Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
Notch 8 said:
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
Notch 8 said:
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
PurplePenguin said:
Notch 8 said:
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
Notch 8 said:
PurplePenguin said:
Notch 8 said:
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
Notch 8 said:
Blown2CV said:
without meaning to stoop to their level, does the data exist that refutes their claim that the vaccine is correlated with a higher incidence of heart attacks and deaths associated with.
I haven’t seen anything which would suggest this, but maybe I’m part of the problem - ‘refusing to see what is blindingly obvious’ or something equally melodramatic.Baroque attacks said:
Notch 8 said:
Blown2CV said:
without meaning to stoop to their level, does the data exist that refutes their claim that the vaccine is correlated with a higher incidence of heart attacks and deaths associated with.
I haven’t seen anything which would suggest this, but maybe I’m part of the problem - ‘refusing to see what is blindingly obvious’ or something equally melodramatic.Notch 8 said:
PurplePenguin said:
Notch 8 said:
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
PurplePenguin said:
Notch 8 said:
PurplePenguin said:
Notch 8 said:
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
Edited by Notch 8 on Friday 19th April 07:58
Notch 8 said:
PurplePenguin said:
Notch 8 said:
PurplePenguin said:
Notch 8 said:
Bill said:
The myocarditis argument is interesting, as it can be caused by any virus according to the British Heart Foundation, but that is laughed at by the ‘it’s the vax!’ lot of course.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-ma...
Edited by Notch 8 on Friday 19th April 07:58
Legacywr said:
How can you have a discussion about CT's without bringing up Covid?
The same way you can shower and not have bum rape.Just because two things can be intertwined does not make them intrinsically so.
This thread is to discuss how and why CTers are so thick, occasionally they feel the need to pop in to demonstrate it, even though it's thoroughly redundant at this point.
To be fair, someone did ask the question about COVID and that kicked off an immediate reply. As we know, although they do not participate they do like to check in and watch and report back. For the latest question it was neatly answered, that vaccines and viruses all cause this, and the numbers are tiny (1 in 10,000) as everyone knows medicines do not react the same to an entire population, but have inherent risks, anything from Ibuprofen to any vaccine.
The bigger question is really, do the people that presented the 'fact' that a vaccine causes a side effect, then change their view? Do they accept the above? Or does the rhetoric remain the same along the lines of 'the vaccine was dangerous' so on and so forth. Because a rational person would soften their view on that particular issue and present it as such, a CT would just ignore that and continue as before.
The bigger question is really, do the people that presented the 'fact' that a vaccine causes a side effect, then change their view? Do they accept the above? Or does the rhetoric remain the same along the lines of 'the vaccine was dangerous' so on and so forth. Because a rational person would soften their view on that particular issue and present it as such, a CT would just ignore that and continue as before.
coldel said:
To be fair, someone did ask the question about COVID and that kicked off an immediate reply. As we know, although they do not participate they do like to check in and watch and report back. For the latest question it was neatly answered, that vaccines and viruses all cause this, and the numbers are tiny (1 in 10,000) as everyone knows medicines do not react the same to an entire population, but have inherent risks, anything from Ibuprofen to any vaccine.
The bigger question is really, do the people that presented the 'fact' that a vaccine causes a side effect, then change their view? Do they accept the above? Or does the rhetoric remain the same along the lines of 'the vaccine was dangerous' so on and so forth. Because a rational person would soften their view on that particular issue and present it as such, a CT would just ignore that and continue as before.
Why would you change your view if it IS a fact that vaccines cause that specific side effect? The bigger question is really, do the people that presented the 'fact' that a vaccine causes a side effect, then change their view? Do they accept the above? Or does the rhetoric remain the same along the lines of 'the vaccine was dangerous' so on and so forth. Because a rational person would soften their view on that particular issue and present it as such, a CT would just ignore that and continue as before.
A bigger question is why Covid vaccines continued to be pushed on to healthy people despite not having undergone the various trial stages.
PurplePenguin said:
Why would you change your view if it IS a fact that vaccines cause that specific side effect?
A bigger question is why Covid vaccines continued to be pushed on to healthy people despite not having undergone the various trial stages.
All vaccines have side effects and the evidence as shown displays that. No one here claimed that this particular vaccine had zero side effects. This isn't some big secret a CT has uncovered. In fact for most vaccines you sign a sheet which states the side effects on it before you take it. A bigger question is why Covid vaccines continued to be pushed on to healthy people despite not having undergone the various trial stages.
Vaccines are pushed on us all the time, Flu especially, whether you take it or not is up to you. I haven't taken the vaccine for COVID nor Flu but not because I think 'Big Pharma' is out to get me.
There certainly are some live ones.
Sheesh.
The protestations by some and their own lack of awareness is truly frightening.
I subscribe to a guy who wrote two really useful books - Creating a Bug Free Mind and Using a Bug Free Mind. Since those, however, wow.
It's the singular lack of their own thoughts - i.e. the author happily quotes those who have no real pedigree, other than they postulate ideas that he agrees with, so they 'must be correct'.
Where the f
k did such rationale become acceptable?
Imagine exams - 'no, I disbelieve your sources that X fact is correct - check out my sources that say aliens were responsible'. And so on.
Sheesh.
The protestations by some and their own lack of awareness is truly frightening.
I subscribe to a guy who wrote two really useful books - Creating a Bug Free Mind and Using a Bug Free Mind. Since those, however, wow.
It's the singular lack of their own thoughts - i.e. the author happily quotes those who have no real pedigree, other than they postulate ideas that he agrees with, so they 'must be correct'.
Where the f
k did such rationale become acceptable?Imagine exams - 'no, I disbelieve your sources that X fact is correct - check out my sources that say aliens were responsible'. And so on.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff