And still videos. Could you find some papers? That may be old school, but I can still read scientific papers faster than sitting through videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
Printable View
And still videos. Could you find some papers? That may be old school, but I can still read scientific papers faster than sitting through videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
Yep. This is pretty much what I'm talking about. I bet these same people spend an unhealthy amount of time studying the latest gossip instead of something useful. Yea. I know these types. It's the same principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
this one is a bit long 5½ hours, but its divided into parts,
I found a few parts interesting,
https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investiga...88-en-online:3
the first part is all data. a doctor showing a lot of different cases of people that died from the vaccine.
we see pictures, compare with normal vs tissues that where altered because of the vaccination.
quite interesting. and of course, a lot is, not just the first part.
Shaggy.
its hard to find "papers", that usually means you are part in a study, mostly in the university.
this is fresh discoveries that, Im sure theres some documents, but maybe in german, or whatever that doctor has in his journal. that is why we have so much videos, since its mostly interviews.
Im sure that in a few years we will get more documents to read.
Yes, most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yes, the mRNA ones do that. It is the same, they produce the spike proteins. It is like an inverted model. Your objection is semantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Of course all inactive virus vaccines have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
No, in this case the spike protein is produced by your body, they have coded the instructions to produce it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
But at the end it is exactly the same. The spike protein will be in your body.
It doesn't matter the mechanism. The information of the spike protein is in the vaccine.
It is codified we could say.
Suppose you send a zip file containing a picture file inside.
If you say that the zip file contains a picture file you are right.
If you say that the zip file does not contain a picture file, you are also right, because to get the picture file, you fist need to recompose it.
The same with nRNA vaccines, the information for the spike protein is there. The spike protein itself is composed later.
But yes, these vaccines work with the spike protein, that was the point. How they carry it to your body is a subtlety.
Yes, they also have the spike protein too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
As I said: most do.
Just stumbled onto this gem:-
https://thepostmillennial.com/teache...ng-student-cat
More mainstream madness. I don't know how true that story is but given the degeneracy I see promoted in the American mainstream media, I'm inclined to believe this woman's story. How do you Americans put up with this nonsense?
baka, the next time he ask you for a paper, ask him for the components and formula of the vaccines he got shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Or give him the scientific paper.
If you don't find it, I'm quite sure whatever scientific paper that you find will serve (about something else). I guess he doesn't know how to start with a scientific paper.
Why would I have that? Baka is talking about professors and doctors posting videos of their findings. If they are posting videos, they DO have papers on the subject, so the ask isn't unreasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
There are now 125 pages of content. Searching through them looking at posts is...not going to happen to any rigorous degree. If you ignore any posts prior to the advent of vaccines (nobody was really discussing whether or not they worked when they didn't exist), I looked through a handful of pages. The bulk of posts from everybody are posts for which no citation makes sense (off topic, opinions, or just discussing what their country is doing at the moment). For those, I was in the middle. I linked to reasonably reputable sources when it was appropriate, but those sources were ones that could easily be disregarded. The subjects weren't scientific anyways, so there wouldn't have been any scientific papers.
But you may be right. I remember some discussion, which I think you started, about the mechanism of adenovirus. I went looking for that, but whether or not I cited what I found, I can't say (and I didn't go looking for those posts, either). Perhaps we can all do a better job of it.
So, you're back to petty insults?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
Funky is the official fact checker, he will tell you whether it is true or fake soon. Be confident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Oh, you got offended now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
So sensitive...
Demanding papers for every single thing.
News also need scientific papers for you?
Im also thinking that, this is quite fresh.
a paper takes minimum 6 months, to even be worth reading it.
I have done papers myself when I was in the university. and 6 months is the bare minimum.
this covid situation is right now, and if we believe the people in those interview, they claim that are behind forced to follow procedures, some getting fired, etc. it takes time to even come up with the idea, I will make a study. and its not a simple matter. a study takes time.
but now it seems people are more organized, better communications, they are setting up teams.
in one of the latest video, we get some data, charts etc, from a study that the team-leader said was around 1 years time. they have categorize the vaccination in batch-number. to see if there was any difference in "reaction" between different batches. and the result was very odd, some resulted in very low (like seasonal flu-reactions) like 10-20 cases to some batches resulted in 600+ cases of severe reactions.
and the study was not even done. they talked about differentiate it even more, so Im sure they will work a bit more before showing the final result. anyway, I think its not that easy to present with papers at this stage, since everything is still in progress. that is why we have interview, to get updates. they also help each other, with ideas and connections.
PS: and as I said, if you are so demanding, start by providing the scientific paper of how is made the Pfizer vaccine that you are defending with your heart.
The truth is that you are lazy to check the things for yourself, and that's why you are so demanding with others.
Yeah, though papers are coming out faster, these days. If you find any, I'd like to see them. I don't speak German, but they do tend to get translated to English awfully fast, these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
Back when AIDS first showed up, there was a doctor who was kind of an expert on viruses like the HIV virus. I forget who it was. Some of you may remember, and I could probably figure it out with a bit or research, but it barely matters. His point was that he was adamant that HIV was not related to AIDS. The consensus was against him, and eventually he was proven wrong, but for several years he provided weight for the anti-HIV group.
The point is that there will be disagreements. Occasionally, the minority view will be proven to have been correct in the end, but usually not. In this case, supporters of the minority view aren't just saying that the majority is wrong, but that they are either part of, or pawns of, some grand conspiracy to convince people of what they are saying.
OK, sorry if I misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
But you asked about scientific papers in a message to me.
The point is that we are spending lot of time here. Providing scientific paper (that the other one won't read anyway, since don't want to watch to short videos either) would take a lot of more time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
When a conversation is friendly, and I see the other person genuinely interested, I can go for the scientific papers and more. But if that is an excuse to disregard the information I post, not. Go and find the paper yourself. I don't have time for those games.
A scientific paper won't change your mind anyway, you already have chosen what you want to believe.
But yes, with pure scientific information, and more when the source is "not very reliable", to go personally and look for a scientific backup information is what should be done.
I mean personally, not to demand that form others.
No, not particularly. It's just usually the last resort of the desperate to start slinging insults. You've largely refrained from that in the past, so why go there now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
No, just for the factual claims. Opinions don't need citations. News can be cited, and often is in this thread.Quote:
Demanding papers for every single thing.
News also need scientific papers for you?
0_0 I'm not touching that argument lol...imma sit on the sidelines for this one ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
I would read them. When you get a scientific paper, you first read the abstract. Abstracts should be brief summaries of the contents of the paper. If you find anything in there that you want to know more about, then you read the results section and possibly the introduction. The introduction will tend to have citations, more so than any other part of the paper, so that could be an area to lead to further study. You only read the methods if you want to reproduce the study, or if you were wondering how they accomplished some part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
for papers, I haven't really looked if I can find anything.
I have mostly watched videos, I found it interesting to follow the discussions.
I will keep that in mind the next video I watch, if they say something. from time to time I hear them say, you can get this data "here", but I never write it down.
There isn't such a paper, or at least not one available. The last time I looked, it was still considered a trade secret. The details have been provided to the US FDA, but not yet made public. The general mechanism is published, but as far as I can tell, only in gray literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
Here's a bit of the gray literature that includes what is found in the Pfizer vaccine (I didn't realize it had a name...but it's a stupid name), but not on how it is manufactured:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...-BioNTech.html
Cool. If you see something like that, note the time, if you would.Quote:
Originally Posted by baka
yeah. the same problem with the agreements and deals in EU,
they are not transparent about it. we still dont know if any country even signed those paper.
and Ursula, she is not sharing anything. we dont even know if she signed the paper.
you know, in those documents shows the whole deal, implications, if theres some important information about bieffect etc. but nothing, they dont reveal. and it seems that only a few knows about the content.
quite amazing, that it can be like that.
so, we have have politicians that tries to get on hold of those documents.
they did get "parts", redacted, but too much was censored, so you cant not make sense of it.
I think thats also an important document that, if Ursula want to "destroy" conspiracy she would reveal the content. as long she hides it, more she will fuel the skeptic,
Well they are clean and soft :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
My teeth I meant....
Yes if I have to say America I would again started to say the it comes from Amerigo, is the Italian form of a Germanic personal name (see Emmerich) and Emmerich comes from 3 parts, amalaz that the Greek ancient word for it is μάλαγμᾰ "malagma" - soft,haimaz that is of course Greek haima = blood and ermunaz = Greek ὄρμενος - ormomenos = rushing forward + gen comes from Greek Gi-n that is earth, so soft bloody rush earth . So I just said Usaians.
Now I'm going to watch Fight Club and someone else at the forum should do so and fast....
Always the case.
I wonder if there is ever actually a paper, in that case. I'm working with a bunch of 'signed' documents, but the signature is a PNG. When you get to a sufficiently large organization, even if there is a paper, it wouldn't begin to cover all the questions. It's the paper trail leading up to that final paper that is interesting. The final paper might just say, "yes, we agree to what we discussed." I'm sure it would be more complete than just THAT, but it need not be verbose enough to be of much interest on its own.
The fact that these continents are called America is one of the finest jokes in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
That was my point. I know it is secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Can I have the right not to trust them?
Or are we now forced to trust compulsively on companies that don't say what they do and their only goal is to profit.
That their goal is to profit is not "conspiracy theory", it is common sense.
You could say that they are backed by the CDC and WHO.
Can I also have the right not to trust them either? Or that would be insane because they are sacred?
Look Shaggy, let's talk frankly.
I have read many studies in the past about Ivermectin.
I don't remember if some were in the format of a scientific paper, but there were conducted many, many studies throughout the world.
Some peer reviewed, all the true science can ask for.
What did the CDC and WHO do with them, used as toilet "papers".
They published an article about not to use "horse medicine".
Do you think that honest?
Would you trust someone doing that?
BTW, AFAIK they don't have any peer review with their vaccine tests.
Is that just? Are you trusting them so much?
You are putting your life in hands of dishonest people.
Do not try to enforce that for others.
That would be honorable.
Yes, they do: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
Note the section on the Vaccine Product Approval Process. Those clinical trials will be reviewed, but then there is the presentation to the VRBPAC, which is a more stringent review than peer review.
Do you know who reviewed for example the Pfizer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
They were independent, not related to the company?
That would be surprising anyway, since they started applying it as soon as they finished phase 3 (allegedly), I don't understand how others could have time to conduct all the same process so fast.
For my understanding, reliable peer review would be other not related and without any interest on the company, or better if they were (true) competitors.
Otherwise you just have to trust that their documents are not faked. What can of review can be that?
I have read one metanalysis study that showed that studies of Ivermectin on COVID showed a positive effect where a certain parasite was found and no positive effect where the parasite was absent. I don't have that one at hand, so I went looking for it, and found this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....26.21250420v1
Note the findings: No positive effect, but note the caveat:Here's one that showed an overall positive outcome:Quote:
All studies had a high risk of bias, and showed a very low certainty of the evidence.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/....1002/rmv.2265
Here's one that shows no effect:
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/artic...958?login=true
Another that showed some benefit, but with repeated caveats that there data quality was poor:
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/9/1645/htm
Peer reviewers tend to be selected almost at random (I've been one, and had never dealt with the subject in question), though from within the field. They certainly wouldn't be competitors when talking about a commercial drug, though. The conflict of interest is pretty clear, there. Conflicts of interest show up in fish data, as well. There have been plenty of cases where somebody felt they got a bad review of a paper because it got peer reviewed by a competitor with a competing theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
EDIT: Went back and looked at the link I provided. It takes two clicks to get to the requirements page for serving on one of those committees. That includes this section:
Of course, if you don't want to believe it, you don't have to. I wouldn't expect the names of the people on that advisory board are made public, though they may be. If they are, perhaps even their CVs are made public..or at least partially, since some of the information on there would be protected by law. Of course, you can doubt that, as well.Quote:
Conflicts of Interest:
Potential candidates are asked to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts in order to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest. For more information view the presentation slides on conflicts of interest.
You are so narrowed minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I can't spend more time with something like this.
Talk me about being biased. (just rhetoric, I don't care)
I would like to spend time with serious people. And mainly honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Perhaps you are sincere. But being sincere is guarantee of nothing.
You don't like the message, so you attack the messenger? What part did you think wasn't honest?
The quoted ones in previous messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I didn't read the message. If you start something with: "I've read about its use on parasites", I can't read any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It is the same the CDC did: "it is medicine for horses, you are not a horse".
Tell me what is more dishonest. (don't care, just saying).
And yes, I see what kind of messenger I have in front. The message is what you say, don't try to give it more authority than yours (whatever the message was).
I'm tired, I think I'll take a break.
@baka
I was demoralized with Dr. Fuellmich saying that covid didn't kill people.
If this is the level of seriousness that we have also on our side... the horizon is dark.
I have no doubt that there is a plan, it was from the start.
I have no doubt that a psychological battle is going on.
I have no doubt that Pfizer is a criminal organization, as seems to be also Google and many others now.
More than that, it is hard to tell.
Happy holidays or whatever.
Ok, I stated that incorrectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
Apparently, you didn't read even that, since I didn't say it. That would be a gross alteration of what I said. The paper had nothing to do with the impact of Ivermectin on parasites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-