ADVERTISEMENT

RFK JR is on Rogan today if you want to check out his brand of crazy

Industrial ag is what's needed to feed billions of people. If Kennedy thinks there should be more democratic input into how industrial ag is managed with respect to environmental impacts and other concerns, aight. Family farms aren't going to help that.
I think it's probably the China and Gates ownership that concerns people more than anything else.
 
So capitalism can't exist without allowing enemy countries access to buy your land and food industry?

Is China our enemy or our third largest trading partner? I always get confused by that. You're going to tell these farmers they can't sell their land to the highest bidder when they're ready to cash in? We just spent decades imposing this type of ideology on the world, often violently.
 
You're going to tell these farmers they can't sell their land to the highest bidder when they're ready to cash in?
I believe there could be regulation using simple common sense as a guide.

Is China our enemy or our third largest trading partner? I always get confused by that.
Both. We became an importer of crap from China and an exporter of dollars that China has been steadily turning into commodities. I believe China is currently at least attempting to position themselves to be the #1 world superpower and the US will be on the decline without energy. If China has their way the other BRICS nations will help pick up the slack and the Saudis will soon be on board, trading oil outside the dollar and that would be a big problem for us moving forward.
 
Last edited:
From the link.

"The estimated incidence of myocarditis in COVID-19 infection is 11 cases per 100,000 infections compared with an estimated 2.7 cases per 100,000 persons following mRNA vaccination."

In my opinion the use of high sensitivity tropinins to determine cardiac injury likely significantly over estimates actual injury. Studies have shown that strenuous exercise can elevate tropinins. But most people don't think this indicates injury. The article points out that you really can't just rely on just tropinins and need to correlate clinically or with other data. This would apply to both vaccines and infection caused myocarditis.
True. But Joey feels that troponin testing VALIDATES cardiac injury from the virus yet INVALIDATES cardiac injury from the jab.

Delusional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
He needs that in bigger font, so it sets in.

Covid is 4x more likely to cause myocarditis.
AND, as already noted, the SEVERITY of the myocarditis caused by the virus is worse than the mild cases caused by vaccines. The virus actually WILL cause long-term heart damage. There is no evidence the vaccines do this. At all.
You don't deal in evidence. At all.

The recently peer-reviewed study revealed vaccine-induced myocardial injury occurring at a rate of 2.8%, or 2,800 per 100,000.

I'll take my chances with a cold
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
You don't deal in evidence. At all.

The recently peer-reviewed study revealed vaccine-induced myocardial injury occurring at a rate of 2.8%, or 2,800 per 100,000.

I'll take my chances with a cold
This is the type of behavior Joe exhibits when he loses an argument. It actually happens quite a bit yet some people here still think he knows everything. He knows what he's doing and I believe he knows he's wrong in many cases but still tries to cover it with his words.
 
Sounds like protectionism to me.
Pro·tec·tion·ism
/prəˈtekSHəˌniz(ə)m/

noun
  • 1. the theory or practice of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.

Who said anything about taxing imports? I'm talking about rules in place to not allowing other countries to outright own your domestic industry/land. Why are people arguing against me here? You'd swear people were all for China buying US farms.
 
Pro·tec·tion·ism
/prəˈtekSHəˌniz(ə)m/

noun
  • 1. the theory or practice of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.

Who said anything about taxing imports? I'm talking about rules in place to not allowing other countries to outright own your domestic industry/land. Why are people arguing against me here? You'd swear people were all for China buying US farms.
I'm just f@cking with you because you constantly talk down to everyone and present yourself as a high-minded idealist.

I'm a liberal, I like a economic controls.
 
This is the type of behavior Joe exhibits when he loses an argument. It actually happens quite a bit yet some people here still think he knows everything. He knows what he's doing and I believe he knows he's wrong in many cases but still tries to cover it with his words.
This. He refuted his own silly claims with the (unread) study he posted then tries to change the subject.

To call him a petulant child would be an insult to petulant children everywhere.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Nothing's been refuted.

You've cited data that does not mean what you think it means.
Because you are uneducated, on this topic and most others.
Here Joe, check out this systematic take-down of Paul Offit. Good discussion on placebos, the childhood vaccine schedule and their clinical trials. Text, complete with citations.
 
Here Joe, check out this systematic take-down of Paul Offit. Good discussion on placebos, the childhood vaccine schedule and their clinical trials. Text, complete with citations.
Maybe Aaron Siri could publish an article, in an actual journal, with his concerns.

Twitter isn't actually the forum for technical/scientific discussions.
 
No; he knows how to spin comments. He's a lawyer. He changes the context of statements and misrepresents them.
No, he asked the right questions and got them all to admit the safety science sucks. Simple as that. Nothing was taken out of context, or misrepresented. If you think that, then put forth your specific case and explain yourself.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
No, he asked the right questions and got them all to admit the safety science sucks.
No he did not

He took piecemeal information completely out of context.

If he wants to write up a summary of his "concerns" and send that to JAMA or NEJM or something, I'd be happy to read it, along with responses from actual vaccine experts and doctors
 
  • Like
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
No he did not

He took piecemeal information completely out of context.

If he wants to write up a summary of his "concerns" and send that to JAMA or NEJM or something, I'd be happy to read it, along with responses from actual vaccine experts and doctors
You are so full of baloney. I posted a clear and concise write-up in response to an "actual vaccine expert and Doctor" on his substack, complete with citations. If I'm lucky, Offit will actually respond to it, but I doubt he can. I hope he surprises me. Instead, he'll probably try to avoid Siri, like Hotez did to RFK.

I understand your only way to weasel out of this is to claim things are being taken out of context or misrepresented in some way, otherwise you're left with facing these devastating admissions. There no element of ambiguity. The conversation is clear and the answers given leave little doubt the admissions can be taken as-is. You have zero explanation and zero evidence of your claim, leaving a completely empty claim. It's unreasonable for me or anyone else to be expected to accept an empty claim.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
There are no "citations"

There are Twitter posts.

Understand the difference.
You must not have gotten past the twitter post responses then. You'll find links to the package inserts, clinical trial data, and clinical trial reports, with subsection indications.
 
You must not have gotten past the twitter post responses then. You'll find links to the package inserts, clinical trial data, and clinical trial reports, with subsection indications.
So, NO publications

Just (as I'd already stated) out of context nonsense.
If he has a legitimate case, he would publish it in JAMA or NEJM or Lancet

Why will he not do this? Because they would pick his bullshit apart.
 
  • Love
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
So, NO publications

Just (as I'd already stated) out of context nonsense.
If he has a legitimate case, he would publish it in JAMA or NEJM or Lancet

Why will he not do this? Because they would pick his bullshit apart.
Here's a nice segment on this Paul Offit/Aaron Siri debate about how none of the childhood vaccines have been tested against an inert placebo in their clinical trials. Starts @ 27:00.


FzgChrUacAAbgNZ
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT