This is a good read highlighting some of the concerns and data available regarding Covid and Vaccines written to Australians.
https://covidmedicalnetwork.com/open-letters/first-do-no-harm.aspx
Logical Fallacy… can I get some help here?
by DATA-DOG 154 Replies latest social current
-
-
Vidqun
Here's an article to put things in perspective. To me it makes 100% sense.
Authored by Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger via larrysanger.org
The Covid vaccines are experimental. The FDA has not approved them. Most vaccines require years to test and approve, in no small part because we want to make sure they don’t have dangerous long-term side effects, which they can have; the CDC has published a list of problems with elected approved vaccines. Many experimental vaccines never make it out of the experimental phase. CNN made similar points back when Trump was, wrongheadedly (I thought so at the time) pushing for rapid approval of the Covid vaccines. Of course, the mercurial news organization hastened to forget all that when the Biden administration decided rapid vaccine deployment was a good idea. They shouldn’t have: for all the good they certainly have done, physicians warn us that vaccines can be dangerous for some, and experimental vaccines are, naturally, even more so.
Again, my point is simple and absolutely factual. Again:
· experimental vaccine
· billions of people (over two billion)
· at the same time
You have to be willing to trust the welfare of billions of people not just to the honesty of our leaders and scientists—because things can go wrong for decent people. You must also trust their competence—and not just that, because competent people can make surprising, unforeseeable mistakes. You must also trust that we avoided the worst, that we dodged a bullet, and that they actually succeeded in making a more or less safe vaccine.
Of course, maybe they did. I sure hope so. But what if we discover some horrifically high incidence of catastrophic side-effects that do not show up for two or five or ten years? Scientists tell us that that is possible. It is unfortunately possible that more people will die from these experimental vaccines than would have died from a virus that kills fewer than 1% of those who contract it.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not claiming that is happening. I am not even saying that it is terribly likely. I am saying it is possible, because these are experimental vaccines.
Frankly, the hubris required for carrying out this plan, and for taking the lead in propagandizing the world to carry it out, is jaw-dropping and scary to me. If a world leader is willing to take such gambles with all of humanity, what else are they prepared to do? I really wonder. If suddenly you became a president or top medical system leader or media organization owner, would you want to take an action that, if you were wrong, might spell the death of millions? First, do no harm. We haven’t heard that old medical byword very much recently.
My family received our childhood vaccinations, by the way, with no issues. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I am an anti-global-all-at-once-experimental-vaxxer. There is a big difference.
This is not even to touch the question whether these experimental vaccines should be mandated, i.e., if you should lose your basic civil rights if you fail to be vaccinated. Maybe I will write about that question, definitely a non-medical question, separately another time. There is indeed much, much more to say.
But my present point is simple: experimental vaccine—billions of people—at the same time. It utterly boggles the mind that so many otherwise reasonable people have been influenced to think this is a good idea.
-
carla
Vidqun,
-
Rocketman123
It utterly boggles the mind that so many otherwise reasonable people have been influenced to think this is a good idea.
The hard question is what were the other actions or directions that countries could have taken ?
No social restrictions, mask wearing optional, let the virus spread at will killing a segment of some unfortunate ones ?
Quite frankly speaking just in the way the Canadian government reacted, I think it was the right way, not without some flaws and mistakes, well right now that is.
Lets see in a couple of years .
If in a few years from now and they find out these vaccinations have developed various health issues in people, we might look at the matter with a different perspective.
-
Anony Mous
We can all see what the best course of action was in the aftermath. Protect the elderly, tell them they should really stay away from large crowds while you build up natural immunity quickly amongst the younger ones that aren’t affected by cases of death so it doesn’t have time to mutate.
As we’ve seen in many places, the virus will burn out amongst the young in a matter of months, extending that time gives it more time to mutate which is what mask mandates and lockdowns have done.
The elderly aren’t afraid of death. They’d rather see their grandchildren than die alone isolated for years on end.
The focus on number of cases rather than deaths was the biggest factor and solely to blame on the media which did it to protect their benefactors. The focus on preventing spread rather than preventing mutation and death is the primary reason though.
-
DATA-DOG
Listener and Vidquin,
Those are both excellent articles and I couldn’t agree more.
Sadly, some will claim, “They don’t know the facts.”, because one Author isn’t a Doctor and the others “aren’t real Doctors.”
I witnessed a “Health Care Professional” refuse to read official information from VAERS, claiming it was faked. It was pathetic and reminded me of JWs refusing to read print-outs of past teachings, claiming “Apostates” faked the articles.
There is a brilliant gentleman who developed a program to track Patents ( more complicated that that in reality ) who began seeing anomalies dealing with SARS COV-2 patents. I’m running this morning but I’ll share his information when I find it, if you’re interested.
Anyway, he can track EVERYTHING, and has done several interviews and even shared some quotes from meetings involving those who planned on taking the MRNA products to the market. I’m paraphrasing, but one comment basically said, “We need the Media to generate hype/fear, and the investors dollars will follow.”
It’s sad that the general population has become so conditioned with Fear-Porn that they can no longer reason, or make logical decisions, or hold adult conversations and debates on critical matters.
Finally:
“EARLY TREATMENTS
There is abundant evidence supporting the use of anti-viral therapies, such as Ivermectin in combination therapies with other agents including Zinc, Doxycycline, Azithromycin and Vitamin D3, as both a relatively safe prophylactic and early treatment for Covid illness. Aspirin, inhaled and oral steroids have also shown to be beneficial.
Other agents being used in more difficult cases include Montelukast, Anti-coagulants, Maraviroc (a CCR5 Antagonist), Statins and Fluvoxamine. We believe doctors have an obligation to be informed of this and to offer such choices as preventative or early treatment alternatives to their patients.“
THIS ^^^
The Mainstream Media is lying to you. They have their Masters, and they have their talking points.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
DD
-
Rocketman123
I think its worthy to realize that there have been tens of thousands of doctors all around the world who have been treating people with Covid for the past year or more and yes there were some who tried using some experimental treatments but through those efforts they didn't find the magic drug that would successfully stop people from dying.
Do you not think that many doctors haven't reviewed and evaluated drugs such as Ivermectin ???
Remdesiver on the other hand has been approved as a treatment for Covid symptoms here in Canada and the US but then again its not completely capable of stopping possible outcomes of death.
-
DATA-DOG
“… and yes there were some who tried using some experimental treatments but through those efforts they didn't find the magic drug that would successfully stop people from dying.”
There is no “magic bullet” to stop people from dying. There is no 100% effective treatment. No one is making that claim, but 65%-80% reduction in hospitalization ( depends on the Doctor and their own experiences ) is excellent. Once a patient is hospitalized their chances of death greatly increase and I doubt anyone disagrees with that statement.
Your statement above is a Strawman argument. There’s no reason to waste time defending something that was never claimed.
“Do you not think that many doctors haven't reviewed and evaluated drugs such as Ivermectin ???”
There are independent Doctors who will buck the system, and there are Doctors who follow the “playbook” with tunnel vision. So, YES…Not every Doctor has reviewed existing drugs and treatments that pertain to early treatment. Doctors, like anyone else in a hierarchical structure, under pressure, will follow the program.
It’s impossible to expect every Doctor to stay abreast of every subject. Some don’t further their education, or they are specialist and have no need to investigate in their leisure time. Some do their job and go home. They are human after all.
The real travesty here is the MEDIA and Big Tech practicing censorship to push a single narrative. How can Doctors easily share information when they are deplatformed or banned from Social Media forums? Medical discussions are the absolute last thing that should be off the table in a Pandemic situation.
Anyone who knowingly suppressed information that could have saved lives, whether for financial gain, or political gain, or whether they just “followed orders” should be help responsible. The majority of the blame falls on persons like Faucci and anyone in ANY government that knowingly supported Gain Of Function research and participated in the censorship of medical experts around the world.
“Remdesiver on the other hand has been approved as a treatment for Covid symptoms here in Canada and the US but then again its not completely capable of stopping possible outcomes of death.”
Again, early treatment is key. This is where the powers that be dropped the ball either from being inept, or for financial gain. Remdesivir, Ivermectin, and HQC, don’t help much once a patient becomes sick enough to be hospitalized. Here is a link to an interesting article.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/remdesivir-and-interferon-fall-flat-who-s-megastudy-covid-19-treatments
Faucci was/is well aware of early treatment options, and has been for some time. Existing, preventative treatments that actually work when administered early, like Ivermectin, and HCQ would preclude the emergency authorization of MRNA products by law. Products that Faucci is heavily invested in.
DD
-
Rocketman123
Once a patient is hospitalized their chances of death greatly increase and I doubt anyone disagrees with that statement.
Really ?
So the treatments that doctors are doing right now and have been doing are futile and digressive toward healing people while they are there under treatment ?
......and you know that because you yourself are an active practicing doctor ?
I think there would be tens of thousands of doctors all around the world that would disagree with that statement .
Faucci was/is well aware of early treatment options, and has been for some time. Existing, preventative treatments that actually work when administered early, like Ivermectin, and HCQ would preclude the emergency authorization of MRNA products by law. Products that Faucci is heavily invested in.
Your going to the absurd DD, get some rest
Its official DD your a conspiracy theorist nutter
-
DATA-DOG
Are you an idiot? That’s a serious question. Do you have a low I.Q?
“ So the treatments that doctors are doing right now and have been doing are futile and digressive toward healing people while they are there under treatment ?”
Who said everything was futile? Those are your words, and another strawman argument. I said, that once a person’s symptoms require hospitalization that their chances of survival are decreased.
Do you honestly believe that a person’s chances of survival, (especially and older person) INCREASE if a virus is allowed to replicate more and symptoms become more severe, as in having low oxygen content in ones blood, as opposed to early treatment to prevent hospitalization? I suppose you believe it’s better to get sick enough to be hospitalized as opposed to avoiding that scenario?
Do you really think being weakened to the point of hospitalization and perhaps being intubated while sedated INCREASES a person’s chance of survival? Are you aware of the studies performed on the dangers of sedation while having someone on a ventilator, even when absolutely necessary?
“I think there would be tens of thousands of doctors all around the world that would disagree with that statement.”
What Doctor in their right mind would prefer a patient to be so sick as to require hospitalization? What a nonsensical statement on your part.
DD