No
It was MAGAs, drinking their own urine, eating horse ivermectin and drinking their own urine.
No, we're not going to forget
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
No
It was MAGAs, drinking their own urine, eating horse ivermectin and drinking their own urine.
Translation: "You are so much smarter than me, and it makes me feel inferior and angry"
Nope
There are certainly similarities; but in terms of the danger Covid poses, it is much much risker than "flu"
Again: if you want to compare the mortality numbers, they are higher for Covid in every age demographic
you made the comparison, for such a smart guy you sure don't comprehend even your own garbage.
I compared ONE ASPECT
Which is not claiming the two viruses are "the same" in all respects.
Again: anyone with modest cognitive thinking skills would understand this.
Which, apparently, is not you.
No; I quite clearly compared one aspect here. I've pointed out to you how they are different many many times.
I've told him a couple different times that he needs to consider seeking some professional help.
funny what some people see as facts from non serious actors like the epoch times but peer review is for the birds.
Studies are manipulated, and the funding for the studies often leads to conflicts of interest. Besides, let's not pretend peer-reviewed studies are batting 1000.
Only, that's NOT what he posted. He did not post any "facts" to back anything up.
He posted misinformation and weak generalizations.
There is no such thing as "artificial immunity", and he knows it.
Where are you getting this epoch times from? What I linked was published in newsweek and contains about a dozen links to various studies from all over the world?
There are literally a dozen links to various studies from all over the world in the article. But I'm betting you didn't even read it. GD man you're completely bought and paid for at this point aren't you?
...and few (if any) are properly characterized.
Starting with a claim that immunity can be "artificial"
And did you CHECK those links, to see if they supported his narratives?
No. You did not.
He's talking about the last tweet I shared where the Epoch Times was interviewing the Insurance Research Analyst. He's bent out of shape over a logical fallacy.
It's always something with you isn't it... What you and others should be taking away from the article -
My motivation for writing this is simple: It's clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.
It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That's a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.
Which is not what he is writing, in making unscientific assertions about "artificial immunity", and ignoring the basic fact that immunity from an infection can vary widely depending on the infection severity and viral inoculum. Those are very very basic concepts.
Instead, he claims people previously infected to not need to be vaccinated, which is NOT consistent with what most infectious disease experts will tell you, regarding Covid. Vaccines provide a very specific dose, and a more uniform response than random infection exposures might provide.
He is completely misrepresenting this in his little hatchet job here.
So, I'm correct: you DID NOT check any of his assertions.
Scientists aren't the ones who politicized the virus; people like YOU did.
No, you are the one misrepresenting here. Where did he claim previously infected do not need to be vaccinated? You're either reading into this what you want to or are completely imagining it. Your projection on what you think the article is trying to do is completely ridiculous.
This is a lie. He did not assert this and it was covered in the Israel Natural immunity study HE LINKED IN THE ARTICLE.
In using silly, nonscientific, nonmedical terms in his little Op Ed like "natural" vs "artificial" immunity.
Which I've pointed out to you several times now.
He absolutely implies it for you in using "artificial" immunity, which doesn't exist. It's a MAGA term used to bash the vaccines. You know this, but you cannot admit it.
I KNOW he did not "assert" it. He IGNORED it; just like I'd posted for you.
Did someone hack into your account? You should try to figure this out b/c it sure looks like you posted the above?
Ahhh Joe, at least you're consistent.
No. I'm simply explaining to you what the "natural" vs. "artificial" immunity "code" means in MAGAspeak.
That's why he used them that way. There is zero scientific bases for the terms.
As the article your med student linked stated, getting the vaccine on top of a case of Covid conferred even greater protection. And you just want to give people who opposed the vaccine under any circumstances an easy out? Rather than refuse the vaccine, they say “oh I already had Covid so the vaccine is useless”.
There’s your lie. And it should be ignored because IT WAS WRONG.
But your “defensive, close-minded” mindset won’t even let you acknowledge facts stated through your own link. It would be helpful if you read a link thoroughly before you post it. If you want an honest debate, you better start with yourself.
Holy shit! WTF…seriously. If that’s NOT the point then what - exactly - IS the point of claiming “natural immunity is better than the vaccine”? Please answer that question. TIA
That IS the "content"
He also cites claims that "scientists and doctors" got wrong, and ALL of his citations are March 2020.
Juxtapose that with his opener about "hindsight is 2020".
Of COURSE they didn't know "everything" about the virus in the first weeks/months. But claiming they were "wrong" and citing early literature is pretty disingenuous here.
Same thing with the vaccines being effective in preventing the spread: EARLY DATA showed exactly that. Then, when that data didn't hold up, scientists and doctors changed what they conveyed.
Kind of amusing that you guys hold a 30-something in such high "scientific and medical esteem", when he's trying to get Patreon donations for a car, because he doesn't even own one... He's a loud mouth with little substance.
They created a "medication" that is causing mutations...did you click the link? Its Bloomberg, that far right ultra maga media company...
So? We already know that long-haulers were the source of some mutations - one of the big ones being a guy infected for months in the UK.
Virus is going to mutate, drug or no drug.
That is literally what the drug was designed to do. How did the "experts" get it wrong?
This ladies and gentlemen is what happens when you know you've lost an argument. The shame of it is I'd bet that author agrees with you on 90% your bought and paid for Covid conclusions, you just can't get on board with the idea of ANYTHING you have ever said possibly being incorrect...
"an easy way out"? Really? I don't think "an easy way out" is what people were looking for but it does speak to your mindset on the whole thing... sit down, take your shot and stfu right?
As to the previous infection point - Just b/c vax on top of infection may lead to stronger protection doesn't mean prior infection should be ignored. That's ridiculous now and it was then.
Similar threads
