Platinum Contributing Member Steve753 Posted June 20, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2023 1 minute ago, spin_dry said: It was a global conspiracy to dethrone trump. My god you’re an insufferable idiot at times. @HSR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 20, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, spin_dry said: It was a global conspiracy to dethrone trump. My god you’re an insufferable idiot at times. So easy getting in your weak minded head. What I said was they simply used it against a President who was presiding over a time of great economic prosperity. Those are hard to beat in elections even with the DOJ and IC on their side. Edited June 20, 2023 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosting Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 Just now, Plissken said: The same study you’re cheerleading showed that facemasks produced a weighted average 21.2% reduction in mortality. Do you love it??? What point are you trying to make? I dont take anything covid related at face value. It's been politicized to the point nothing can be trusted. Anyone who is paying attention would come to the same conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Plissken said: The same study you’re cheerleading showed that facemasks produced a weighted average 21.2% reduction in mortality. Do you love it??? Facemasks? Only a fucking moron thinks a facemask prevents a virus. What does the package say? What study did I push again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plissken Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Roosting said: What point are you trying to make? I dont take anything covid related at face value. It's been politicized to the point nothing can be trusted. Anyone who is paying attention would come to the same conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 Most are seeing through the propaganda now. Except for Freedom Sledders woke sheep. Welcome to Orwell's 1984. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plissken Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Facemasks? Only a fucking moron thinks a facemask prevents a virus. What does the package say? What study did I push again. So you agree the OP study is trash? That’s where that table is from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosting Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Plissken said: You having trouble with the point you were trying to make? or the over politicized response to covid? Try this big lie on for size: did the virus originate in a lab in Wuhan? or in a wet market? Does the virus magically drop out of the air 6 feet from the person emitting it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plissken Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Roosting said: You having trouble with the point you were trying to make? or the over politicized response to covid? Try this big lie on for size: did the virus originate in a lab in Wuhan? or in a wet market? Does the virus magically drop out of the air 6 feet from the person emitting it? A. My point was that the study is trash and I think I’ve convinced you of that. B. Objection: Calls for speculation. C. I don’t believe in magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosting Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 Just now, Plissken said: A. My point was that the study is trash and I think I’ve convinced you of that. B. Objection: Calls for speculation. C. I don’t believe in magic. The study holds the same amount of truth as the study claiming to debunk it does. To be fair I would take anything going counter to the official narrative as being more truthful. There are countless examples out there already and more is being exposed every day the government lied pretty much every step of the way with the MSM following along lock step. There is zero speculation that C-19 was developed and inadvertently released by the Wuhan institute of virology. ZERO. That is what happened. You might not believe in magic but guaranteed you fell for and followed that load of tripe like a good little minion keeping grandma safe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 17 minutes ago, Plissken said: So you agree the OP study is trash? That’s where that table is from. Covid is a scam. The lockdowns actually caused more harm. Masks are useless unless it's a full respirator. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 46 minutes ago, Roosting said: So it goes both ways on either side. Correct Absolutely. Neither side is free from bias and flaws. That should be known as a given. Why did it take so long to realize that? Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 44 minutes ago, Highmark said: But but but its peer reviewed so it has to be accurate. No, it isn’t. It’s a cherry picked load of crap, apparently. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 43 minutes ago, Roosting said: What point are you trying to make? I dont take anything covid related at face value. It's been politicized to the point nothing can be trusted. Anyone who is paying attention would come to the same conclusion. A good bit of skepticism is reasonable. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washedupmxer Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 Same goes for the failed shots that are more dangerous than they hell for the majority of people 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 20, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2023 5 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: No, it isn’t. It’s a cherry picked load of crap, apparently. Neal Seems to me the paper is actually the peer review. I guess now Johns Hopkins is unreliable. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effect of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality based on available empirical evidence. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). We employ a systematic search and screening procedure in which 19,646 studies are identified that could potentially address the purpose of our study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Seems to me the paper is actually the peer review. I guess now Johns Hopkins is unreliable. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effect of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality based on available empirical evidence. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). We employ a systematic search and screening procedure in which 19,646 studies are identified that could potentially address the purpose of our study. Seems the paper is falling short of peer review qualifications, after being reviewed! It is best to disregard Johns Hopkins and go with some Internet forum or chain email info. Neal 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted June 20, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2023 23 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Seems the paper is falling short of peer review qualifications, after being reviewed! It is best to disregard Johns Hopkins and go with some Internet forum or chain email info. Neal 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plissken Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Highmark said: Seems to me the paper is actually the peer review. I guess now Johns Hopkins is unreliable. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effect of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality based on available empirical evidence. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). We employ a systematic search and screening procedure in which 19,646 studies are identified that could potentially address the purpose of our study. The OP study is the opinion of the authors, not Johns Hopkins. One of them is a senior fellow at the CATO institute, hmmmm. Edited June 20, 2023 by Plissken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted June 20, 2023 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2023 May not have had an effect on death rate of from covid but it sure will have a long lasting effect on this country. Knocked many people ( some quite young) out of the workforce. Drove by one of my larger competitor's shop last week. Middle of the work day , more then half of his trucks were sitting idle. Large plumbing service co . next door. 12 trucks parked for lack of an ass to put in the seat. Im sure both companies insured them this yr in hopes of filling them. Next yr, probably not. These are trucks that will not need service work on them all yr . Also will not need to be replaced soon , if ever. The folks who would normaly be driving them would be paying taxes, paying into social security , and spending more money then they do now. Then add in the mental aspe3ct of so many people wandering around without a purpose in life. The response to covid from oth sides was damn near criminal. All those who supported it should be ashamed of yourselves. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 4 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said: Ahem, its part of the great reset WEF. You are the ONLY one on this forum that believes that. Just like the article which is based on opinion, that is your opinion. Yours is idiotically stupid, but no surprise. Dumb sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosting Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Absolutely. Neither side is free from bias and flaws. That should be known as a given. Why did it take so long to realize that? Neal apparently you havent realized it yet because you tout official c-19 narrative as definitive proof when discussing these matters. I dont recall you ever claiming to take the stats you regurgitate with a grain of salt as the data is suspect to claims of accuracy. This pertains to government and mfg literature. so with that said your claims of objectivity are suspect and can't be considered as accurate especially when you have made claims that have been verified as incorrect. remember to look both ways before crossing the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 31 minutes ago, Deephaven said: You are the ONLY one on this forum that believes that. Just like the article which is based on opinion, that is your opinion. Yours is idiotically stupid, but no surprise. Dumb sheep. They even wrote a fucking book on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 They.... It's all part of the plan. The crackhead plan on Lloyd believes in . No one else on here agrees with your statement "Ahem, its part of the great reset WEF." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 20, 2023 Share Posted June 20, 2023 33 minutes ago, Roosting said: apparently you havent realized it yet because you tout official c-19 narrative as definitive proof when discussing these matters. I dont recall you ever claiming to take the stats you regurgitate with a grain of salt as the data is suspect to claims of accuracy. This pertains to government and mfg literature. so with that said your claims of objectivity are suspect and can't be considered as accurate especially when you have made claims that have been verified as incorrect. remember to look both ways before crossing the street. I most certainly do not. Your bias is showing. A lack of your recollection isn’t my problem. You are speaking nonsense. What in the fuck are you looking at exactly? Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.