CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
jameswills said:
Elysium said:
I followed Fenton on Twitter throughout the pandemic and I think that last graph was actually produced to check one of his arguments.
The majority of deaths happened before anyone was vaccinated. So if you simply compare total vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths you get a very distorted picture.
It’s why the 96% lower ASMR mentioned here is factually correct but meaningless:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
Sorry I was travelling so difficult to have a proper meaningful discussion on this yesterday. The majority of deaths happened before anyone was vaccinated. So if you simply compare total vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths you get a very distorted picture.
It’s why the 96% lower ASMR mentioned here is factually correct but meaningless:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
Edited by Elysium on Friday 3rd May 20:49
Indeed, from that data out of the 5788 people that died, nearly 40% more died after taking the vaccine (2440 unvaccinated people vs 3348 with one dose or more), which means the “vaccine” did nothing to improve overall mortality, which is surely the only thing people should be bothered about. So what if it stops them dying “with Covid” if it kills them by some other means. Of course that is also a bit of a misleading argument because you’d hazard a guess that most unvaccinated people would be much fitter and healthier and much more unlikely to die,
As I keep saying, the stats are all meaningless really. Since the vaccine has overall health and mortality improved in the nation? That is a resounding no, especially in the younger age groups, so for me it’s providing zero benefit to our health and I’d be totally ignoring it now as a treatment and find something else.
You can’t simply compare vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths and ‘see’ the vaccines working. Either in summmary or over a limited window of time. There are too many confounding factors.
The biggest of these is the way risk changes with age. A vaccinated 80 year old facing COVID for the first time may have halved their risk of serious illness. But even then, they are still more at risk than an unvaccinated 60 year old and thousands of times more at risk than an unvaccinated 20 year old.
Let’s say you have a younger group where the hospitalisation rate is 1 in 50,000. Without vaccination and assuming an 80% infection rate that would mean 160 in hospital out of a population of 10 million. Vaccination of an entirely unexposed population could reduce that to 32. So you prevent serious illness for 128 people. For them, the vaccines worked.
But with COVID that population had been extensively exposed before vaccines were offered. If we say half of them had already been infected, the serious illness prevented reduces to 80 people. Still meaningful for them, but not that significant out of population of 10 million.
So in a group like this, vaccinating when we did, is highly dubious. We are getting to levels where the vaccine risk might outweigh these tiny benefits. Thats why JCVI did not want to approve it for healthy kids.
The question for me at that point is if you could identify the 200 or so people that were ever at risk in that group and just vaccinate them, leaving the rest of them alone. I think we probably could.
At the other end of the spectrum these numbers look much more compelling for the elderly, where the risk was very much higher. More like 1 in 3 for the over 90s. Vaccination will have helped them much more dramatically, but of course many who did not die of COVID still died of other things, because they were very old and we broke the NHS.
I have looked at this is a fair amount of detail. Whilst I am not an expert I see plenty of evidence that the vaccines did achieve something. The elderly and vulnerable were the only people that really needed them, but people got a bit carried away.
My personal view is that they should have been encouraged for the ‘at risk’, but made available to everyone. No one should have been coerced in any way and we should have told those who had recovered from COVID and young people that they probably didn’t need it. But no one in power said that, because they were scared.
Where we agree is that vaccines have no real purpose now. The boosters elevate people’s immune response creating a window of about 8 weeks when they are slightly less likely to catch COVID. For most people I doubt that is worth the risk of endless jabs. But there are probably some people still out there who were nearly killed by COVID last time or who are barely hanging together anyway, where it might make still make sense.
Elysium said:
<edited for brevity - sorry because it's a very good post>
I have looked at this is a fair amount of detail. Whilst I am not an expert I see plenty of evidence that the vaccines did achieve something. The elderly and vulnerable were the only people that really needed them, but people got a bit carried away.
My personal view is that they should have been encouraged for the ‘at risk’, but made available to everyone. No one should have been coerced in any way and we should have told those who had recovered from COVID and young people that they probably didn’t need it. But no one in power said that, because they were scared.
Where we agree is that vaccines have no real purpose now. The boosters elevate people’s immune response creating a window of about 8 weeks when they are slightly less likely to catch COVID. For most people I doubt that is worth the risk of endless jabs. But there are probably some people still out there who were nearly killed by COVID last time or who are barely hanging together anyway, where it might make still make sense.
I concur with all of your original post but especially the final 3 paragraphs (my bold). Very sensible.I have looked at this is a fair amount of detail. Whilst I am not an expert I see plenty of evidence that the vaccines did achieve something. The elderly and vulnerable were the only people that really needed them, but people got a bit carried away.
My personal view is that they should have been encouraged for the ‘at risk’, but made available to everyone. No one should have been coerced in any way and we should have told those who had recovered from COVID and young people that they probably didn’t need it. But no one in power said that, because they were scared.
Where we agree is that vaccines have no real purpose now. The boosters elevate people’s immune response creating a window of about 8 weeks when they are slightly less likely to catch COVID. For most people I doubt that is worth the risk of endless jabs. But there are probably some people still out there who were nearly killed by COVID last time or who are barely hanging together anyway, where it might make still make sense.
I find it disappointing that we still have posters stating that the vaccines did nothing, or that the vaccines are causing widespread heart disease, cancers and more. Disappointing because they have no reliable evidence for their assertions; they rely on loopy websites like Zerohedge (
), on small scale anecdotes and on (likely spurious) correlation. Or worse, they dismiss solid data from sources such as the ONS and NHS England. I'm not saying those posters must be wrong about the extent of vaccine damage, I'm saying they've no proof that they're right.Perhaps they'll listen to you and appreciate the work that's gone in to your analyses. Maybe they won't, maybe they'll dismiss you too, because, well, you're part of the cover up.
Hants PHer said:
jameswills said:
So old people didn’t die in 2020, but did die in 2021, but conversely the vaccine in 2021 had a positive effect on mortality on elderly patients even though the average age of dying with Covid was higher than the UK average, and plus after the vaccine a higher proportion of younger people started dying yet the rate of the elderly remained largely the same?
What? "Old people didn't die in 2020"? Are you serious? There were around 1400 daily deaths at the peak in April 2020. A similar number in January 2021. The bulk of those deaths were the very elderly and highly vulnerable (e.g. immuno-compromised) in both cases. Then we got the vaccines, and deaths from Covid reduced massively.Covid disproportionately killed the very old and the very sick: fact. In those groups, the vaccine greatly reduced the mortality rate: fact.
andyA700 said:
You know that it is impossible to argue with deniers, because their position is entrenched. If nobody was killed by Covid, then what else killed the largely elderly 73,512 who dies from Covid in the UK in 2020? My neighbour who is still suffering from Long Covid (From December 2020, before the vaccines arrived) has been told that he can't have Long Covid because Covid doesn't exist. Do these lunatics actually read what they write?
I know, Andy, I know. Another poster said it was like trying to argue with a Jehovah's Witness and I think he was right.The answer you might get is that deaths in 2020 were due to hysteria or influenza or something else, because viruses don't exist, you know.
This ludicrous absolutism also makes nuanced opinion impossible to hold. For example, I am concerned that vaccine damage is greater than has been officially recognised, I think the
However, do I accept that there is a 'tidal wave' of vaccine induced cancers, heart disease and other illnesses out there? No, because I've seen no proof of this. But try telling that to someone such as r3g and you just get a
as a response. Elysium said:
I think the 2 years of utter madness, the over reliance on modelling and sensationalist reporting combine to create a narrative that makes little sense. The stats we have available to us are not meaningless, but they have been misreported and people are confused.
You can’t simply compare vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths and ‘see’ the vaccines working. Either in summmary or over a limited window of time. There are too many confounding factors.
The biggest of these is the way risk changes with age. A vaccinated 80 year old facing COVID for the first time may have halved their risk of serious illness. But even then, they are still more at risk than an unvaccinated 60 year old and thousands of times more at risk than an unvaccinated 20 year old.
Let’s say you have a younger group where the hospitalisation rate is 1 in 50,000. Without vaccination and assuming an 80% infection rate that would mean 160 in hospital out of a population of 10 million. Vaccination of an entirely unexposed population could reduce that to 32. So you prevent serious illness for 128 people. For them, the vaccines worked.
But with COVID that population had been extensively exposed before vaccines were offered. If we say half of them had already been infected, the serious illness prevented reduces to 80 people. Still meaningful for them, but not that significant out of population of 10 million.
So in a group like this, vaccinating when we did, is highly dubious. We are getting to levels where the vaccine risk might outweigh these tiny benefits. Thats why JCVI did not want to approve it for healthy kids.
The question for me at that point is if you could identify the 200 or so people that were ever at risk in that group and just vaccinate them, leaving the rest of them alone. I think we probably could.
At the other end of the spectrum these numbers look much more compelling for the elderly, where the risk was very much higher. More like 1 in 3 for the over 90s. Vaccination will have helped them much more dramatically, but of course many who did not die of COVID still died of other things, because they were very old and we broke the NHS.
I have looked at this is a fair amount of detail. Whilst I am not an expert I see plenty of evidence that the vaccines did achieve something. The elderly and vulnerable were the only people that really needed them, but people got a bit carried away.
My personal view is that they should have been encouraged for the ‘at risk’, but made available to everyone. No one should have been coerced in any way and we should have told those who had recovered from COVID and young people that they probably didn’t need it. But no one in power said that, because they were scared.
Where we agree is that vaccines have no real purpose now. The boosters elevate people’s immune response creating a window of about 8 weeks when they are slightly less likely to catch COVID. For most people I doubt that is worth the risk of endless jabs. But there are probably some people still out there who were nearly killed by COVID last time or who are barely hanging together anyway, where it might make still make sense.
I agree with most of the beginning of your post, and it’s a decent analysis, obviously I can’t agree with the last few paragraphs. No point going back and forth on it really, I’ve been studying it all just as long and I’m coming to different conclusions, doesn’t really matter who is right or wrong, people have clearly picked sides in the debate and will rarely move.You can’t simply compare vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths and ‘see’ the vaccines working. Either in summmary or over a limited window of time. There are too many confounding factors.
The biggest of these is the way risk changes with age. A vaccinated 80 year old facing COVID for the first time may have halved their risk of serious illness. But even then, they are still more at risk than an unvaccinated 60 year old and thousands of times more at risk than an unvaccinated 20 year old.
Let’s say you have a younger group where the hospitalisation rate is 1 in 50,000. Without vaccination and assuming an 80% infection rate that would mean 160 in hospital out of a population of 10 million. Vaccination of an entirely unexposed population could reduce that to 32. So you prevent serious illness for 128 people. For them, the vaccines worked.
But with COVID that population had been extensively exposed before vaccines were offered. If we say half of them had already been infected, the serious illness prevented reduces to 80 people. Still meaningful for them, but not that significant out of population of 10 million.
So in a group like this, vaccinating when we did, is highly dubious. We are getting to levels where the vaccine risk might outweigh these tiny benefits. Thats why JCVI did not want to approve it for healthy kids.
The question for me at that point is if you could identify the 200 or so people that were ever at risk in that group and just vaccinate them, leaving the rest of them alone. I think we probably could.
At the other end of the spectrum these numbers look much more compelling for the elderly, where the risk was very much higher. More like 1 in 3 for the over 90s. Vaccination will have helped them much more dramatically, but of course many who did not die of COVID still died of other things, because they were very old and we broke the NHS.
I have looked at this is a fair amount of detail. Whilst I am not an expert I see plenty of evidence that the vaccines did achieve something. The elderly and vulnerable were the only people that really needed them, but people got a bit carried away.
My personal view is that they should have been encouraged for the ‘at risk’, but made available to everyone. No one should have been coerced in any way and we should have told those who had recovered from COVID and young people that they probably didn’t need it. But no one in power said that, because they were scared.
Where we agree is that vaccines have no real purpose now. The boosters elevate people’s immune response creating a window of about 8 weeks when they are slightly less likely to catch COVID. For most people I doubt that is worth the risk of endless jabs. But there are probably some people still out there who were nearly killed by COVID last time or who are barely hanging together anyway, where it might make still make sense.
Hants PHer said:
andyA700 said:
You know that it is impossible to argue with deniers, because their position is entrenched. If nobody was killed by Covid, then what else killed the largely elderly 73,512 who dies from Covid in the UK in 2020? My neighbour who is still suffering from Long Covid (From December 2020, before the vaccines arrived) has been told that he can't have Long Covid because Covid doesn't exist. Do these lunatics actually read what they write?
I know, Andy, I know. Another poster said it was like trying to argue with a Jehovah's Witness and I think he was right.The answer you might get is that deaths in 2020 were due to hysteria or influenza or something else, because viruses don't exist, you know.
This ludicrous absolutism also makes nuanced opinion impossible to hold. For example, I am concerned that vaccine damage is greater than has been officially recognised, I think the
However, do I accept that there is a 'tidal wave' of vaccine induced cancers, heart disease and other illnesses out there? No, because I've seen no proof of this. But try telling that to someone such as r3g and you just get a
as a response. We ran into 2020 with an almost zero flu season in 2019, if you subscribe to the normal “flu season” narrative. In April/May we absolutely threw any precautionary principle out of the window and pretty much executed a large section of elderly population through mismanagement and extremely poor health care decisions. We stressed the nation, we stress the services, we then tested to death anything that moved and then introduced a totally untested “vaccine” into the population and lo and behold people died. Thing is, people are still dying way above the rate we saw for a decade before 2020, so what is happening there? No one seems to want to answer that question, and it’s not missed cancer diagnosis appointments.
I don’t read zerohedge. Using terms like “denier” is just an indication that all you’ve done is swallowed a narrative and gone headlong for it and not even attempted to look outside the box. Have a look into virus theory, history of vaccines. I mean really look. Listen to people that make you feel uncomfortable, scoff at them if you like, but listen. And go read. Then read some more. THEN come back and explain the “denier” comment to me. To deny something there has to be a truth. There is no truth or certainty in anything.
Hants PHer said:
I know, Andy, I know. Another poster said it was like trying to argue with a Jehovah's Witness and I think he was right.
The answer you might get is that deaths in 2020 were due to hysteria or influenza or something else, because viruses don't exist, you know.
This ludicrous absolutism also makes nuanced opinion impossible to hold. For example, I am concerned that vaccine damage is greater than has been officially recognised, I think thecoercion encouragement to take Covid vaccines was a disgrace, and I think there are many people damaged by the vaccines who are not getting help, medical or otherwise, with that damage. IIRC you are one of those people and you have my sympathy.
However, do I accept that there is a 'tidal wave' of vaccine induced cancers, heart disease and other illnesses out there? No, because I've seen no proof of this. But try telling that to someone such as r3g and you just get a as a response.
Indeed. There are many of us with many, sensible, concerns about Covid, the response, and the vaccines.The answer you might get is that deaths in 2020 were due to hysteria or influenza or something else, because viruses don't exist, you know.
This ludicrous absolutism also makes nuanced opinion impossible to hold. For example, I am concerned that vaccine damage is greater than has been officially recognised, I think the
However, do I accept that there is a 'tidal wave' of vaccine induced cancers, heart disease and other illnesses out there? No, because I've seen no proof of this. But try telling that to someone such as r3g and you just get a
as a response. However, due to empty vessels making the most noise, these concerns are drowned out by the absolute mince spewed forth by a select few.
Indeed, in loon land, if you don't subscribe to the mince you're classed as belonging on 'the other thread'.
It's a crying shame as there are, as I said, many Covid related issues (and serious ones at that) that should concern everyone.
For balance, anyone who states there are no issues whatsoever with how governments et al handled Covid and the vaccine rollout is equally as unhinged.
jameswills said:
Hants PHer said:
andyA700 said:
You know that it is impossible to argue with deniers, because their position is entrenched. If nobody was killed by Covid, then what else killed the largely elderly 73,512 who dies from Covid in the UK in 2020? My neighbour who is still suffering from Long Covid (From December 2020, before the vaccines arrived) has been told that he can't have Long Covid because Covid doesn't exist. Do these lunatics actually read what they write?
I know, Andy, I know. Another poster said it was like trying to argue with a Jehovah's Witness and I think he was right.The answer you might get is that deaths in 2020 were due to hysteria or influenza or something else, because viruses don't exist, you know.
This ludicrous absolutism also makes nuanced opinion impossible to hold. For example, I am concerned that vaccine damage is greater than has been officially recognised, I think the
However, do I accept that there is a 'tidal wave' of vaccine induced cancers, heart disease and other illnesses out there? No, because I've seen no proof of this. But try telling that to someone such as r3g and you just get a
as a response. We ran into 2020 with an almost zero flu season in 2019, if you subscribe to the normal “flu season” narrative. In April/May we absolutely threw any precautionary principle out of the window and pretty much executed a large section of elderly population through mismanagement and extremely poor health care decisions. We stressed the nation, we stress the services, we then tested to death anything that moved and then introduced a totally untested “vaccine” into the population and lo and behold people died. Thing is, people are still dying way above the rate we saw for a decade before 2020, so what is happening there? No one seems to want to answer that question, and it’s not missed cancer diagnosis appointments.
I don’t read zerohedge. Using terms like “denier” is just an indication that all you’ve done is swallowed a narrative and gone headlong for it and not even attempted to look outside the box. Have a look into virus theory, history of vaccines. I mean really look. Listen to people that make you feel uncomfortable, scoff at them if you like, but listen. And go read. Then read some more. THEN come back and explain the “denier” comment to me. To deny something there has to be a truth. There is no truth or certainty in anything.
2016 - 430
2017 - 458
2018 - 1,598
2019 - 1,223
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgove...
BigMon said:
Indeed. There are many of us with many, sensible, concerns about Covid, the response, and the vaccines.
However, due to empty vessels making the most noise, these concerns are drowned out by the absolute mince spewed forth by a select few.
Indeed, in loon land, if you don't subscribe to the mince you're classed as belonging on 'the other thread'.
It's a crying shame as there are, as I said, many Covid related issues (and serious ones at that) that should concern everyone.
For balance, anyone who states there are no issues whatsoever with how governments et al handled Covid and the vaccine rollout is equally as unhinged.
The “other thread” shouldn’t exist, it serves no purpose at all for PH, I’ve seen threads with valued content shut down, but that still continues. That sounds alarm bells. Coupled with anyone that crosses over to here only throws a few jibes and rolling smilies about shows what it’s true intention is. To stifle debate.However, due to empty vessels making the most noise, these concerns are drowned out by the absolute mince spewed forth by a select few.
Indeed, in loon land, if you don't subscribe to the mince you're classed as belonging on 'the other thread'.
It's a crying shame as there are, as I said, many Covid related issues (and serious ones at that) that should concern everyone.
For balance, anyone who states there are no issues whatsoever with how governments et al handled Covid and the vaccine rollout is equally as unhinged.
Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
andyA700 said:
I have had a look at flu deaths in the UK in the four years pre Covid. The number of deaths from Covid 19, in 2020 was 73,512.
2016 - 430
2017 - 458
2018 - 1,598
2019 - 1,223
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgove...
I’ve been charting ONS death figures for the last 15 years, so I’m well versed on it. We saw extremely low mortality rates in 2019. Normally we see 20k average in a winter season, we saw nearly zero. That’s what I mean by flu season. 2016 - 430
2017 - 458
2018 - 1,598
2019 - 1,223
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgove...
jameswills said:
The “other thread” shouldn’t exist, it serves no purpose at all for PH, I’ve seen threads with valued content shut down, but that still continues. That sounds alarm bells. Coupled with anyone that crosses over to here only throws a few jibes and rolling smilies about shows what it’s true intention is. To stifle debate.
Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
That happens here too as well. If you read back you will notice that, several times, people have been accused of being members of 'the other thread' or have been told to go back to 'the other thread'. Presumably, as you correctly say, with the notion of creating an echo chamber where anyone questioning the thread narrative will be burnt at the stake as a heretic.Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
jameswills said:
I agree with most of the beginning of your post, and it’s a decent analysis, obviously I can’t agree with the last few paragraphs. No point going back and forth on it really, I’ve been studying it all just as long and I’m coming to different conclusions, doesn’t really matter who is right or wrong, people have clearly picked sides in the debate and will rarely move.
You are entitled to your opinion of course and I think there are many things we agree on. Unfortunately, when you say there is no evidence that COVID exists or that vaccines do not have any effect I am forced to disagree with you. Not because I have picked a side, but because I can plainly see that there is evidence.
I would agree that, at this point a discussion about the benefits achieved by the vaccine programme does not really matter. It happened and the people who wanted the vaccine took it.
It matters more to me that we find ways to make sure the evils of lockdown, vaccine passports and mandates are never allowed to happen again.
BigMon said:
jameswills said:
The “other thread” shouldn’t exist, it serves no purpose at all for PH, I’ve seen threads with valued content shut down, but that still continues. That sounds alarm bells. Coupled with anyone that crosses over to here only throws a few jibes and rolling smilies about shows what it’s true intention is. To stifle debate.
Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
That happens here too as well. If you read back you will notice that, several times, people have been accused of being members of 'the other thread' or have been told to go back to 'the other thread'. Presumably, as you correctly say, with the notion of creating an echo chamber where anyone questioning the thread narrative will be burnt at the stake as a heretic.Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
Elysium said:
You are entitled to your opinion of course and I think there are many things we agree on.
Unfortunately, when you say there is no evidence that COVID exists or that vaccines do not have any effect I am forced to disagree with you. Not because I have picked a side, but because I can plainly see that there is evidence.
I would agree that, at this point a discussion about the benefits achieved by the vaccine programme does not really matter. It happened and the people who wanted the vaccine took it.
It matters more to me that we find ways to make sure the evils of lockdown, vaccine passports and mandates are never allowed to happen again.
Oh there’s evidence that Covid exists, you only have to listen to BBC News, but if you actually look, there really wasn’t anything. I’ve said time and time again, if none of us looked at any media we’d not have noticed anything. I didn’t see anyone be ill in 2020, until the testing and hysteria was ramped up. Perhaps you had a different story to tell, and you saw friends and family bed ridden or dead in 2020 and so got a different perspective. I don’t have an issue with that, just let us deal with the situation ourselves, don’t blanket everyone. Unfortunately, when you say there is no evidence that COVID exists or that vaccines do not have any effect I am forced to disagree with you. Not because I have picked a side, but because I can plainly see that there is evidence.
I would agree that, at this point a discussion about the benefits achieved by the vaccine programme does not really matter. It happened and the people who wanted the vaccine took it.
It matters more to me that we find ways to make sure the evils of lockdown, vaccine passports and mandates are never allowed to happen again.
Agree strongly with your last point, but unfortunately giving credence to the fact there was a pandemic just means justification for the next one is baked in. So you’re on to a loser unfortunately
BigMon said:
jameswills said:
The “other thread” shouldn’t exist, it serves no purpose at all for PH, I’ve seen threads with valued content shut down, but that still continues. That sounds alarm bells. Coupled with anyone that crosses over to here only throws a few jibes and rolling smilies about shows what it’s true intention is. To stifle debate.
Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
That happens here too as well. If you read back you will notice that, several times, people have been accused of being members of 'the other thread' or have been told to go back to 'the other thread'. Presumably, as you correctly say, with the notion of creating an echo chamber where anyone questioning the thread narrative will be burnt at the stake as a heretic.Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
jameswills said:
BigMon said:
jameswills said:
The “other thread” shouldn’t exist, it serves no purpose at all for PH, I’ve seen threads with valued content shut down, but that still continues. That sounds alarm bells. Coupled with anyone that crosses over to here only throws a few jibes and rolling smilies about shows what it’s true intention is. To stifle debate.
Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
That happens here too as well. If you read back you will notice that, several times, people have been accused of being members of 'the other thread' or have been told to go back to 'the other thread'. Presumably, as you correctly say, with the notion of creating an echo chamber where anyone questioning the thread narrative will be burnt at the stake as a heretic.Discussion and argument is extremely important, it is non existent now on any major platform or media outlet, so I’d fight to protect forum discussion. It’s why I don’t engage with anyone that calls people deniers and loons normally. They aren’t trying to further discussion or get to any truth. They are just trying to shut down a narrative they don’t align to.
I might not agree with some of what is posted on here, but it makes for a much more interesting thread if there is reasoned debate with argument and counter-argument and that sort of thing can change opinion one way or the other.
For example, you were going to post up why your world view had changed and what had caused it to change. I would honestly be very interested in reading that and I wouldn't be denigrating you if you did.
BigMon said:
I don't think I've ever posted on the other thread, despite being accused several times of doing so. If I have, I have never gone on and denigrated anyone.
I might not agree with some of what is posted on here, but it makes for a much more interesting thread if there is reasoned debate with argument and counter-argument and that sort of thing can change opinion one way or the other.
For example, you were going to post up why your world view had changed and what had caused it to change. I would honestly be very interested in reading that and I wouldn't be denigrating you if you did.
Agreeing with people is often nice, but it doesn’t really have any benefit. It’s good to argue and discuss, but it has to be allowed to happen. We don’t get that enough now.I might not agree with some of what is posted on here, but it makes for a much more interesting thread if there is reasoned debate with argument and counter-argument and that sort of thing can change opinion one way or the other.
For example, you were going to post up why your world view had changed and what had caused it to change. I would honestly be very interested in reading that and I wouldn't be denigrating you if you did.
Sadly haven’t had the time to do that, I would really like to do it for my own benefit. Been thinking about it a lot, and I realise there’s a lot of gaps! Can I even trust my own memory?
Good video from JC on the vaxx damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boqKzpftNSI
I'll say it again, give it a couple more years and the vaxx damage deniers (just like the mask deniers and the heart attack/myo/peri deniers) will be openly talking about their vaxx damage and that of friends and family like it was well-known and never in doubt. I've noticed a shift in the narrative from several of the pot-stirrers from the other thread where 6 months ago they were firmly in the "unthinkable" camp but are in the process of moving through the "radical" camp to the "accepting" camp as more and more anecdotal evidence comes under the spotlight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boqKzpftNSI
I'll say it again, give it a couple more years and the vaxx damage deniers (just like the mask deniers and the heart attack/myo/peri deniers) will be openly talking about their vaxx damage and that of friends and family like it was well-known and never in doubt. I've noticed a shift in the narrative from several of the pot-stirrers from the other thread where 6 months ago they were firmly in the "unthinkable" camp but are in the process of moving through the "radical" camp to the "accepting" camp as more and more anecdotal evidence comes under the spotlight.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff