3) Ask yourself what the agenda is of the person making the assertion. Look at their other assertions. Do they see a conspiracy under every bush? Or is this a reasonable, otherwise not hysterical person sounding an alarm?

4) Ask for their proof. Look at whatever site(s) they use to validate their claims. Are they reputable sites? Or do they push an agenda? If you're unsure about what a website is all about, most have an About page or a FAQ. If all else fails, look at other pages or posts to get a feel for a site. Are they reasonably following science? Are they fearmongering? Are they making stuff up, just like the Weekly World News? Are they a satire site like the Onion?

5) To add to #4, the person making the assertion has the burden of proving it's true. The burden does not shift to the skeptic to disprove it, unless and until the one making the assertion provides reasonable, vetted information to bolster their claim.

Allow me to reiterate that:

If someone tells you something outlandish, it's up to them to prove it. It's not up to you to disprove it. And if the claimant tries to say that you're the one who's got to disprove their assertion, then the claimant simply doesn't have any proof.

6) The vaguer a claim, the more likely it is to be false. Someone's sister's niece's dog trainer's hairdresser is not a reliable source of information. And a claim that someone somewhere got Covid by wearing their dad's slippers is highly unlikely to be true.

7) Check sample sizes. A claim about 4 people in a world full of around 2 billion times that number of people? That's no better than throwing darts at a board. But a claim about 100,000 people, particularly out of a subset of population (say, a group with 1 million members) is something to take notice of.

8) There are a lot of people online who have nothing better to do than (and often think it's funny) to lie to people. They make stuff up because they're bored, or they think they'll get some measure of internet fame. And maybe it runs away from them. Or maybe they want it to. Either way, these are horrible people. Spreading their nonsense makes us all dumber and more paranoid, and for no good reason. They don't deserve that kind of attention, even if we don't know them by name.

jespah-

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure that it was on CNN or MSNBC. The public health expert or reporter was making a point about -- I think -- that we can't really force people to take a COVID vaccine. To support that point he mentioned the Pittsburgh case, as if to say that it is not sufficient to justify forced COVID vaccination.

I forgot to mention that you should provide relevant quotes from relevant parties to substantiate your claim. Once you've done that, the ball's in the other's court to disprove the quote, or the person it comes from. Optimally, you want to provide something from their own experts. Very few have what it takes to talk past that point, and will instead talk about everything else but what their experts have said. That's when you know you've hit paydirt.

Don't just rely on cherry-picked quotes or make the mistake of thinking that more cherry-picked quotes strengthens your argument. A coherent paragraph, in your own words, written in an objective manner, with links to articles and explanations of their relevance, is more effective than a screed or harangue.

You claimed that the quotes I put right in front of your face--the ones that show the PCR-test to be unapproved, unable to distinguish between covid and the flu, and deliberately set too high anyway--are taken out of context. Ever wonder why you have a lot to say until you're being asked to support your claim, like now? Ever wonder why THAT'S when you get tired and bored?

So, this is once again your chance to explain how I took this, and other quotes, out of context.

Tony: “…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

You'd like to talk about other things, but I'm afraid you'll need to explain why tony decided to not mention what he knew. So, what are your thoughts? If you'd rather I didn't draw attention to your unwillingness to at least give it your best shot as to why he kept quiet, just ignore the question and I'll understand. But I'll probably ask you again.

Anyway, here is the coherent statement you think you want to see:

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.

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 people who got emergency use authorization for a test they knew was guaranteed to spit out meaningless results?

There ya go. What would you care to address about that?

How about if we keep the arguments about other stuff out of this topic, okay? https://able2know.org/rules/ <-- I direct everyone's attention to #9.

Many thanks, all!

Glenn-

Thanks. I think that it was a measles epidemic.

You're welcome.