Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

[baka]

Eduardo, about Dr. Reiner Fuellmich - Update on Nuremberg 2.0.

that statement, he will need to explain what he meant by that.

I remember early on, when this virus started.
the only people that died was from elderly homes. we did have thousands of death
and it was strange. how could that virus just infect those homes, while nobody where sick in the population.
and remember that in Sweden, we didnt do anything initially. no lockdowns or restrictions at all.
so, how could that virus, coordinately affect so many elderly homes almost the same time?
I was working on a treatment home, and nobody knew about the virus.
I do remember one colleague that told her mother died, and the doctor that came to her home, told the nurse
to make a covid-test. my colleague was astonished, since her mother died of old age/natural circumstances.
even so, she was tested that showed positive.
in that time, it was also in the news that how accurate the tests where. they also told that u could show positive by testing an avocado. nothing made sense.

after they started with the "protocol", that seemed to be a world-wide decision, we also started to get news about
younger people. that first they told "x" died and he was only "x" of age. but later wrote: he has underlining conditions.

it was much later that the narrative started to change into, he was healthy. still I didn't know anybody that was healthy
that even got serious sick. time passed, and eventually we got into the 2nd wave. now, it was more severe.
one friend got more sick and he was in the hospital for one day, but he has hypertension and quite bad values, so it could be the reason.

anyway, the first wave was dubious. and how well the world coordinated and applied the same narrative.
initially it also seemed we got a more open and varied media about it, that more time passed, more it narrowed into one voice.

not sure what Reiner meant by that.
Im sure he knows about the spike-protein and that its dangerous. at least for some people.
it is true that I don't know anyone that died of covid.
but it can not be all fake news about people dies.
and even if people dies because of underlining conditions, covid is also part of it, as it would weaken the person more.

a flu is till a flu, and kill people, and if corona is like a flu, it can also kill people.

but of course I agree that is exaggerated and that corona is to see as a cold with a spike-protein that is a bio-weapon.
and that you need to get the right treatment if the spike-protein gives you an reaction, or you get a more severe illness that could lead to long covid or even death.
that should be the common knowledge 2022.

for the vaccination part, what that can do, thats the part he need to prove. instead of trying to diminishes how covid affect un-vaccinated.
its not black and white. but maybe he felt the need to make a point, since its a war we are dealing with.
but as you say, its was not a good move.

[baka]

@Shaggy

so this video I told you about: https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investiga...ession-88-en:8

a bit of searching I found:

https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/

(about fact checkers, for me they are the same as those telemarketer, they sell you anything, no matter quality of the product or if its legally right. they sell you what their employee tell them, I would never trust them, as little I trust telemarketers)

[FunkyDexter]

Funky is the official fact checker, he will tell you whether it is true or fake soon. Be confident

Sure thing. This is currently unverifiable. The only source is the woman herself who posted a video on YouTube. We don't know that she was fired for refusing to meow; we don't that she was actually a teacher; we don't know that she was even fired, where from, or what she was fired for. Possibly she's made it up from whole cloth because she wanted 15 minutes of fame or possibly she was fired and she is heavily embellishing the story to make it seem ridiculous. If you actually watch her video you'll find that, while she describes a student behaving in a way that would have merited appropriate redress what she actually did was resort to ridicule and bullying - something that would most likely have invited some kind of warning. My best guess, she probably has a history of emotionally bullying her students and this incident was the last straw - or she's just made it up.

Or in a nutshell, we cannot verify the veracity of her story because she failed to provide sources.

I never saw you backed anything with a scientific paper so far.
I never saw you backed anything with nothing actually.

We're not asking for scientific papers (though as Shaggy said, it would be ideal, it would help avoid some legwork), we're asking for verifiable sources. Scientific papers are one such example but another is a secondary source that cites it's sources and so on back to a verifiable primary source. Look at the graph I posted showing vaccines correlate to a tenfold reduction in death rates. It's source is OurWorldInData. They are not a scientific paper (they are a secondary, not primary, source) but rather they use information they have gathered from other sources and they cite those sources. For that graph you can trace those sources back and, ultimately, you will arrive at, among others, the Lancet - the single most respected medical publishing journal in the UK which requires it's articles be peer reviewed before admission. The lancet is a primary source. You can follow exactly the same process with any of the fact check links I've posted. You do not need to go out and look for corroboration, you can simply follow the links, a process that will take you less than 20 minutes. This is how academic publication works.

Now look at the links Baka has been posting. They're to videos on hosted sites. They do not cite their sources meaning that the only way of validity checking them is to look for corroborating articles which do cite source, traceable back to actual scientific sources. In the few instances where a source has been mentioned it is always to a similar article which does not cite it's sources. There is no inferable chain back to a primary source. I tried that on a few but couldn't find a single creditable scientific source that the WHO engineered Covid 19 to kill our children.

But I'll credit Baka that at least he is providing unverifiable sources. You, Eduardo, aren't even bothering to do that. You're just yelling "vague, undefined conspiracy, prove me wrong!".

We are not placing a burden of proof on you that we are not placing on ourselves. We are placing the same burden of proof - provide a verifiable source. I've done it several times in this thread. You have not done that because you unable to do that which really means you're just white noise. And the fact that you cannot be bothered to check our source does not excuse you of the responsibility to provide your own.

I have read many studies in the past about Ivermectin.

Awesome then it should be trivial for you to provide a link to those papers as a source. We can then check their bona fides.

[FunkyDexter]

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt fact checked

[baka]

https://www.pfizer.com/people/leader...rs/james_smith

Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, a London-based charity supported by the global news and information provider.

Reuters is part of the Thomson Reuters Corporation. It is both a global news agency and a major provider of financial markets trading and analytical software.

In February 2020, Steve Hasker succeeded Smith as President and CEO of Thomson Reuters.
Involved with initiatives such as the international business council of the World Economic Forum and TPG capital, that is close connected to Pfizer.

[FunkyDexter]

Sorry, was that meant to be a source? If so for what claim? (Genuine question, I just don't understand where you're going with that as all that link shows is that Pfizer has a guy called James Smith on it's board)

[baka]

really?
you are on a mission to discredit everything, but now you dont understand the implications?

reuters, that you are usually using for your fact checkers is part of Thomson Reuters Foundation
the current President and CEO is Steve Hasker from (quite nice timing) February 2020

Steve Hasker is also involved with World Economic Forum and TPG capital, that are close connected to Pfizer.

now, do you understand or do I need to write it out what this means?

here about this actually:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...conomic-forum/

[FunkyDexter]

Oh I see, you're implying a conflict of interest. OK, It's a declared conflict of interest so hardly the shady conspiracy you're look for but, none the less, let's get into the substance. Which of these parts of the fact check do you dispute (these being the questions raised by fellow scientists which would lead them to fail it on peer review):-

It is currently a preprint - in other words, it has not yet been peer reviewed.
That the tested sample was only 15 deaths and is therefore not substantive.
That the tested sample was not representative of all deaths due to covid because they were autopsies carried out due to family refusal to accept the cause of death, thus strongly biasing the results.
That there is no comparison to people of similar ages without being vaccinated - in other words, there's no control sample.
That for the tested sample a single pathologist felt that vaccine complications might have contributed to their deaths but in all cases a prior coroner examination disagreed.

Incidentally, I thought it might be useful for us to view the actual paper in question so that we can check the veracity of these claims. I know it was published to this site but I can't seem to access the papers themselves. It's not 100% clear but I think they're by invitation only prior to peer review, which is understandable I guess.

so it appears you've cited a non peer reviewed paper that will almost certainly fail peer review

[baka]

that is why they have conferences.
in a normal world, the vaccination would have stopped during the research, this to make sure its not harmful.

the conferences is about discussing, sharing data but also what to do next.
to make this into a bigger scale, more people need to get involved, and thats also part of the conferences they have.

Im not sure why you are so much against it at all?
this is people working on the field, and what you are doing is immediately discredit it.
why? isn't this their job to find out if theres something wrong with the vaccination?

its like you want this to be false. no matter what.
whats your gain from it?

a sane person would say: yes. I want this research to go on and see if theres something wrong. we need to be 100% sure. even if I believe in the vaccination.
thats how u should react. but you are so against it its like you are part of Pfizer.

who are you defending?

now, theres a conflict of interest, and nobody not even you can come out from it. it is what it is. no matter if reuters is genuine or not, its still bias.
so, that means, we can not be 100% sure the fact checkers are doing a proper job.

this should at least tell you. ok. we are not sure, let this professors do their job and see what they can show.

also,
now that u know reuters are bias. how can you even be sure of all the "look IM soooo good I can fact check you all" that u have been doing?
you should reexamine it all and be sure you have not been fooled. because if you don't, Im not sure I can trust your arguments at all.

and about your questions:
https://odysee.com/@en:a5/PK_Tot-dur...fung_english:a

here u get your answer, and its peer reviewed.

[Shaggy Hiker]

the conferences is about discussing, sharing data but also what to do next.

The first part gets done at conferences. The second part (what to do next) has always been aspirational at any conference I've ever been to. Get enough people together in a room and you can pretty much guarantee that no consensus will be reached.

Still, the more optimistic view is that people at the conference discuss what direction they'd like to see taken, and those discussions will inform the views of people doing the research, so you CAN say that the direction is at least strongly influenced by conferences. Not formally, though.

[Shaggy Hiker]

also,
now that u know reuters are bias. how can you even be sure of all the "look IM soooo good I can fact check you all" that u have been doing?
you should reexamine it all and be sure you have not been fooled. because if you don't, Im not sure I can trust your arguments at all.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. There is a question whether or not ANY source of anything is without bias. The videos you have posted have a clear bias. After all, there was a reason why the site exists. There's a reason why the videos exist. Those are biases. Perhaps they don't matter, perhaps they do. How are you sure that you are not being fooled?

Ultimately, the only option is to distrust everything, but that has to include your distrust. If you say that anything you are told is automatically unreliable, then you can easily be manipulated.

[baka]

if u watch the conference. u will notice that they are all trying to figure out whats going on.
I recommend to watch it as its informative but also interesting and also very scary.
theres strange formations, objects inside the vaccine, that they can not identify,
blood tests after vaccination that mess up with your values, b-cells, t-cells etc. and they also show pictures before and after.
and theres many people involved. not just a couple professors, those that can not be there and in zoom.

[baka]

Shaggy

if Im fooled. Im just fooled.
if you are fooled. you risk your life.

if you dont understand that I feel sorry for you
you are good to discredit EVERYTHING. while believing in big pharma that we know has been in a scandals in the past.

this was my attempt to wake you up. not to change your mind, but to just try to open it for your own safety. but it seems you don't care about that.

what I can say is this: my god be with you.

[FunkyDexter]

now that u know reuters are bias.

No I don't. I recognise that there's a potential conflict of interest for a single individual within the organisation. A conflict of interest they openly declared on their web page. There is a difference between conflict of interest and bias and if you want to establish bias it is up to you to do so.

a sane person would say: yes. I want this research to go on and see if theres something wrong

You're right, they would. And that research has been going on and continues to go on. The issue is not whether research should be done. The issue is that the results of that research are being pre-supposed before any scientific rigour has been applied.

and about your questions:

Haven't had time to watch it yet and I'm about to pop out for the evening but I'll take a look tomorrow if you like. I'm not going to wade through a2 1/2 video for you, though, so please provide the time stamps at which those conerns were addressed along with the details of the peer review.

[baka]

ok if you want to give it a go.
well. not really sure. theres tons of information.
https://odysee.com/@en:a5/PK_Tot-dur...fung_english:a

first part is the 2 professors in pathology, a lot of talk, and after that they present the finding in pictures. I would skip the first 30 minutes and just watch a couple of cases. I think u can find it but just click ahead.

someone posted:

00:52:45
- Autoimmune Reactions

01:14:00
- Introduction to other doctors

01:19:00
- Blood samples of vaccinated (Important)

01:27:00
- Microscopic images of vaccine samples (Very Important)

so u could use that and see if anything is interesting.
the last one is a bit scary. strange objects inside the vaccine and also picture inside the body of strange formations and objects.

but this is the first 1, as u see the time: September 22nd, 2021
theres one newer. adding other doctors, but maybe better we start here.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Shaggy

if Im fooled. Im just fooled.
if you are fooled. you risk your life.

Not quite. If there is something that can cure you and you opt to refuse it because you are skeptical, then the harm is more on you. Either doing something harmful, or not doing something beneficial, you end up worse off either way. Skepticism isn't a defense against harm, it's just a defense against one type of harm. Everybody gets to make their own choice there, though.

I mentioned earlier that there are fairly frequent fights in this state over certain religious groups refusing treatment for treatable ailments because of their beliefs. That's a slightly different matter, since it's about faith rather than skepticism, but the legal question in those fights is not whether or not the parents have the right to refuse medical treatment. They do have that right. The question is whether they have the right to deny treatment of treatable issues for their children, thereby resulting in the avoidable death of the child? It's not a simple question when making the decision for somebody else, but it's a pretty simple question for the individual: You always have the right to do nothing.

[baka]

well. I already had covid, and it was like a cold.
now, I got it february, so soon 1 year and I have not been sick so far after that.
people around me, that took the vaccine are getting sick anyway.
and Im not protecting myself at all. since the start I have not used alcohol at all
masks, maybe a few times only, when I was forced, otherwise I breath the air
and I dont care about people that coach. I even had people here for 1½ month doing my bathroom,
and a few got sick, but I didnt protect myself, and nothing I didnt get sick.

and I know a few others unvaccinated that are the same.
one friend, he work at the hospital, that all his colleague are vaccinated and they keep
telling him to take the shot. well. all of them got sick while he's fine.

dangerous? not really.
my mom that is old, didnt take it either, and she is fine as well.
and she tells me as well, that a lot of her friends takes the vaccine and now are sick.

my other friend, his entire family got sick, and he took the vaccine just a couple of months ago.

so, u an keep telling that the unvaccinated are at risk. but I dont see it at all.
contrary. people that takes the vaccine are more sick.

the same phenomena was with the swine-flu. those that took the vaccine where sick all the time.
while me, that didnt take it, was good the entire year.

so I say it again:

if Im fooled. Im just fooled.
if you are fooled. you risk your life.

[Schmidt]

Just a very short video (only 4 minutes), where "Strategic behaviour in a Pandemic" is explained:

- to a captivated audience of "Stakeholders" from all parts of the world
- at a conference hosted by "Chatham House" (an "International Affairs Think-Tank", as they call themselves)
- in January 2019 (roughly one year before Covid began to spread)
- by lobbyist Marc van Ranst
- explaining how he acted as the appointed "Pandemic Commissary for Belgium" in 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibywm96eCGM

Quite interesting to see, how things are "taught and received" in this world of "the ivory-towers"...
Apparently, lying (to "them", the public) goes without saying... it's just something to "chortle about".

Kinda puts the recent discussion about "conflict of interest" or "potential bias" into perspective -
(at the side of "those in charge of managing information-flow").

Olaf

[FunkyDexter]

@Baka, that video doesn't address the questions that were being asked in any way that I can see. (For clarity, these weren't my questions, they were the concerns posed by contemporary doctors about the Burkhardt paper).

It's also not a scientific conference, it's a press conference. It requires precisely zero scientific rigour.

I honestly don't know how to respond because it's such a total non-sequitur from what was actually being asked. It was the equivalent of me say "there's no Santa Claus" and you responding "the Easter Bunny hides eggs around the house". It's a total irrelevance.


Edit> Just to save you having to back track through the thread, the concerns being raised about the paper were:-
It is currently a preprint - in other words, it has not yet been peer reviewed.
That the tested sample was only 15 deaths and is therefore not substantive.
That the tested sample was not representative of all deaths due to covid because they were autopsies carried out due to family refusal to accept the cause of death, thus strongly biasing the results.
That there is no comparison to people of similar ages without being vaccinated - in other words, there's no control sample.
That for the tested sample a single pathologist felt that vaccine complications might have contributed to their deaths but in all cases a prior coroner examination disagreed.


That paper is going to fail peer review.

[FunkyDexter]

well. I already had covid, and it was like a cold.

You keep holding this out as some kind of proof but you're extrapolating a conclusion from a single data point. I had Covid too, it was horrible and floored me for about a week but I didn't need to go to hospital and I consider that I got off lightly.

On the other hand, 6 million people died so I'm not sure your or my personal outcome is really the salient issue.

[baka]

did you really watch it?
he did say that the study is peer reviewed, as the other professor he contacted 4 weeks prior of that conference.
but, as I already noticed, no matter how much I show you, u will try to find ways to discredit it. so my point was, why bother?
this only show that you are just "looking" for anything that can make your case (that Im unsure why?), but you are not even trying to understand the context of the conference. its simple minded and quite boring.
you are giving me nothing interesting. this just sounds as a broken record.

if you where this "smart" that I feel that you want to be. well, counterargument with papers/research conclusions of the subject. give me proof that the vaccine are safe.
did you even try to do that? do you even have solid data? show a pathology report of deceases that are carefully and objectively conducted and a comparison of vaccinated and non-vaccinated.
show me a research of blood sample before and after a vaccination. show a in-deep analysis of the vaccine liquid that are explained and carefully analyzed.

Im sure you can't.

this tells me. how come you are not doing the same with the big pharma. you are not doing any research at all.
instead you follow reuters and believe in everything they say.

I have watch 5½ hours of that conference plus many hours of the commission interviews.
theres so many professors, doctors and researchers sharing their work. its undeniable.
and I mean, theres TONS of data. almost neverending. the commission has over 10.000 minutes of sessions.

if you believe that hundreds of people are in some kind of evil cooperation, I don't know what to say.

so, dismiss everything I share (that still Im not sure why, are we in some kind of competition?)
and believe in the media.

all the scandals in the past of big cooperation and big pharma, it seems you just ignore completely.

the reason I search is to actually find someone that do this research that big pharma is not giving me.
I'm not convinced at all. the whole situation is not convincing. how media, government, big pharma acted initially is not convincing at all.

but here, I need to defend myself because I want to know more about whats going on.
and the people that are against me are common people and not big pharma.

are you even interested in knowing whats going on?
I mean you are so active in discredit all my links, so It means you have a critical mind, but wheres the self-critical mind? thats the most important, and if you studied in the university,
you will know thats one of the most important traits. to be critical to everything but never try to be critical to yourself is not cute.

[FunkyDexter]

Here you go. This is from the Lancet. An actual medical publication. This is what an actual scientific paper looks like, complete with sources, declarations of any potential conflicts of interest, full information of the data, results and conclusions. Compare it to what you're posting - it's chalk and cheese.

he did say that the study is peer reviewed, as the other professor he contacted 4 weeks prior of that conference.

That's not what peer review means.

if you believe that hundreds of people are in some kind of evil cooperation, I don't know what to say.

The irony is strong with this one...

[Eduardo-]

Hi @Baka, you might be interested on these news:



And may be also:





Open in YT for the sources they provide.

[FunkyDexter]

So, an economic researcher, a wildly hyperbolc politician and Dr John Campbell.

Dr John Campbell is credible but doesn't actually reach the conclusions you're implying (he's strongly pro-vaccine by the way). The other two are relevant why?

[Eduardo-]

So, an economic researcher, a wildly hyperbolc politician and Dr John Campbell.

Dr John Campbell is credible but doesn't actually reach the conclusions you're implying (he's strongly pro-vaccine by the way). The other two are relevant why?

Hello. I'm only interested to spend time (not to waste time) with truth seekers.
Not with people that are insecure and try to molest other people just to think what they already believe must be more true.

Look, I already have vast experience in this kind of people (I mean you) that are not interested in any truth but in what they already think.

I have been very active in a religion forum, and I discussed about many subjects.
As an example I'll tell: I had discussions about the trinity.
In those subjects, discussions are based on the Bible and on reasoning. The evidence is what is written on the Bible.
I discussed with catholics, evangelicals and protestants of any kind. They all believe in the trinity.
But... the trinity is not on the Bible, anywhere.
The word "trinity" does not exist on the whole Bible, but either the idea of such thing is nowhere there.
Still, they don't care, they still believe on the trinity and used any argument, valid or not, to support the idea.

Why? Because they want to believe what "mainstream" say.
What I'm talking about "mainstream" in this context? I'm talking that they want to believe what their religion says (Roman Catholic or whatever), not what the Bible says.
I'm talking that they want to believe what tradition says, not evidences (I repeat, evidence in this context is what is written there).
They prefer to believe what the majority believe, and do not want to be in a minority.

So, as I said, I have vast experience on this area of discussing with people that just want to believe the official information, to adhere to mainstream at all costs, that want to follow the mass.

They are not truth seekers, but mass followers.

They don't doubt, never doubt. As YOU don't doubt that any official information is truth. You are not a truth seeker the same as them.

The same patron that I saw with them is what I see now. For example: never answer to valid questions and challenges, to whatever that could challenge your views, never (that what you did so far). On the contrary: you completely ignored whatever I said that could have challenged your views or arguments.
You look always for some apparent or real weakness in the arguments that are presented from the other part, just to try to debunk the other argument or view at all cost.
But never looked to any evidence that could support it, ever.

You already know the truth in advance, and that's the main point of all this, you are not a truth seeker because you already know in advance what the truth is. You have no doubts.

I'm not interested in having any conversation with such people, it is a waste of time.

PS: if you want to answer something, please try not to write more than three lines, I don't think I'll read more than that (unless you agree with what I'm saying and decide to change. Thing that never happened to me to date with such closed minded persons).

[Eduardo-]

In the case of the Bible I was interested in spending time seeing under what argument people believe what their religion taught (about trinity and many other things).

But about this subject, I have very little curiosity in your arguments and views.
I know how science works, and quite well. I know about peers reviews and those things.
Apparently you have nothing to teach me.

About religions I was interested in knowing for example why Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon, what did it teach, and the same about other religions.

But in your case, I have little interest in discovering why you have chosen to believe only in mainstream media and official channels, I'm not a psychologist.
If you are scared, or if you feel insecure or whatever is happening is not my problem. My "problem" is not to waste time.

If you feel uncomfortable that other people are talking here about what you call "conspiracy theories", I'll open a new thread where we could be not molested to talk about the things we want to talk. For more open minded people, that don't trust blindly in anything. That are not just biased in one direction.

[FunkyDexter]

I don't want to belittle anyone's faith (actually, I admire that people have faith) but I really don't understand how the bible is relevant to this discussion.

people that just want to believe the official information

It's not about wanting to believe anything. It's about not wanting to be misled by snake oil salesmen to whom you are nothing but a revenue stream. Both you and Baka have posited that these people aren't being paid, they are. Every single one of them has a blog or a book or some self help solution to peddle. Their business model is to scare you and keep you scared - because then you will at the very least visit their site (thus generating ad revenue) or at worst buy their book or straight up donate. Your fear is their income.

They are not truth seekers, but mass followers

Given that I've just posted link to a lancet article that examine the efficacy and safety of vaccine in great detail and that you clearly haven't bothered to even glance at it, I find your position to be the height of hypocrisy. I believe you are being misled and, worse, you are so emotionally invested in that position that you are actively seeking out the charlatans who seek to mislead you.

Edit> My post crossed over with your second so I guess you answered the question of the relevance of the bible. I'll leave it to others to decide whether it was convincing.

But this:-

If you are scared

...is more hypocrisy.

I'll open a new thread where we could be not molested to talk about the things we want to talk

Cool. I'll see you there.

[Eduardo-]

Where are the three lines?

Every people is payed and need money to live.
It doesn't mean at all that because of that the information they present is false.

I'm glad that these people earn some money doing something good.

About efficacy of the vaccines, I have no doubt that the information carefully prepared by them must say that (or more or less that). The point is that I don't trust them. I wasn't there to overseen the study, they can publish basically anything they want.
I don't trust PFizer, I don't trust Moderna, I don't trust FDA, CDC, WHO.
And I don't trust The Lancet anymore either.

BTW, you never answered what you think about what happened in The Lancet about Hydroxychloroquine.

It is impossible to trust them anymore.

If you want to go that way to open your ayes, I'm here to help. Otherwise, forget about me please, and let me talk in peace with people that really want to know about what is happening in the world.

If you feel so much insecure, go to a psychologist, but don't try to drop your anxiety on me (I don't want it).

[PlausiblyDamp]

Where are the three lines?

Every people is payed and need money to live.
It doesn't mean at all that because of that the information they present is false.

I'm glad that these people earn some money doing something good.

So it is fine for the opinions you approve of to earn money.

About efficacy of the vaccines, I have no doubt that the information carefully prepared by them must say that (or more or less that). The point is that I don't trust them. I wasn't there to overseen the study, they can publish basically anything they want.
I don't trust PFizer, I don't trust Moderna, I don't trust FDA, CDC, WHO.
And I don't trust The Lancet anymore either.

but not fine for a reputable source to publish findings.

So you believe things that aren't mainstream and deny the truth in anything that is mainstream. Strange for someone who was throwing around statements regarding "belief"

[FunkyDexter]

you never answered what you think about what happened in The Lancet about Hydroxychloroquine.

I don't know what you're referring to. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed as a possible preventative (mostly by people with vested interests) but credible research failed to verify that it had positive effects unless taken in dosages high enough to be potentially harmful and, for that reason, it failed to achieve approval for use against Covid. Where does the Lancet fit into that?

[Eduardo-]

So it is fine for the opinions you approve of to earn money.

In the three videos I just posted, they present official information.
Of course they have some opinions also, everybody have opinions and is normal.

A truth seeker would have watched them. Or not to comment without first watching.

About earning money: earning money is good, not something bad.
Are you all communist or what?

but not fine for a reputable source to publish findings.

Reputable, define "reputable".
They are not reputable for me.
They can be reputable for people that are ignoring lot of things I already know.
Yes, for the masses they can be "reputable". I'm not with the masses.

So you believe things that aren't mainstream and deny the truth in anything that is mainstream.

No. In fact like 90% is truth. The other 10% is to manipulate people emotionally. They lie with plain lies very little. They just manipulate the information. Hide what they don't want you to know, and exaggerate what they want you to be scared of.

Strange for someone who was throwing around statements regarding "belief"

I don't know what you mean here, I don't get the point.

[Eduardo-]

I don't know what you're referring to. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed as a possible preventative (mostly by people with vested interests) but credible research failed to verify that it had positive effects unless taken in dosages high enough to be potentially harmful and, for that reason, it failed to achieve approval for use against Covid. Where does the Lancet fit into that?

You don't know and don't care to know.
A simple Google search would have returned the result.

Anyway for better information I recommend to use Bing intead of Google, because the Google results regarding covid (and all what is happening that is much bigger than just covid) are all filtered.

Did you know that Google is filtering (censoring) the information that are not of the official narrative? (bet you don't, and also bet you don't care, and I would also bet that you think that censoring that information is a good thing. The next step: Heil Hitler).

[Eduardo-]

Look how you attack me, because I posted three videos that present official information.

[FunkyDexter]

A simple Google search would have returned the result.

It didn't

My memory was somewhat incorrect though. Research found no beneficial side effects of Hydroxychloroquine regardless of dosage.

they present official information.

I don't think you know what "official" means.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I know how science works, and quite well. I know about peers reviews and those things.

You have said this repeatedly. It doesn't appear to be true. You seem to go out of your way to avoid anything of the sort. Perhaps you do have some grounding in some science, but you've never stated anything to that effect aside from claiming knowledge without any evidence.

[Eduardo-]

It didn't

My memory was somewhat incorrect though. Research found no beneficial side effects of Hydroxychloroquine regardless of dosage.

I don't think you know what "official" means.

Instead of saying something like that (because I don't care what you think) you could point why you think that.

[FunkyDexter]

Ah, I think you may have been talking about this:-
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

The lancet published an article based on data provided by the Surgisphere Corporation but Surgisphere Corporation subsequently refused to provide their full data set leading the Lancet to (correctly) redact their article. However, further research confirmed the original findings. My guess is that your sources only bother to look at the first half of the story - the second half being inconvenient to their argument.


Edit> Posts crossed over again - you're looking at half a story in which the Lancet behaved entirely correctly given the information they had. See the second link from November 2020 which superseded the retraction of June 2020.

you could point why you think that.

The links you posted were in no way "official"

[Eduardo-]

You have said this repeatedly. It doesn't appear to be true. You seem to go out of your way to avoid anything of the sort. Perhaps you do have some grounding in some science, but you've never stated anything to that effect aside from claiming knowledge without any evidence.

And you show less still evidence that you are able to say anything that have sense.

At least I explained what a theory is and how science works regarding theories.
You can find that post like 5 pages behind.

All you are just an angry mob. Typical of brainwashed fantasized people.
Your objective: to make me waste my time.

Can I open a new thread where you let truth seekers be in peace?

[Eduardo-]

Ah, I think you may have been talking about this:-
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

The lancet published an article based on data provided by the Surgisphere Corporation but Surgisphere Corporation subsequently refused to provide their full data set leading the Lancet to (correctly) redact their article.

The "study" they published was a complete fraud.
They didn't apply any of the rigor that they are supposed to apply.
The Lancet lost all credit.

However, further research confirmed the original findings.

That study does not show any of the results of the original retracted "study".

Did you read in the mainstream media that the study was retracted? Of course NOT.
Very dishonest, because everybody kept the idea that Hydroxychloroquine didn't work, when it actually does and very well (mostly when combined with other proper drugs).

My guess is that your sources only bother to look at the first half of the story - the second half being inconvenient to their argument.

That my guess for you.

You don't care at all whether Hydroxychloroquine works, whether there are early treatments that work, whether people die.

Then, tell me a reason why I should keep spending time answering to you, or reading your replies.

[Eduardo-]

You feel so much insecure, guys.