CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
r3g said:
The overwhelming amount of "anecdata" ie. disabilities, disorders, endless sickness, unexplainable "sudden" death, cancer, heart attacks, strokes that have skyrocketed since 2021 that are now increasingly getting air-time in the mainstream media with some now tiptoeing round the edges starting to question whether the jabs were as "safe and effective" as they'd been assuring their viewer and readership of for the past 3 years.
It's only a matter of time until the beloved BBC get on the bandwagon too as the desperation with their puff piece on the OAZ vaxx being withdrawn due to "being a great success" the other day was so embarrassingly bad it was cringeworthy. They can't keep the lid on it for much longer.
Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to explain to me how I'm not dead, being one of your "vulnerable" persons that your saintly ONS data says I stood next to no chance of surviving The Deadly Virus. And once you've answered me that, you can answer me how I've managed to survive the proceeding 3 years of The Deadly Pandemic without having received a single dose of Holy Grail Magic Juice which, according to you and your ONS data, was "undeniably" effective and a life-saver for the "vulnerable".
/s intentional.
Go on post up the data with the numbers of sudden deaths, heart disease etc broken down by calendar year for us to see with referenced sources. No waffling It's only a matter of time until the beloved BBC get on the bandwagon too as the desperation with their puff piece on the OAZ vaxx being withdrawn due to "being a great success" the other day was so embarrassingly bad it was cringeworthy. They can't keep the lid on it for much longer.
Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to explain to me how I'm not dead, being one of your "vulnerable" persons that your saintly ONS data says I stood next to no chance of surviving The Deadly Virus. And once you've answered me that, you can answer me how I've managed to survive the proceeding 3 years of The Deadly Pandemic without having received a single dose of Holy Grail Magic Juice which, according to you and your ONS data, was "undeniably" effective and a life-saver for the "vulnerable".
/s intentional.
pavarotti1980 said:
Go on post up the data with the numbers of sudden deaths, heart disease etc broken down by calendar year for us to see with referenced sources. No waffling
The links to the stories and news articles have been regularly shared by myself and others throughout the volumes of these threads. They are all still there for the reading, but as history has shown, you are simply not interested unless the URL starts with www.bbc. There are none so blind as those who will not see.Elysium said:
That’s pretty much the exact opposite of what I have said.
Are there 2 Elysium accounts on this site then? You have been consistent with your "elderly and vulnerable are at high risk of dying from the virus" and "the vaccines undeniably saved the elderly and vulnerable" messaging throughout these threads, claiming the "official data proves this" [paraphrasing].Elysium said:
I think it is fairly clear that flu didn’t disappear. It’s still here.
Our surveillance systems for ILI (influenza like illness) are driven by people who are ill enough to seek medical assistance. During COVID it makes sense that we saw less flu because the people who normally need that help were not mixing and so not spreading flu.
Reducing contact with other people reduces the spread of disease. That is incontrovertible. But the return of flu is another reminder that it can never eliminate disease.
That’s why zero COVID was so stupid.
It’s not irrefutable, it’s simply an aspect of germ theory. In my experience in life it’s not rang true at all. There is way more evidence to counteract that humans don’t pass on any “virus” type illness through basic contact, I’ve hugged and kissed family members with “colds” or whatever, never got ill. Loads of examples of a family with kids ill parents not, husband ill, wife not. Now, people sharing a similar “contaminated” environment, I can subscribe to. Our surveillance systems for ILI (influenza like illness) are driven by people who are ill enough to seek medical assistance. During COVID it makes sense that we saw less flu because the people who normally need that help were not mixing and so not spreading flu.
Reducing contact with other people reduces the spread of disease. That is incontrovertible. But the return of flu is another reminder that it can never eliminate disease.
That’s why zero COVID was so stupid.
It is just another propaganda technique to make people fearful of each other. And it works. And the invention of social distancing turned that up to eleven.
People were mixing, in fact you actually ended up with a higher concentration of people in the same places at the same time when they normally wouldn’t (supermarkets). Taking out a pub or gym visit really did bugger all to reduce interactions. I travelled way more around England than I had ever done during that period.
jameswills said:
Elysium said:
I think it is fairly clear that flu didn’t disappear. It’s still here.
Our surveillance systems for ILI (influenza like illness) are driven by people who are ill enough to seek medical assistance. During COVID it makes sense that we saw less flu because the people who normally need that help were not mixing and so not spreading flu.
Reducing contact with other people reduces the spread of disease. That is incontrovertible. But the return of flu is another reminder that it can never eliminate disease.
That’s why zero COVID was so stupid.
It’s not irrefutable, it’s simply an aspect of germ theory. In my experience in life it’s not rang true at all. There is way more evidence to counteract that humans don’t pass on any “virus” type illness through basic contact, I’ve hugged and kissed family members with “colds” or whatever, never got ill. Loads of examples of a family with kids ill parents not, husband ill, wife not. Now, people sharing a similar “contaminated” environment, I can subscribe to. Our surveillance systems for ILI (influenza like illness) are driven by people who are ill enough to seek medical assistance. During COVID it makes sense that we saw less flu because the people who normally need that help were not mixing and so not spreading flu.
Reducing contact with other people reduces the spread of disease. That is incontrovertible. But the return of flu is another reminder that it can never eliminate disease.
That’s why zero COVID was so stupid.
It is just another propaganda technique to make people fearful of each other. And it works. And the invention of social distancing turned that up to eleven.
People were mixing, in fact you actually ended up with a higher concentration of people in the same places at the same time when they normally wouldn’t (supermarkets). Taking out a pub or gym visit really did bugger all to reduce interactions. I travelled way more around England than I had ever done during that period.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinkin...
r3g said:
Elysium said:
That’s pretty much the exact opposite of what I have said.
Are there 2 Elysium accounts on this site then? You have been consistent with your "elderly and vulnerable are at high risk of dying from the virus" and "the vaccines undeniably saved the elderly and vulnerable" messaging throughout these threads, claiming the "official data proves this" [paraphrasing].What I have said is that the emergence of COVID created a new risk that essentially doubled the probability of dying for everyone.
If you are young and healthy, that means you double a small number and still get a small number. If you are 90 then you double a pretty big number and end up with a risk that is not trivial. Where individuals took the vaccine before their first encounter with COVID, they will have gained some benefit. Perhaps an 80% risk reduction in the probability of serious illness.
But all vaccines come with risks that need to be weighed against the benefits. If the COVID vaccines cause serious illness in 1 in 10,000 then they probably still make sense for the most vulnerable. But at some point the risk outweighs the benefits. That is almost certainly the case for kids. If the adverse reaction rate is higher, which I am not ruling out, then that point moves higher. At this point, I am not convinced the vaccines were ever suitable for people under 40.
My position is that they should have been offered to the elderly and vulnerable, with informed consent. The coercion that was used was totally unacceptable and even worse where it was aimed at young people (e.g. vaccine passports for large events and nightclubs). I have not said that vulnerable people would ‘almost certainly die’ without the vaccines, because that isn’t true. Most 90 year olds survived COVID. But the risk was enough to justify vaccination of that group, provided that this was done as a personal choice.
None of this makes any difference now as pretty much everyone has been through that first exposure. So the benefits of boosters are really quite marginal and short term.
I am pretty confident in these views, because the evidence supports them. They obviously differ from the position set out by the Govt and our public health leaders. That should not be surprising because they were quite obviously using propaganda to promote the use of vaccines. Most likely because it was popular and they hoped that would help them keep their jobs. However, there was also the simple ‘hope’ that vaccinating everyone might reduce transmission to the point where our exit from lockdown was less controversial.
jameswills said:
Elysium said:
I think it is fairly clear that flu didn’t disappear. It’s still here.
Our surveillance systems for ILI (influenza like illness) are driven by people who are ill enough to seek medical assistance. During COVID it makes sense that we saw less flu because the people who normally need that help were not mixing and so not spreading flu.
Reducing contact with other people reduces the spread of disease. That is incontrovertible. But the return of flu is another reminder that it can never eliminate disease.
That’s why zero COVID was so stupid.
It’s not irrefutable, it’s simply an aspect of germ theory. In my experience in life it’s not rang true at all. There is way more evidence to counteract that humans don’t pass on any “virus” type illness through basic contact, I’ve hugged and kissed family members with “colds” or whatever, never got ill. Loads of examples of a family with kids ill parents not, husband ill, wife not. Now, people sharing a similar “contaminated” environment, I can subscribe to. Our surveillance systems for ILI (influenza like illness) are driven by people who are ill enough to seek medical assistance. During COVID it makes sense that we saw less flu because the people who normally need that help were not mixing and so not spreading flu.
Reducing contact with other people reduces the spread of disease. That is incontrovertible. But the return of flu is another reminder that it can never eliminate disease.
That’s why zero COVID was so stupid.
It is just another propaganda technique to make people fearful of each other. And it works. And the invention of social distancing turned that up to eleven.
People were mixing, in fact you actually ended up with a higher concentration of people in the same places at the same time when they normally wouldn’t (supermarkets). Taking out a pub or gym visit really did bugger all to reduce interactions. I travelled way more around England than I had ever done during that period.
This is how the R number works. If a disease has an R number of 4 then, on average, each infected person will theoretically infect 4 others. But to achieve that they might need contact with 100+ people.
If you reduce those contacts to 20 then overall the average infections will also reduce. But there might still be situations where an individual case infects no one or where they infect many more than average.
I agree that people were mixing, but it was less than usual. They were not ‘concentrated’ in supermarkets because the number of people allowed in the building was reduced.
Much as I hate the concept of lockdown I have to accept that reducing contacts does have an impact on the spread of disease. But with COVID when we created these conditions we eventually got a new version of the virus that was optimised for them. It was never a disease that could be controlled in this way and the large scale experiment of lockdown proves that.
Flu was controlled, but not eliminated. And that tells us something else about lockdown as an epidemiological tool. If you try to ‘squash the sombrero’ as Johnson colourfully put it, then you simply defer infections. You store up the problem for a later day.
pavarotti1980 said:
Go on post up the data with the numbers of sudden deaths, heart disease etc broken down by calendar year for us to see with referenced sources. No waffling
You're wasting your time, pavarotti. He (r3g, that is) doesn't have reliable data to support his wild assertions, and he knows it. That's why he resorts to silly slurs about people having a low IQ, and how they should join the dots, and how they can't 'see what's obvious'.And of course, if you were to produce data that showed he was wrong from a reputable source like the ONS or NHS England, he'd just dismiss it as falsified, because those organisations are arms of the government, or something, and can't be trusted. Proper conspiracy theory wibble, I'm afraid.
It's like trying to reason with a religious zealot; such a person has a blind faith and will not listen to reason, science or logic. It's your prerogative, of course, but my advice with that poster is not to engage.
UK refuses to sign Global Vaccine Treaty
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-refuses-sign-g...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/pandem...
Would be nice if there was some mention of the sweeping powers being rejected, rather than just us not wanting to share our stuff.
Not sure if the 'vanilla' treating was signed yesterday.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-refuses-sign-g...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/pandem...
Would be nice if there was some mention of the sweeping powers being rejected, rather than just us not wanting to share our stuff.
Not sure if the 'vanilla' treating was signed yesterday.
Telegraph said:
Experts have cautioned that it is likely the two-week marathon talks will fail to resolve fundamental disagreements on the controversial topics and said it is likely a “vanilla treaty” will be agreed and signed by the May 10 deadline, before it is formally adopted at the World Health Assembly at the end of May.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Saturday 11th May 18:08
RSTurboPaul said:
UK refuses to sign Global Vaccine Treaty
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-refuses-sign-g...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/pandem...
Would be nice if there was some mention of the sweeping powers being rejected, rather than just us not wanting to share our stuff.
Unless I'm missing something, "sweeping new powers" aren't being rejected. The UK government seems quite happy to sign up to the Global Vaccine Treaty where the WHO takes world control of the enforcement of vaccines into people. it's just that the UK doesn't want to basically pay for the vaccines for third world counties.https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-refuses-sign-g...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/pandem...
Would be nice if there was some mention of the sweeping powers being rejected, rather than just us not wanting to share our stuff.
Elysium said:
Obviously every contact does not lead to an infection. That is because we have immune systems. But every contact is a roll of the dice that creates a new opportunity for infection.
This is how the R number works. If a disease has an R number of 4 then, on average, each infected person will theoretically infect 4 others. But to achieve that they might need contact with 100+ people.
If you reduce those contacts to 20 then overall the average infections will also reduce. But there might still be situations where an individual case infects no one or where they infect many more than average.
I agree that people were mixing, but it was less than usual. They were not ‘concentrated’ in supermarkets because the number of people allowed in the building was reduced.
Much as I hate the concept of lockdown I have to accept that reducing contacts does have an impact on the spread of disease. But with COVID when we created these conditions we eventually got a new version of the virus that was optimised for them. It was never a disease that could be controlled in this way and the large scale experiment of lockdown proves that.
Flu was controlled, but not eliminated. And that tells us something else about lockdown as an epidemiological tool. If you try to ‘squash the sombrero’ as Johnson colourfully put it, then you simply defer infections. You store up the problem for a later day.
That’s a theory that just introduces the fear of other humans into the psyche, and is not provable, it’s a good way of segregation though. That R number might as well have been on the Saturday night lottery draw, it’s absolutely flawed and completely and utterly impossible to measure. It showed also that the “illness” never followed this R rate pattern anyway, if anyone actually opened their eyes and dared to look away from their TV or mobile phone for more than 5 minutes. This is how the R number works. If a disease has an R number of 4 then, on average, each infected person will theoretically infect 4 others. But to achieve that they might need contact with 100+ people.
If you reduce those contacts to 20 then overall the average infections will also reduce. But there might still be situations where an individual case infects no one or where they infect many more than average.
I agree that people were mixing, but it was less than usual. They were not ‘concentrated’ in supermarkets because the number of people allowed in the building was reduced.
Much as I hate the concept of lockdown I have to accept that reducing contacts does have an impact on the spread of disease. But with COVID when we created these conditions we eventually got a new version of the virus that was optimised for them. It was never a disease that could be controlled in this way and the large scale experiment of lockdown proves that.
Flu was controlled, but not eliminated. And that tells us something else about lockdown as an epidemiological tool. If you try to ‘squash the sombrero’ as Johnson colourfully put it, then you simply defer infections. You store up the problem for a later day.
Sorry Elysium, I can’t be bothered to respond to the rest, it’s like reading a 10 year old’s essay after the school holidays about how “we survived the evil virus”. I hate being rude about peoples points of view, but you’re way better than that, I can’t remember your theories or explanations being that dumbed down and frankly a bit insulting to most people with a modicum of intelligence. “New version of the virus”? Seriously? Has your account been hacked? Apologies if that is extremely patronising!
Edited by jameswills on Sunday 12th May 06:35
jameswills said:
Elysium said:
Obviously every contact does not lead to an infection. That is because we have immune systems. But every contact is a roll of the dice that creates a new opportunity for infection.
This is how the R number works. If a disease has an R number of 4 then, on average, each infected person will theoretically infect 4 others. But to achieve that they might need contact with 100+ people.
If you reduce those contacts to 20 then overall the average infections will also reduce. But there might still be situations where an individual case infects no one or where they infect many more than average.
I agree that people were mixing, but it was less than usual. They were not ‘concentrated’ in supermarkets because the number of people allowed in the building was reduced.
Much as I hate the concept of lockdown I have to accept that reducing contacts does have an impact on the spread of disease. But with COVID when we created these conditions we eventually got a new version of the virus that was optimised for them. It was never a disease that could be controlled in this way and the large scale experiment of lockdown proves that.
Flu was controlled, but not eliminated. And that tells us something else about lockdown as an epidemiological tool. If you try to ‘squash the sombrero’ as Johnson colourfully put it, then you simply defer infections. You store up the problem for a later day.
That’s a theory that just introduces the fear of other humans into the psyche, and is not provable, it’s a good way of segregation though. That R number might as well have been on the Saturday night lottery draw, it’s absolutely flawed and completely and utterly impossible to measure. It showed also that the “illness” never followed this R rate pattern anyway, if anyone actually opened their eyes and dared to look away from their TV or mobile phone for more than 5 minutes. This is how the R number works. If a disease has an R number of 4 then, on average, each infected person will theoretically infect 4 others. But to achieve that they might need contact with 100+ people.
If you reduce those contacts to 20 then overall the average infections will also reduce. But there might still be situations where an individual case infects no one or where they infect many more than average.
I agree that people were mixing, but it was less than usual. They were not ‘concentrated’ in supermarkets because the number of people allowed in the building was reduced.
Much as I hate the concept of lockdown I have to accept that reducing contacts does have an impact on the spread of disease. But with COVID when we created these conditions we eventually got a new version of the virus that was optimised for them. It was never a disease that could be controlled in this way and the large scale experiment of lockdown proves that.
Flu was controlled, but not eliminated. And that tells us something else about lockdown as an epidemiological tool. If you try to ‘squash the sombrero’ as Johnson colourfully put it, then you simply defer infections. You store up the problem for a later day.
Sorry Elysium, I can’t be bothered to respond to the rest, it’s like reading a 10 year old’s essay after the school holidays about how “we survived the evil virus”. I hate being rude about peoples points of view, but you’re way better than that, I can’t remember your theories or explanations being that dumbed down and frankly a bit insulting to most people with a modicum of intelligence. “New version of the virus”? Seriously? Has your account been hacked? Apologies if that is extremely patronising!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmental_models...
You are arguing that the basic science of epidemiology is wrong. Based on nothing.
Rt is very easy to measure. It’s a simple calculation. I did it myself and posted the results here.
I have to say that saying “I can’t be bothered to respond” just makes me think that you have no response. You disagree, but you can’t explain why. I suspect because the truth is that you don’t know why. Because you are choosing what to believe in.
What are you actually disagreeing with?
Hants PHer said:
You're wasting your time, pavarotti. He (r3g, that is) doesn't have reliable data to support his wild assertions, and he knows it. That's why he resorts to silly slurs about people having a low IQ, and how they should join the dots, and how they can't 'see what's obvious'.
And of course, if you were to produce data that showed he was wrong from a reputable source like the ONS or NHS England, he'd just dismiss it as falsified, because those organisations are arms of the government, or something, and can't be trusted. Proper conspiracy theory wibble, I'm afraid.
It's like trying to reason with a religious zealot; such a person has a blind faith and will not listen to reason, science or logic. It's your prerogative, of course, but my advice with that poster is not to engage.
I just like a challenge And of course, if you were to produce data that showed he was wrong from a reputable source like the ONS or NHS England, he'd just dismiss it as falsified, because those organisations are arms of the government, or something, and can't be trusted. Proper conspiracy theory wibble, I'm afraid.
It's like trying to reason with a religious zealot; such a person has a blind faith and will not listen to reason, science or logic. It's your prerogative, of course, but my advice with that poster is not to engage.
r3g said:
The links to the stories and news articles have been regularly shared by myself and others throughout the volumes of these threads. They are all still there for the reading, but as history has shown, you are simply not interested unless the URL starts with www.bbc. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Well post them all up. I couldn't care less if it doesn't start with BBC. Elysium said:
This is the basics of epidemiology. An SIR model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmental_models...
You are arguing that the basic science of epidemiology is wrong. Based on nothing.
Rt is very easy to measure. It’s a simple calculation. I did it myself and posted the results here.
I have to say that saying “I can’t be bothered to respond” just makes me think that you have no response. You disagree, but you can’t explain why. I suspect because the truth is that you don’t know why. Because you are choosing what to believe in.
What are you actually disagreeing with?
Yes I am, I am sure the models work in a lab and in their nice computer programs with controlled data in, static environments and an already proven hypothesis, in reality they are useless, and time and time have been proven so, if people take the time to study real life results themselves other than the spoon fed ones. R is exactly that, all the talk of it bore no resemblance to the reality that unfolded, before, during or after. Even admitted by Hancock, it’s like someone watched a film about it and then ran with it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmental_models...
You are arguing that the basic science of epidemiology is wrong. Based on nothing.
Rt is very easy to measure. It’s a simple calculation. I did it myself and posted the results here.
I have to say that saying “I can’t be bothered to respond” just makes me think that you have no response. You disagree, but you can’t explain why. I suspect because the truth is that you don’t know why. Because you are choosing what to believe in.
What are you actually disagreeing with?
I disagree that any social movement enforcements did anything to change in any direction, the “illness” that was “covid”. I think the daily briefings and useless tests were way more influential in creating a disease pretty much out of nothing.
pavarotti1980 said:
r3g said:
The links to the stories and news articles have been regularly shared by myself and others throughout the volumes of these threads. They are all still there for the reading, but as history has shown, you are simply not interested unless the URL starts with www.bbc. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Well post them all up. I couldn't care less if it doesn't start with BBC. r3g said:
pavarotti1980 said:
r3g said:
The links to the stories and news articles have been regularly shared by myself and others throughout the volumes of these threads. They are all still there for the reading, but as history has shown, you are simply not interested unless the URL starts with www.bbc. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Well post them all up. I couldn't care less if it doesn't start with BBC. Just a childish insult.
Entirely predictable.
James6112 said:
r3g said:
pavarotti1980 said:
r3g said:
The links to the stories and news articles have been regularly shared by myself and others throughout the volumes of these threads. They are all still there for the reading, but as history has shown, you are simply not interested unless the URL starts with www.bbc. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Well post them all up. I couldn't care less if it doesn't start with BBC. Just a childish insult.
Entirely predictable.
The links to the stories and news articles have been regularly shared by myself and others throughout the volumes of these threads. They are all still there for the reading,
jameswills said:
Elysium said:
This is the basics of epidemiology. An SIR model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmental_models...
You are arguing that the basic science of epidemiology is wrong. Based on nothing.
Rt is very easy to measure. It’s a simple calculation. I did it myself and posted the results here.
I have to say that saying “I can’t be bothered to respond” just makes me think that you have no response. You disagree, but you can’t explain why. I suspect because the truth is that you don’t know why. Because you are choosing what to believe in.
What are you actually disagreeing with?
Yes I am, I am sure the models work in a lab and in their nice computer programs with controlled data in, static environments and an already proven hypothesis, in reality they are useless, and time and time have been proven so, if people take the time to study real life results themselves other than the spoon fed ones. R is exactly that, all the talk of it bore no resemblance to the reality that unfolded, before, during or after. Even admitted by Hancock, it’s like someone watched a film about it and then ran with it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmental_models...
You are arguing that the basic science of epidemiology is wrong. Based on nothing.
Rt is very easy to measure. It’s a simple calculation. I did it myself and posted the results here.
I have to say that saying “I can’t be bothered to respond” just makes me think that you have no response. You disagree, but you can’t explain why. I suspect because the truth is that you don’t know why. Because you are choosing what to believe in.
What are you actually disagreeing with?
I disagree that any social movement enforcements did anything to change in any direction, the “illness” that was “covid”. I think the daily briefings and useless tests were way more influential in creating a disease pretty much out of nothing.
article said:
After scaring their viewers and eroding their trust in official bodies, RFK Jr.’s CHD TV comes to their rescue with irrational solutions. The rallying cry of “do your own research” can often be heard. It is not an invitation to learn the complexities of scientific thinking, but rather a Marco Polo-style call-and-answer for anti-vaccine leaders to guide their followers to where they are in the rabbit hole. “Do your own research” means “I hope you follow the breadcrumbs to the same truth I now choose to believe.”
article said:
But doing your own research is not enough. Analytical thinking must be put aside to make way for intuition. Trust your gut, we are told over and over again, as if our brain’s quick-and-dirty threat assessment function can help us understand what the contents of a syringe does to our body. Monday’s Tea Time programme went even further. The guest, who teaches the art of emotional connection, declared, “I don’t know anything except what I feel,” before one of the hosts said that “our minds and thoughts create our reality,” which was echoed by Ilana Daniel in The Jerusalem Report claiming that “what you think and what you believe is what will come true for you.” This is straight out of the book The Secret, a New Age wish-fulfilment fantasy that makes it easy to blame people for failing in life.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-pseudoscience/i-watched-weeks-worth-rfk-jrs-fear-inducing-tv-channelGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff