On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 11:20:05 +1000, "Andrew W" <
sp...@defense.com>
Your video promised proof, but didn't deliver. If you actually had
watched the video and realized that the title was completely
misleading, would you still have linked to it?
>
>>
>>> ... It contains another ~piece~ of proof in the form
>>>of physician testimony. ...
>>
>>That does not count as proof. Or do you accept as proof the 999 other
>>doctors who say the vaccines are safe a of great benefit?
>>
>
>Not if those (it's not anywhere near 999) ...
True. It's probably closer to 99,999. Your 'renegade doctors
constitutes a tiny fraction of the world's doctors, and their
contribution to the debate is nicely summed up in the video: "The
vaccine is full of shit!!!"
> ... doctors are influenced and bribed
>by drug companies to push their drugs onto the population. ...
You're speculating again.
> ... And that is a
>reality.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
> ... It's the government appointed health officials, the ones that
>appeal to you. You only go for convenient information - Google and 'fact
>checkers'. It's so easy and fast.
>
>>
>>> ... But of course not absolute final proof.
>>
>>Not even a tiny bit as proof. It is nothing but speculation. I'm fully
>>vaccinated and I'm perfectly fine. Is that proof that the vaccines are
>>safe?
>>
>
>Many of the effects of vaccines take time. ...
You have no evidence to back up your claim. How could you, when time
hasn't passed yet to observe the long term effects you say there is?
> ... But many have dropped dead within
>a week. It's Russian roulette.
Your own sources admit that they don't know what the cause of death
(or blood clots or heart disease) was. They speculate that it was the
vaccine.
>>
>>> ... No one
>>>claimed that.
>>
>>The people who posted the video you linked to did. And you echoed
>>their claim in the subject line.
>>
>
>Nice try to make me look bad.
I can't take any credit. You did it all by yourself.
>
>>
>>>You are so naive you think one video should provide absolute proof and
>>>that's it. ...
>>
>>In some cases one video can provide absolute proof. But that's not
>>what I expect in this case. It's your strawman.
>>
>
>I'm only passing on info from honest non-bribed world health professionals
>and scientists. ...
This is ridiculous! How can you say they are honest, when you feel the
need to distance yourself from the dishonest title of their video?
>You are shockingly ignorant and biased. It's unbelievable.
I know enough to spot a dishonest video title when I see one.
>
>>
>>> ... Then there's no need to think for yourself.
>>
>>Since you premise was pulled from your arse, I'll shove that last
>>comment back the same way.
>>
>
>Ignorance based projection.
>
>>
>>>>> ... because it's just one fragment of a much larger picture that
>>>>>you won't see because of your biases and blindness. ...
>>>>
>>>>I see I [did] need to point it out. The point is that the video is not a
>>>>fragment of a picture.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it is, ...
>>
>>Explain why you think it is.
>>
>
>Why waste my time with a debunker blockhead? ...
I accept your surrender. Now, go find me something new to tear apart.
> ... You were born ignorant and will
>probably die ignorant.
>
>>
>>> ... but you only want to listen to physicians that say what you like
>>>to hear.
>>
>>I would love to hear that the virus is harmless and we should all go
>>about our daily lives like there is nothing wrong.
>>
>
>99% survival rate.
How do you know it's 99% when you constantly claim that we cannot
trust any stats from the authorities? Hypocrite much?
>Natural immunity rules. Vitamins, good nutrition and maintaining good health
>are all that's needed. That's according to real experts, the ones you've
>never checked with.
>
>Why has the flu suddenly disappeared?
It hasn't. There have been fewer cases as an effect of masks and
social distancing.
> The previous year's flu death rates
>were roughly the same as the now covid death rates. ...
How do you know? You don't trust any stats.
> ... The drug corps are
>lying, and they control most politicians and doctors, except Trump.
All hail Trump! I find it hilarious that Trump is your great beacon of
light.
>
>>
>>I'm sure you can
>>find one for me, right?
>>
>
>It's my job to educate dumb debunkers?
It's your job to debunk the debunkers, if you believe they are wrong.
You're a "researcher", right? That's what they do.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Because this is a 15 year old, normal weight, healthy child. No
>>>>reason for him to have a blood clot!'
>>>>
>>>>There was no proof. There was only speculation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Experienced physicians don't speculate. ...
>>
>>(Appeal to authority noted! And you can be sure I'll quote you at some
>>point in the future.)
>>
>
>Your appeal to authorities is ten times greater than mine.
>
>>
>>I just quoted the female doctor above. She is /speculating/, god
>>dammit, that the vaccine was the cause.
>>
>
>No speculation. ...
She doesn't show that there is a causal connection between the vaccine
and the blood clots. She actually makes a point out of saying 'they
don't know what caused the clots', but she believes that the vaccine
might be the cause. What do you call that way of reaching a tentative
conclusion?
> ... You are a dick using that word all the time.
It fits the definition:
***
speculation
noun
1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
***
"Because this is a 15 year old, normal weight, healthy child. No
reason for him to have a blood clot!" 'They' don't know what caused
the blood clots. ... 'But I believe it was the vaccine!'
Text book example of speculation.
>>That despite the fact that she
>>had just cited a paper saying 'nobody knows why he has blood clots'. I
>>simply can't dumb it down any further, so I hope you got it by now.
>>
>
>And a context twisting nit picker.
Did she say it or not?
>
>>
>>> ... You always use disparaging terms
>>>when something goes against what you favour.
>>
>>Do you feel I disparage you? Poor little victim!
>>
>
>And an emotional manipulator. Nice try again.
You are the one feeling disparaged, mocked, trampled on and policed.
You used those emotional terms. I just throw them back at you.
>
>>
>>Maybe you'd be better off if you begin to ignore my posts. No more
>>denonising, no more being trampled on and no more policing. You can
>>post and never have to worry about me factchecking you.
>>
>
>As I said before, there's no such thing as fact checkers. Everyone has to
>use their own brains. You clearly can't. ...
Don't be silly. You link to a video that claims it proves that
vaccines cause great harm. I watch it and showed that they lied. There
was no proof. You, on the other hand, just trusted your source and
pushed the lie, probably unknowingly, because I think you didn't watch
the video yourself.
>Fact checkers are government censorship sites created recently to try to
>bring socialism into western countries. And you are helping them.
You make a claim and I debunk it by 'doing my own research'. No need
for a socialist government for that to happen.
>
>>
>>>>>You expect single videos and articles to be complete evidence packages
>>>>>that
>>>>>settle everything. It doesn't work that way.
>>>>
>>>>Which is why I don't think that way. Haven't you noticed that I always
>>>>ask for sources (plural)?
>>>>
>>>
>>>But you only accept sources that give your biased side of the story.
>>
>>Stop projecting. On several occasions I have debunked myself here in
>>this newsgroup after having factchecked myself.
>>
>
>Instead start thinking for yourself and education yourself ...
Didn't I just do that? You linked to a video and instead of simply
accepting their claims, I did a little digging and came up with a
different conclusion. You should be proud of me!
> ...on what's
>happening around the world. The fascism and totalitarianism. ...
And the socialism, nazism and communism. They're all in on it. We
should all be scared!
> ... Open your eyes
>and mind. Nothing else works.
Says the guy, who believes Trump is the good guy in this spectacle.
--
Malte Runz