Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

[FunkyDexter]

I follow true scientists that actually make science, peer review included.

Which ones? I'll fact check them for you.

[Niya]

I hope I don't get stuck with them at a party though.

I feel that. You know many times I get stuck listening to a bunch of sports talk at events unable to contribute. I'm wondering, like how much time did these people spend learning all of this stuff. I know basic stuff but most average people would know like every match their favorite sports star has played in, what positions they are good at, which clubs they spent time in, who they are beefing with and all manner of trivia. I'm there wondering how the hell people can put this much effort into learning this stuff. I could never do it because that kind of information is absolutely useless to me. I'm not gonna waste my time filling my brain with all that useless information.

[baka]

and who is checking the fast checkers?

[Eduardo-]

Which ones? I'll fact check them for you.

How are you planning to "fact-check"? (LOL).

[Eduardo-]

and who is checking the fast checkers?

The ones that are above, that oversee the narrative.

[Eduardo-]

They need to be more appropriately called narrative-checkers.

[baka]

anyway.
I follow https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investiga...mittee:5/s88:3
the latest.
and it seems that something is moving, next week they will move forward with all the data and people that have collected for a grand jury.

so Im interested in this. if they can do anything at all, if its even possible to win against those giants.

[FunkyDexter]

and who is checking the fast checkers?

Other fact checkers. They're like turtles. They go all the way down.

It's a good thing you've show some scepticism toward Dr. Reiner Fuellmich though. Because the basis of his law suit was simply made up and has no basis in reality.

[sapator]

First I can honestly say that Funky is not on the take, he is on the give. So stop hurrahing him.
Views are views but that does not mean someone is on the take here (except Shaggy,wes,Tyson, all the Usaians in general )
Secondly, in order to find who is checking who, you must go down down down , so fact checker, manager fact checkers, CEO fact checker, Company, Major Company, Major CEO of Major company, True dark people collective, True dark people CEO, The big boss collective, the big boss CEO, The Big Boss.
So fact checkers are only the tip of the iceberg.

[baka]

time will tell.
actually I hope I'm wrong. because all the video I have watched by different scientist/doctors/etc is "partially" true. its terrible.

so, we can not do anything until they have put this in display in a grand jury.
after that we will see the result of it.

and for your sake, I hope you are right.
for me? well. if its wrong, I was fooled, but nothing serious happened to me. Im still alive and well.
if you are wrong, theres more seriousness here. you take the vaccine that could be dangerous.

[Eduardo-]

Other fact checkers. They're like turtles. They go all the way down.

It's a good thing you've show some scepticism toward Dr. Reiner Fuellmich though. Because the basis of his law suit was simply made up and has no basis in reality.

I think you'll have to read from Christmas to now.
I can't explain in two lines why fast-checkers are mostly useless (more in regard with the pandemic issues).

When I have more time I'll take a look anyway to the link you posted.

[Eduardo-]

time will tell.
actually I hope I'm wrong. because all the video I have watched by different scientist/doctors/etc is "partially" true. its terrible.

so, we can not do anything until they have put this in display in a grand jury.
after that we will see the result of it.

and for your sake, I hope you are right.
for me? well. if its wrong, I was fooled, but nothing serious happened to me. Im still alive and well.
if you are wrong, theres more seriousness here. you take the vaccine that could be dangerous.

What's happening? Some things are already crystal clear, at least for me.

[Eduardo-]

Fact checkers sites are totally unreliable, it is like asking the Gestapo if Nazis are good.

[baka]

The Corona Committee, going to take it to the next level.
so, Im thinking, thats the only way to make people understand.
there need to be some events that will make the news into media.
otherwise no matter what u link to, it will be "fake".

so, the next couple of weeks will be important.
hopefully they can get the appeal from a judge.

[Eduardo-]

It's a good thing you've show some scepticism toward ...

And that's also why I don't believe in the official narrative (any more), because I question the things that I see that are not right (and there are a lot in the narrative).

[Eduardo-]

The Corona Committee, going to take it to the next level.
so, Im thinking, thats the only way to make people understand.
there need to be some events that will make the news into media.
otherwise no matter what u link to, it will be "fake".

so, the next couple of weeks will be important.
hopefully they can get the appeal from a judge.

Hopefully. But I see them a bit fanaticized.
If they say things like the covid didn't produce deaths, I see it difficult.

BTW: the judge is probably already watching these videos.

[baka]

it could be that some are overenthusiastic or are playing with numbers in favor of their own bias.
but the whole thing is not a few individuals but about all the people that produce data that can be used in a court.
so, sure, its not always strictly 100% correct.

but this is not something easy, theres no sources that you can believe in, you can easily be cynical and that can make a person be too much.
that is actually what most people are doing. and this committee are just people and not an alien species. undependable that some conspiracy can grow out of proportions.

whats important here is that what they can show in a court and if they have enough proof.
Im watching the channel, and I mean.... its huge. there's so many people in there that is crazy. how can so many people be in a conspiracy? .....

[dilettante]

the corona virus has that spike-protein that will be released inside your body

No, that is not how it works. At all.

Egad, what kind of nutty sources are you using to create your false narrative against vaccines and precuationary measures to limit spread?

[baka]

dilettante. I watch real doctors, they show pictures of dead people inside their bodies, where after +100 days the spike-protein is still inside the body.
watch yourself
https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigative-Committee:5

[FunkyDexter]

they have put this in display in a grand jury

It's never going to see a grand jury. It has no substance and no grand jury will consider it.

I can't explain in two lines why fast-checkers are mostly useless

Oh I fully understand why you disagree with fact checkers. You're assumption is that anything that disagrees with your narrative must be part of the conspiracy. The problem is this view disregards the very principle of scientific peer review. Now fact checkers themselves wouldn't qualify as scientific peer reviewers but they work on the same principles. They publish their conclusions and invite criticism. That's why the fact checkers go all the way down. There are few things a fact checker would relish more than the opportunity to debunk another fact checker - it's the best sort of scoop there is.

Further, they cite their sources, allowing you to back check their veracity. In the case of the last link I gave you the source page is here. It includes the WHO, the Lancet, the CDC... you know... actual credible scientific bodies that require peer review. They require papers to be published in reputable scientific journals where they can be assessed and criticised by fellow scientists. This is important - it's the scientific process and it's the thing that separates us from plague doctors of the 1300s who would have blamed covid on miasmas.

Your sources, on the other hand, do not require any of this type of rigor. They are not science, they are unsubstantiated opinion. And to build your world view on this without engaging in any of that rigor yourself invalidates your conclusions because, as the most junior student of logic will tell you, you cannot draw a conclusion from predicates without first establishing the veracity of those predicates. It is not enough to simply will them into being. It allows you to divorce yourself from reality, which is what you've down. It's how Baka can arrive at the conclusion that a virus which overly kills old people can have been deliberately created and released in order to exterminate the young. That's Pizzagate, right there.

But I'll offer the invite again: who are your valid sources? We can apply some scientific rigor to them and find out if they have validity or not. If you're unwilling or unable to engage in that process you cannot expect anyone to view your opinions as anything other than the ravings of the deranged.


Edit> I've already done you the courtesy of watching several and checking their veracity. I owe you nothing more on that front.

[baka]

[sapator]

Let's not poultrize the thread. There is one for it.

[baka]

that song is quite the importance. its used in rally's for the protest against vaccination mandate.

[sapator]

Fine but let's not turn it into a songs protest contest, please.

[baka]

ok. whats your problem? thats one post, not number 14. and one that is actually relevant as its not just a random song. u can look it up on youtube, to see live footage of that song as well.

also, the numerous times u just post strange post about, Im not sure what about. jelly bears and such.
if you want to be anal about it, stop posting crap like that and just focus on relevant information of corona.

[FunkyDexter]

that song is quite the importance

I quite like it, it's catchy. I don't think it substantially contributes to your argument though. Mind you, you were quoting Russel Brand as a source earlier so I guess you haven't actually lowered the bar.

[baka]

never quoted him, I think u confuse me with Eduardo.

[Shaggy Hiker]

To your neighbors.

Woof. THAT pack of lunatics? I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Nothing wrong with liking or watching sports. But when you're studying it to the point of damn near obsession while struggling to make ends meet then you're a fool.

As long as you include the second half of that statement, then I agree with the first half of the statement. If you are not struggling to make ends meet, then I'd say you can obsess over whatever you want to. I kind of have to say that. Everybody I know has some kind of hobby that they pursue almost beyond reason. I don't do anything like that (unless you count putting on a pack and walking for several months until you get to the point where you are eating opened Crisco you found in a shack, which was several hundred miles after you broke a bone in your foot), but I know people who do.

We all have our idiosyncrasies. Some focus more on the idiot part, others more on the sin part, and others on the crazy part, but we all have them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

(except Shaggy,wes,Tyson, all the Usaians in general )

I think you meant Ursarians, right? I can hardly bear to correct your spelling, but you give me paws.

[FunkyDexter]

never quoted him, I think u confuse me with Eduardo.

Fair enough, my mistake.

[Eduardo-]

Please shorter the next time.

Oh I fully understand why you disagree with fact checkers. You're assumption is that anything that disagrees with your narrative must be part of the conspiracy.

No. And I don't have "a narrative".
(Sorry, if you wanted something more extensive... but I have too much to read below)

The problem is this view disregards the very principle of scientific peer review.

Absolutely not, rather the opposite is true (there are a lot of pair review, unlike labs data. - But didn't I already say that in one of my last answers to you?-).

Now fact checkers themselves wouldn't qualify as scientific peer reviewers but they work on the same principles. They publish their conclusions and invite criticism. That's why the fact checkers go all the way down. There are few things a fact checker would relish more than the opportunity to debunk another fact checker - it's the best sort of scoop there is.

You seem to believe a lot in those "sacred angels". I'm sure they dress in white.

Further, they cite their sources, allowing you to back check their veracity.

Yes, sure, the WHO, CDC, NIH, laboratories or someone they hired.

In the case of the last link I gave you the source page is here. It includes the WHO, the Lancet, the CDC... you know... actual credible scientific bodies

Yes, very credible. Specially Credible in capital.

that require peer review. They require papers to be published in reputable scientific journals

It used to be. Not now anymore, at least not always now.
Do you know that happened with Hydroxychloroquine (I guess you don't know what I'm talking about)

where they can be assessed and criticised by fellow scientists.

That theory is good.
Yes, in the papers it works like that.

BTW: you don't need to explain to me how science works, how these publications work, I already know that.

This is important - it's the scientific process and it's the thing that separates us from plague doctors of the 1300s who would have blamed covid on miasmas.

Your sources, on the other hand, do not require any of this type of rigor.

You know nothing about my sources. Pure speculation and prejudice.

But I'll offer the invite again: who are your valid sources?

Valid sources of what?

BTW, you perhaps can help me with something that I want to do now.
I need some fact check, but not from fact checkers sites, but from the actual sources. If you are so good checking facts... perhaps you can help me.

But first I will wait for your answer to know what you are asking.

[Eduardo-]

I quite like it, it's catchy. I don't think it substantially contributes to your argument though. Mind you, you were quoting Russel Brand as a source earlier so I guess you haven't actually lowered the bar.

You can check the sources he publishes.
Do you want a scientific paper for everything?

[Shaggy Hiker]

You can check the sources he publishes.
Do you want a scientific paper for everything?

Ideally, yes. Even a book is considered secondary material. Those videos people keep posting aren't even considered grey material.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You know nothing about my sources. Pure speculation and prejudice.

That's true, but you can remedy that: Cite your sources.

[FunkyDexter]

That's true, but you can remedy that: Cite your sources.

^What he said^

[baka]

not sure. here we need to prove everything, while u dont.
whats your proof that the vaccine are good for you?

that mrna protocol could change your genome sequence. especially pregnant women, that could change the cell of the fetus.
but even so, in media they just say "here u go, pregnant women can take it no probs, no risks", "pregnant women are egoistical, they need to take it, only 50% so far".
its like they want everybody to take this untested vaccine and are quite aggressive about it.

meanwhile all those studies takes many years, 10+ to even know if a new product is safe at all.
how many mrna studies do we have that are "completed" and also "accepted" for use? and, mrna product used in vaccination and not as gene therapy, since this is not to repair cells but to "modify".
do you even have proof that the modification is temporary? wheres the data for that? its just someone told you in the news. are there any scientific facts?
and what proof do you have that the modification of the cells, that are doing the same with all cells in the body, depending on age, sex, health status etc?
will the cell remember? theres studies that show that rna "can" modify dna. as we know from viruses, that humans inherited from their folks. so theres a possibility.
are you sure this is not happening?

you have zero proof. just something from the news telling you its safe. and what source?
are they sure?. the studies are not even done. nobody knows yet. how can they knows that? do they have a time machine?

still we are doing a mass vaccination that could lead to cell modifications, especially now that they also vaccinate kids and pregnant women.

the only thing you have accomplished so far is telling us: fake, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake to whatever we are showing.

you are taking a big risk here. its a dangerous game you are playing.
but it seems you are all doctors that know exactly what this vaccine is doing. good for you.

[FunkyDexter]

whats your proof that the vaccine are good for you?

See the graph I posted previously. I really can't be bothered to post it again since you clearly can't be bothered to even look at it. But feel free to extend me the same courtesy that I've repeatedly extended to you. Check my source.

that mrna protocol could change your genome sequence

Already Debunked

meanwhile all those studies takes many years, 10+ to even know if a new product is safe at all.

Nope, every single vaccine that has ever been released had no history of public use at the point it was released - by definition it could not have a history of public use before it's released. We don't rely on a history of public use when measuring the safety of vaccines because, by definition we can't. The covid vaccines have gone through exactly the same scientific test and rigour in order to receive approval as every other vaccine that gets released. Indeed, given their widespread distributions, the covid vaccines are probably the most thoroughly tested vaccines there have ever been.

meanwhile all those studies takes many years, 10+ to even know if a new product is safe at all.

The CDC, the WHO, the NHS... actual scientists in good standing.

the only thing you have accomplished so far is telling us: fake, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake to whatever we are showing.

Well, yeah... because everything you're showing is fake.

[baka]

ok I will remember this FunkyDexter

I say. ignore my post, because I have zero interest in having arguments with you. and Im sure you don't care what I say either. so why bother?
I will now put you on ignore. (I can't , unfortunately ... but I will try to ignore your post)

[FunkyDexter]

ignore my post

No. If you post something I disagree with, I'll challenge it. That's how public discourse works. If you want to remain unchallenged then it's on you to improve the quality of what you're posting. Do your research.