Will Trump be Charged with Treason

[marinermick]

Some of the stories about this are truly creepy

 

[true believer]

 

[true believer]

Some of the stories about this are truly creepy

why would you describe yourself as "epsteins wingman"

 

[true believer]

 

[Spacks]

Bro's been shot at twice.

You're staying in australia, right TB? Not planning a spur of the moment flight to Washington DC are you?

 

[pjennings]

No fan of Trump but it won't be the first time. With the weather forecast given the temperatures and wind chill I think it is a call that should be made.

 

[true believer]

No fan of Trump but it won't be the first time. With the weather forecast given the temperatures and wind chill I think it is a call that should be made.

no one else has done it . he is the alpha male right ? or maybe alpha soft cock.
rapist, fraudster .terrified of "tiny ,i've never seen , tiny crowds like that before "!

 

[true believer]

Bro's been shot at twice.

You're staying in australia, right TB? Not planning a spur of the moment flight to Washington DC are you?

so so tiny

 

[pjennings]

no one else has done it . he is the alpha male right ? or maybe alpha soft cock.
rapist, fraudster .terrified of "tiny ,i've never seen , tiny crowds like that before "!

It's not common and always seems to be weather related e.g. Ronald Reagan second inauguration https://www.whitehousehistory.org/reagans-second-inauguration

 

[true believer]

It's not common and always seems to be weather related e.g. Ronald Reagan second inauguration https://www.whitehousehistory.org/reagans-second-inauguration

well reagan was already brain dead . so he didn't fear tiny crowds , "so tiny ,you've never seen tiny before"

 

[Ozhammer]

We’re gonna have to start renaming you Trigger TB and by that, I don’t mean the bloke with the broom.

 

[Hello Sailor]

I dont understand the unwarranted scepticism of covid vaccination and the science behind it.

If you run a business, you make projections based on existing sample data. [Epidemiologists similarly make projections based on sample data]. You dont argue with the accountant about the maths behind his forecasts and reject them if you dont like them even when they are correct. If you do, say goodbye to your business.

If you go to a doctor with a broken leg or for a skin cancer check, you normally accept their diagnosis and treatment options. Feel free to get a second opinion, but normal people dont question and reject the physics behind an X ray or MRI machine. Ditto how the the active chemical compounds that had been tested in the labs during development, or how and dosages in their prescriptions had been arrived at in clinical tests. Normal people dont tell the surgeon that their procedures are wrong. Normal people accept the doctor's recommendation and he will usually inform you of any risks and alternatives anyway.

We accept science without question in our day to day life when using GPS, computers, following weather forecasts, using refined petroleum, turning on a TV/tap/light switch, putting fertilizer in the garden, flying in an aeroplane etc, but the tin hat people dont ask or argue over their intricacies or object to them for some bizarre ideological 'reason' [sic].

They reserve their 'informed' critiques for a narrow selection of technologies and science that they dont understand. It just makes them look stupid. Its not their fault, its just that their education has some gaps or have been misinformed at some earlier point. eg Creationists reject evolution because they were taught when they were little that some mythical being created the universe and everything within it. This conflicts with the rational alternative scientific explanation, and rather than questioning their first explanation for life on earth, they attack evolution to try and resolve that conflict.

I know that there are many fields in which my knowledge is limited or non existent. [Art and rugby league, for example] and while I may have an superficial opinion on them I wouldn't dream of arguing the pros and cons with an expert because I know I will most likely be wrong and look like an idiot.

 

[Spacks]

I dont understand the unwarranted scepticism of covid vaccination and the science behind it.

If you run a business, you make projections based on existing sample data. [Epidemiologists similarly make projections based on sample data]. You dont argue with the accountant about the maths behind his forecasts and reject them if you dont like them even when they are correct. If you do, say goodbye to your business.

If you go to a doctor with a broken leg or for a skin cancer check, you normally accept their diagnosis and treatment options. Feel free to get a second opinion, but normal people dont question and reject the physics behind an X ray or MRI machine. Ditto how the the active chemical compounds that had been tested in the labs during development, or how and dosages in their prescriptions had been arrived at in clinical tests. Normal people dont tell the surgeon that their procedures are wrong. Normal people accept the doctor's recommendation and he will usually inform you of any risks and alternatives anyway.

We accept science without question in our day to day life when using GPS, computers, following weather forecasts, using refined petroleum, turning on a TV/tap/light switch, putting fertilizer in the garden, flying in an aeroplane etc, but the tin hat people dont ask or argue over their intricacies or object to them for some bizarre ideological 'reason' [sic].

They reserve their 'informed' critiques for a narrow selection of technologies and science that they dont understand. It just makes them look stupid. Its not their fault, its just that their education has some gaps or have been misinformed at some earlier point. eg Creationists reject evolution because they were taught when they were little that some mythical being created the universe and everything within it. This conflicts with the rational alternative scientific explanation, and rather than questioning their first explanation for life on earth, they attack evolution to try and resolve that conflict.

I know that there are many fields in which my knowledge is limited or non existent. [Art and rugby league, for example] and while I may have an superficial opinion on them I wouldn't dream of arguing the pros and cons with an expert because I know I will most likely be wrong and look like an idiot.

Marinermick didn't dazzle anyone with his immense vaccine knowledge though lol

 

[marinermick]

Marinermick didn't dazzle anyone with his immense vaccine knowledge though lol

But your arguments, links and cut and pastes help support the use of vaccines so that should help.

You’re also the one to originally make claims and start this debate so the onus of proof is for you to provide the evidence to support whatever cluttered argument you were making.

I never claimed to be the bastion of knowledge in vaccines. I work in immunology so I am confident my knowledge is more than your year ten science.

Who I work with is a vast number of scientists, immunologists and medical professionals who have dedicated their life studies to betterment of people’s health. They are the people with the knowledge and expertise in this matter and they all say that the Covid vaccines are both efficacious and relatively safe for a treatment; and that the benefits of these vaccines far far outweigh the very small risks of vaccine delivery.

Spacks, what have you done in this field and what is your expertise to be so adamant about your stance? Very little, if not none, I suspect, because you couldn’t even tell the relevance of the vaccine’s half life, and it’s dosing regime, to the long term safety profile of the vaccine.

 

[true believer]

We’re gonna have to start renaming you Trigger TB and by that, I don’t mean the bloke with the broom.

double standard 101 .

 

[Ironbark]

I dont understand the unwarranted scepticism of covid vaccination and the science behind it.

If you run a business, you make projections based on existing sample data. [Epidemiologists similarly make projections based on sample data]. You dont argue with the accountant about the maths behind his forecasts and reject them if you dont like them even when they are correct. If you do, say goodbye to your business.

If you go to a doctor with a broken leg or for a skin cancer check, you normally accept their diagnosis and treatment options. Feel free to get a second opinion, but normal people dont question and reject the physics behind an X ray or MRI machine. Ditto how the the active chemical compounds that had been tested in the labs during development, or how and dosages in their prescriptions had been arrived at in clinical tests. Normal people dont tell the surgeon that their procedures are wrong. Normal people accept the doctor's recommendation and he will usually inform you of any risks and alternatives anyway.

We accept science without question in our day to day life when using GPS, computers, following weather forecasts, using refined petroleum, turning on a TV/tap/light switch, putting fertilizer in the garden, flying in an aeroplane etc, but the tin hat people dont ask or argue over their intricacies or object to them for some bizarre ideological 'reason' [sic].

They reserve their 'informed' critiques for a narrow selection of technologies and science that they dont understand. It just makes them look stupid. Its not their fault, its just that their education has some gaps or have been misinformed at some earlier point. eg Creationists reject evolution because they were taught when they were little that some mythical being created the universe and everything within it. This conflicts with the rational alternative scientific explanation, and rather than questioning their first explanation for life on earth, they attack evolution to try and resolve that conflict.

I know that there are many fields in which my knowledge is limited or non existent. [Art and rugby league, for example] and while I may have an superficial opinion on them I wouldn't dream of arguing the pros and cons with an expert because I know I will most likely be wrong and look like an idiot.

This.

 

[Ozhammer]

I dont understand the unwarranted scepticism of covid vaccination and the science behind it.

If you run a business, you make projections based on existing sample data. [Epidemiologists similarly make projections based on sample data]. You dont argue with the accountant about the maths behind his forecasts and reject them if you dont like them even when they are correct. If you do, say goodbye to your business.

If you go to a doctor with a broken leg or for a skin cancer check, you normally accept their diagnosis and treatment options. Feel free to get a second opinion, but normal people dont question and reject the physics behind an X ray or MRI machine. Ditto how the the active chemical compounds that had been tested in the labs during development, or how and dosages in their prescriptions had been arrived at in clinical tests. Normal people dont tell the surgeon that their procedures are wrong. Normal people accept the doctor's recommendation and he will usually inform you of any risks and alternatives anyway.

We accept science without question in our day to day life when using GPS, computers, following weather forecasts, using refined petroleum, turning on a TV/tap/light switch, putting fertilizer in the garden, flying in an aeroplane etc, but the tin hat people dont ask or argue over their intricacies or object to them for some bizarre ideological 'reason' [sic].

They reserve their 'informed' critiques for a narrow selection of technologies and science that they dont understand. It just makes them look stupid. Its not their fault, its just that their education has some gaps or have been misinformed at some earlier point. eg Creationists reject evolution because they were taught when they were little that some mythical being created the universe and everything within it. This conflicts with the rational alternative scientific explanation, and rather than questioning their first explanation for life on earth, they attack evolution to try and resolve that conflict.

I know that there are many fields in which my knowledge is limited or non existent. [Art and rugby league, for example] and while I may have an superficial opinion on them I wouldn't dream of arguing the pros and cons with an expert because I know I will most likely be wrong and look like an idiot.

Well for starters let’s just look at the decision to use a novel technology delivery method and then cut the testing time down to a tenth of that for a conventional vaccine, then add on top that it uses gene expression to generate a response, with strong evidence of systemic distribution not localised, something that previous trials of the technology had clearly shown.

For all of those reasons and more, it should have been required to meet a higher standard of testing and scrutiny if anything but you know.

Had they elected to used an attenuated live virus and then apply the safest demonstrable delivery adjuvant, then maybe an argument could be made for circumventing the normal testing protocols but no one seemed to even consider that approach (well apart from those crazy Chinese and dangerous Russians).

Then they unblinded the RCT (as limited as that was in any event) after just three months and vaccinated most of the unvaccinated volunteers anyway.

Notwithstanding the above, no-one should have been forced to take something so potentially risky and it should always have been left to everyone as an individual to make the choice they felt most comfortable with.

 

[true believer]

Well for starters let’s just look at the decision to use a novel technology delivery method and then cut the testing time down to a tenth of that for a conventional vaccine, then add on top that it uses gene expression to generate a response, with strong evidence of systemic distribution not localised, something that previous trials of the technology had clearly shown.

For all of those reasons and more, it should have been required to meet a higher standard of testing and scrutiny if anything but you know.

Had they elected to used an attenuated live virus and then apply the safest demonstrable delivery adjuvant, then maybe an argument could be made for circumventing the normal testing protocols but no one seemed to even consider that approach (well apart from those crazy Chinese and dangerous Russians).

Then they unblinded the RCT (as limited as that was in any event) after just three months and vaccinated most of the unvaccinated volunteers anyway.

Notwithstanding the above, no-one should have been forced to take something so potentially risky and it should always have been left to everyone as an individual to make the choice they felt most comfortable with.

source ? project veritas ? saint petersburg ?

seems the first two i got were astra zenca antibody type. till the karens started shrilling 6 people out of 7million had died , maybe .
the russian antivirus was tech stolen from the pommies .
seems like brexit the story changes everyday .

 

[Ozhammer]

AZ was adeno vector technology and had its own set of different problems, which is why it was ultimately withdrawn.

If you bother to look into it, you will find that serious adverse reactions rate was significantly higher than 6 per million.

You can take that how you want and come back with your snippy responses as per normal but the truth is already coming out and when all the data is available we will all be able to see it for what it is.

I would be very happy to be proven 100% wrong, however, personal experience tells me that (sadly) a lot of harms have been done and it is the poor victims that have/will continue to pay the price.

 

[Big Al]

AZ was adeno vector technology and had its own set of different problems, which is why it was ultimately withdrawn.

If you bother to look into it, you will find that serious adverse reactions rate was significantly higher than 6 per million.

You can take that how you want and come back with your snippy responses as per normal but the truth is already coming out and when all the data is available we will all be able to see it for what it is.

I would be very happy to be proven 100% wrong, however, personal experience tells me that (sadly) a lot of harms have been done and it is the poor victims that have/will continue to pay the price.

I think a lot of the numbers are a bit off as well because it was so new and getting to see a GP was near impossible and when patients expressed concern or feeling like long COVID it was ignored because GPs didn’t know what to do or say and just told people to deal with it.