CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
isaldiri said:
There have been a couple of psychology studies done pre covid I believe that show the default position of people is to double down when presented with evidence to the contrary rather than reconsider their original position - that has shown itself to be rather accurate over the pandemic I think.....
Yes, indeed it has... r3g said:
isaldiri said:
There have been a couple of psychology studies done pre covid I believe that show the default position of people is to double down when presented with evidence to the contrary rather than reconsider their original position - that has shown itself to be rather accurate over the pandemic I think.....
Yes, indeed it has... I think both threads are very similar tbh and I look on in bemusement as someone who doesn't really have a dog in the fight.
Both threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
Both threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
Edited by BigMon on Friday 26th April 10:48
BigMon said:
I think both threads are very similar tbh and I look on in bemusement as someone who doesn't really have a dog in the fight.
Both threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
Welcome to the Internet!Both threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
Edited by BigMon on Friday 26th April 10:48
r3g said:
isaldiri said:
There have been a couple of psychology studies done pre covid I believe that show the default position of people is to double down when presented with evidence to the contrary rather than reconsider their original position - that has shown itself to be rather accurate over the pandemic I think.....
Yes, indeed it has... r3g said:
isaldiri said:
There have been a couple of psychology studies done pre covid I believe that show the default position of people is to double down when presented with evidence to the contrary rather than reconsider their original position - that has shown itself to be rather accurate over the pandemic I think.....
Yes, indeed it has... BigMon said:
I think both threads are very similar tbh and I look on in bemusement as someone who doesn't really have a dog in the fight.
Both threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
It depends. I don't think as one of the 'regular' contributors to this thread I have ever jumped in to insult another poster with another view and telling him to pBoth threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
Edited by BigMon on Friday 26th April 10:48
s off back to the other thread. And neither have quite a few others here. Can't/won't speak for elsewhere but I do maintain on this 'loon' thread, someone looking for reasonable discussion will get it even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the replies, albeit a fair amount of filtering/ignoring sniping posts from those here that delight in doing so.
BigMon said:
I think both threads are very similar tbh and I look on in bemusement as someone who doesn't really have a dog in the fight.
Both threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
As you say - school playground.Both threads with plenty of people with entrenched views who aren't going to change and both threads slating the other thread or boasting about trolling the other thread.
It's all just a bit daft and school playground.
Many of us have presented anecdotal accounts of friends, family and colleagues who have become sick or have been injured by the jabs - I know at least a dozen myself whom I have written about in these volumes. Only to be regaled with witty rejoinders such as - "no you don't stop making it up", or "you must be the unluckiest guy in the world, so glad I don't know you, Jonah" or the old favourite "well I don't know anyone, so you must be imagining it". Cognitive dissonance. My experiences don't tally with yours, therefore you must be erroneous in your testimony. It's spectacularly illogical. Add to that the complete refusal by government and media to even look into these things in any meaningful way, preferring instead to parrot the old 'safe and effective' mantra ad nauseam, which only increases the suspicions of those cynically minded people. To label everyone critical of the official orthodoxy as an 'anti-vaxxer' or a 'conspiracy theorist' is lazy ad-homming to avoid uncomfortable debate or the possibility of having to challenge one's pre-conceived assumptions.
Bad science - the refusal to scrutinise a hypothesis in the presence of new or revised evidence, by refusing to countenance the evidence and pressing on with the hypothesis.
Roderick Spode said:
As you say - school playground.
Many of us have presented anecdotal accounts of friends, family and colleagues who have become sick or have been injured by the jabs - I know at least a dozen myself whom I have written about in these volumes. Only to be regaled with witty rejoinders such as - "no you don't stop making it up", or "you must be the unluckiest guy in the world, so glad I don't know you, Jonah" or the old favourite "well I don't know anyone, so you must be imagining it". Cognitive dissonance. My experiences don't tally with yours, therefore you must be erroneous in your testimony. It's spectacularly illogical. Add to that the complete refusal by government and media to even look into these things in any meaningful way, preferring instead to parrot the old 'safe and effective' mantra ad nauseam, which only increases the suspicions of those cynically minded people. To label everyone critical of the official orthodoxy as an 'anti-vaxxer' or a 'conspiracy theorist' is lazy ad-homming to avoid uncomfortable debate or the possibility of having to challenge one's pre-conceived assumptions.
Bad science - the refusal to scrutinise a hypothesis in the presence of new or revised evidence, by refusing to countenance the evidence and pressing on with the hypothesis.
Well I've recounted my experiences which are different to yours but I've never called anyone a liar or said their experiences were fictional. I've only ever added mine to add context and I don't doubt that people had very bad reactions to the vaccine (as many people do to many medications tbf) and anyone who has been adversely affected has my utmost sympathy.Many of us have presented anecdotal accounts of friends, family and colleagues who have become sick or have been injured by the jabs - I know at least a dozen myself whom I have written about in these volumes. Only to be regaled with witty rejoinders such as - "no you don't stop making it up", or "you must be the unluckiest guy in the world, so glad I don't know you, Jonah" or the old favourite "well I don't know anyone, so you must be imagining it". Cognitive dissonance. My experiences don't tally with yours, therefore you must be erroneous in your testimony. It's spectacularly illogical. Add to that the complete refusal by government and media to even look into these things in any meaningful way, preferring instead to parrot the old 'safe and effective' mantra ad nauseam, which only increases the suspicions of those cynically minded people. To label everyone critical of the official orthodoxy as an 'anti-vaxxer' or a 'conspiracy theorist' is lazy ad-homming to avoid uncomfortable debate or the possibility of having to challenge one's pre-conceived assumptions.
Bad science - the refusal to scrutinise a hypothesis in the presence of new or revised evidence, by refusing to countenance the evidence and pressing on with the hypothesis.
isaldiri said:
It depends. I don't think as one of the 'regular' contributors to this thread I have ever jumped in to insult another poster with another view and telling him to ps off back to the other thread. And neither have quite a few others here.
Can't/won't speak for elsewhere but I do maintain on this 'loon' thread, someone looking for reasonable discussion will get it even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the replies, albeit a fair amount of filtering/ignoring sniping posts from those here that delight in doing so.
Yes I do think that particular post to you was very out of order. Didn't they later apologise to you?s off back to the other thread. And neither have quite a few others here. Can't/won't speak for elsewhere but I do maintain on this 'loon' thread, someone looking for reasonable discussion will get it even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the replies, albeit a fair amount of filtering/ignoring sniping posts from those here that delight in doing so.
Tbf on this thread, with one or two outliers my personal discussions have been mainly good. As an example, I think James and I differ in our opinions but our discourse has always been polite and we listen to one another and that's perfectly fine and valid.
I'm not sure if I've even posted on the other thread so can't comment.
This is well worth a watch. Sunetra Gupta is very good - her stance is very similar to what mine is now.
The Alternative Covid Inquiry - UnHerd LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZKgfU7o9cw
The Alternative Covid Inquiry - UnHerd LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZKgfU7o9cw
BigMon said:
Well I've recounted my experiences which are different to yours but I've never called anyone a liar or said their experiences were fictional. I've only ever added mine to add context and I don't doubt that people had very bad reactions to the vaccine (as many people do to many medications tbf) and anyone who has been adversely affected has my utmost sympathy.
For me what really grates about the ‘many people have reactions to medication’ line used to justify vaccine damage has happened, is that there was no informed consent, and the people I know who have been been badly damaged were at no significant risk from covid in the first place. So they got damaged by a vaccine they didn’t necessarily need but took it due to the coercion and public messaging around ‘do it for others’ rubbish.BigMon said:
Yes I do think that particular post to you was very out of order. Didn't they later apologise to you?
Tbf on this thread, with one or two outliers my personal discussions have been mainly good. As an example, I think James and I differ in our opinions but our discourse has always been polite and we listen to one another and that's perfectly fine and valid.
I'm not sure if I've even posted on the other thread so can't comment.
That 'pTbf on this thread, with one or two outliers my personal discussions have been mainly good. As an example, I think James and I differ in our opinions but our discourse has always been polite and we listen to one another and that's perfectly fine and valid.
I'm not sure if I've even posted on the other thread so can't comment.
s off' comment was addressed to someone else (ashfordian i believe) rather than me but 've variously been called things by lots of posters there so it's a kind of much of a muchness as well anyway. That post to me I admit was very unexpected all the same. cliffe_mafia said:
This is well worth a watch. Sunetra Gupta is very good - her stance is very similar to what mine is now.
The Alternative Covid Inquiry - UnHerd LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZKgfU7o9cw
Thanks for sharing that. The Alternative Covid Inquiry - UnHerd LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZKgfU7o9cw
UnHerd really are shaping up as one of the last sites for 'proper' journalism.
Their interview with Johan Giesecke, whcih is mentioned at the beginning of that piece, was the moment that the penny dropped for me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY
All three of the Great Barrington Declaration authors have been absolutely spot on throughout this crisis. And importantly the US guys proved in court that they were unlawfully censored.
https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacha...
isaldiri said:
Is it 'proper journalism' only because it might say something one agrees with though? That line seems ever blurred these days tbh...
No. It is proper journalism because UnHerd employs a broad range of writers to cover diverse and at times challenging subjects:https://unherd.com/writers/
Sometimes I agree with what they say, sometimes I don't. What is interesting is that they are willing to prioritise journalistic freedom over ad-revenue. I get the sense that sort of thinking is becoming much less common.
https://unherd.com/2024/04/inside-the-disinformati...
Roderick Spode said:
As you say - school playground.
Many of us have presented anecdotal accounts of friends, family and colleagues who have become sick or have been injured by the jabs - I know at least a dozen myself whom I have written about in these volumes. Only to be regaled with witty rejoinders such as - "no you don't stop making it up", or "you must be the unluckiest guy in the world, so glad I don't know you, Jonah" or the old favourite "well I don't know anyone, so you must be imagining it". Cognitive dissonance. My experiences don't tally with yours, therefore you must be erroneous in your testimony. It's spectacularly illogical. Add to that the complete refusal by government and media to even look into these things in any meaningful way, preferring instead to parrot the old 'safe and effective' mantra ad nauseam, which only increases the suspicions of those cynically minded people. To label everyone critical of the official orthodoxy as an 'anti-vaxxer' or a 'conspiracy theorist' is lazy ad-homming to avoid uncomfortable debate or the possibility of having to challenge one's pre-conceived assumptions.
Bad science - the refusal to scrutinise a hypothesis in the presence of new or revised evidence, by refusing to countenance the evidence and pressing on with the hypothesis.
When the government has given the vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability, if there are problems with the vaccine where does that leave the blame? With the government. Can't have that. Hence why no one is looking into it with any seriousness. And the lawyers can't sue the vaccine manufacturers who have the really deep pockets, they can only sue the government. How well does that normally work out?Many of us have presented anecdotal accounts of friends, family and colleagues who have become sick or have been injured by the jabs - I know at least a dozen myself whom I have written about in these volumes. Only to be regaled with witty rejoinders such as - "no you don't stop making it up", or "you must be the unluckiest guy in the world, so glad I don't know you, Jonah" or the old favourite "well I don't know anyone, so you must be imagining it". Cognitive dissonance. My experiences don't tally with yours, therefore you must be erroneous in your testimony. It's spectacularly illogical. Add to that the complete refusal by government and media to even look into these things in any meaningful way, preferring instead to parrot the old 'safe and effective' mantra ad nauseam, which only increases the suspicions of those cynically minded people. To label everyone critical of the official orthodoxy as an 'anti-vaxxer' or a 'conspiracy theorist' is lazy ad-homming to avoid uncomfortable debate or the possibility of having to challenge one's pre-conceived assumptions.
Bad science - the refusal to scrutinise a hypothesis in the presence of new or revised evidence, by refusing to countenance the evidence and pressing on with the hypothesis.
isaldiri said:
r3g said:
isaldiri said:
There have been a couple of psychology studies done pre covid I believe that show the default position of people is to double down when presented with evidence to the contrary rather than reconsider their original position - that has shown itself to be rather accurate over the pandemic I think.....
Yes, indeed it has... mko9 said:
When the government has given the vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability, if there are problems with the vaccine where does that leave the blame? With the government. Can't have that. Hence why no one is looking into it with any seriousness. And the lawyers can't sue the vaccine manufacturers who have the really deep pockets, they can only sue the government. How well does that normally work out?
That is the same as all Vax. That is why we have the Vaccine Damage Payments Act...... Jasandjules said:
mko9 said:
When the government has given the vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability, if there are problems with the vaccine where does that leave the blame? With the government. Can't have that. Hence why no one is looking into it with any seriousness. And the lawyers can't sue the vaccine manufacturers who have the really deep pockets, they can only sue the government. How well does that normally work out?
That is the same as all Vax. That is why we have the Vaccine Damage Payments Act...... That and the lack of foresight and planning in many countries in relation to well thought out and implemented pandemic plans - those that had one had relatively good outcomes compared to those that didn't. More often than not these were countries where there had been previous small scale outbreaks of Sars/Mers. As was the paradigm, the lack of planning led to roll out of largely untested (in large population studies) antigen delivery methods. Plus these were up against a virus and viral antigens that stimulate a relatively weak short term immune response. As with everything it is a risk balance equation and more often than not lockdowns were applied where transmission was out of control.
I'm all for discussion and scepticism by the way, even when I believe some of that is clearly wrong / misguided.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff