Medical trials
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462
Medical trials
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462
Seriously, NQ, you're so highly strung.
And if you do want to win "hearts and minds" and educate us poor saps who fall for all this mainstream nonsense then you could try actually debating the points, backing up your thoughts with data and evidence. Simply ranting, calling everyone who doesn't see things your way thick, calling them naughty words and questioning their character isn't making anyone taking you seriously.
Sponsors and Collaborators
AstraZeneca
Iqvia Pty Ltd
Für eure Sicherheit
Here the liar pretends there haven't been endless pages of debate in the past, backwards, forwards, round and around. Thousands of words. All still here on this site. Now the liar wonders why people can't be reasonable and jump on his roundabout for another playground session where he "argues" every point by copy/ paste. Issues that can't be argued are ignored. Issues that are addressed are repeated a week later as if they have never been discussed. And issues that have not yet materialised are mocked, until they materialise and are subsequently ignored. An almost unwavering pattern of behaviour. Even when the liar is himself ignored, he is still compelled to copy/ paste his reams of propaganda and mainstream approved "news". The goal is never to debate but to deny, distract, dissuade and deter. The "humour" the liar employs is not intended to lift spirits, it's to submerge all challenges to the mainstream narrative in mockery of subjects he himself has no understanding of. Oh, and did you know, the liar is a Christian?
It's not important here on GW with 12 people casually observing. But it's handy to be able to spot these tactics in the wider media. There's no difference. You can see the exact tactics in play on the BBC or in the legacy press. You are not supposed to look backwards and trace forwards. You are not supposed to compare the statements of the past with those of the present and notice the glaring inconsistencies and lies. You are certainly not supposed to refer to history and examine the repeating patterns. You are always supposed to be in the present moment, reacting to what is being pushed on you now and with no reference to what has been pushed in the past.
You were told the vaccine would liberate you. The egregious abuses were all necessary until the vaccine came long to make you free (as if you weren't free to begin with). Well let's wait and see what the new excuses are to be, shall we? And then let's ignore this period and focus solely on what comes next. Vaccine shortage is it? Most unfortunate. Strange how billions of tests can be manufactured to keep that case count rolling, but the same miracle isn't possible with the vaccine. That may even be the case. Which misses a thousand points that needed to be examined in as much detail long before it was concluded a vaccine was even required. Issues that were carefully bypassed. Issues that, had they been of use to the profiteers, would have been agonised over in a thousand press articles. Issues such as - whatever happened to the human immune system in 2020 and what made it suddenly re-appear so the vaccine could even work? Odd, boring stuff like that. Not worth mentioning really. That's not what passes as debate these days.
Just the ever rolling propaganda wagon and the one fact you can absolutely rely on. A few will profit, the rest will pay. And that's the debate the liars will avoid at all costs, while they post up their deep analysis of Donald Trump's hair and the Royal's latest theatrics. And once you are "allowed" to have a degree of normality back in your life the liars will say, see! With the whole nature of government and the governed having been flipped before all our eyes the liars will tell you nothing has changed. They may even turn on their political journeymen and "demand" new journeymen be found so we can have "real change".
And you'll know they are Christians by their love.
Für eure Sicherheit
Quick bed-tuck for the lie big-pharma is giving away its experimental vaccines at cost.
https://s21.q4cdn.com/317678438/file...2021-03-11.pdf
Great news for people like Vallance.
Für eure Sicherheit
See, right off the bat you assume bad faith. I asked you previously to give an example of my lying - noting that this implies a deliberate attempt to deceive. You have been unable to.
I do wonder how you manage to hold the ideas in your head simultaneously that most people are decent and that so many people are liars, have bad intent or poor character. And as much as you seem to be my Frank Grimes, it's not just me you have an issue with. Calling people liars or attacking their character is your go to move in debates.
Nice straw man, but when did I pretend that? What have past pages of debate have to do with the current issues at hand?pretends there haven't been endless pages of debate in the past
You said the test don't work. You said the WHO admitted as much...after which it took me one minute to find a video on their website which said that the PCR tests are the most accurate ones. You had no response.
You have failed to explain why, if the tests don't work, they correlate with hospitalisations which correlates with deaths.
You have stated a very low CFR for Covid without providing any evidence for that. You claim the tests don't work, so the number of cases is unknown, and that the death rate is unknown because those figures are inflated. So how are you calculating a CFR? You're dividing one number you don't know by another number you don't know. You have not only failed to provide any evidence of the CFR you have claimed, you have made other claims which mean the CFR cannot be known. Then you get all cross when I point out your logical inconsistencies as if it's somehow my fault you keep contradicting yourself.
I argue points by providing evidence and citing data. Is that cheating? How else does one debate?wonders why people can't be reasonable and jump on his roundabout for another playground session where he "argues" every point by copy/ paste
You previously said you base opinions on data. As you should. I have no ability to collect my own data on Covid and nor do you. You seem to think that me looking at sources and basing my opinion on them means I'm just parroting other people's views, while you looking at different sources and basing your opinion on them means you are some kind of independent thinker. Just because you're parroting different people, doesn't mean you're not a parrot.
If you think the data I'm citing is wrong then fine, that's the basis for a conversation. Where's your evidence that it's wrong and what data are you looking at which is leading you to a different conclusion.
Example?Issues that can't be argued are ignored. Issues that are addressed are repeated a week later as if they have never been discussed.
And you're on shaky ground there given that you ignore everything I post like some stroppy teenager who "isn't talking to me".
Oh yes? What's your example of that? I mocked the thing about the army. That demonstrably hasn't materialised. Just to remind you, you said:And issues that have not yet materialised are mocked, until they materialise and are subsequently ignored
Well...that didn't happen, did it? Obviously none of us know the future but the way you strut around here acting like you know better than us "low information" saps (another phrase you are parroting, by the way) makes it worth picking you up when your foresight proved less than 20:20. If only to try and trigger a bit of introspection from you. You may wish to consider why you got that wrong.this is to get us used to the presence of military forces on our streets. If they just need the bodies, why can't the troops be out in civvies? And why are they offering tests to people who haven't asked for them? I guess they need that "case" counter to keep on going up? General curfews are not far away now, that's what the pub turnout is all about - which is why it makes no sense at all in terms of health. Curfews will require checkpoints.
Actually, it is. I state my position, I provide evidence for it and I ask questions.The goal is never to debate
I ask you to provide evidence for your positions. I ask you to show what evidence you have that the data I'm basing mine on is wrong.
Your failure to do so is telling.
Well that's a whole lot of word salad .The "humour" the liar employs is not intended to lift spirits, it's to submerge all challenges to the mainstream narrative in mockery of subjects he himself has no understanding of.
Humour is intended to amuse. It's another facet of your paranoia (again, not in a fun way, in a "you might want to see someone about that, dude" way) that you infer some malicious or nefarious intent when none exists.
What is the relevance of this?Oh, and did you know, the liar is a Christian?
But yes, that's why I'm turning the other cheek rather than being abusive and maligning your character as you do me
I've done a bit of ribbing about the army thing, but I'm sure you're thick skinned enough to take that.
Big ole irony klaxon with that one. I have pointed out some of your many inconsistencies.You are not supposed to compare the statements of the past with those of the present and notice the glaring inconsistencies and lies.
Agreed. You can keep pretending there isn't a situation going on in the world right now which demands a response, but the data shows that there is. Again, you are free to provide a source to the data you're looking at if you think the stuff I've posted is wrong. I think the government have got a lot of things wrong but I don't believe this is a one way march towards an authoritarian regime. The restrictions have varied as the data has. I went on holiday last September and things were pretty much normal, then more restrictions were imposed over the next few months as the data changed. If the vaccine is all it's cracked up to be it should be part of getting us back to normality but it's worth noting that the Spanish Flu had 4 waves over 2 years, so it wouldn't be unprecedented if this lasts longer.You were told the vaccine would liberate you. The egregious abuses were all necessary until the vaccine came long to make you free (as if you weren't free to begin with). Well let's wait and see what the new excuses are to be, shall we? And then let's ignore this period and focus solely on what comes next.
This is a silly sentence. Vaccines work by stimulating the immune system.Issues such as - whatever happened to the human immune system in 2020 and what made it suddenly re-appear so the vaccine could even work? Odd, boring stuff like that. Not worth mentioning really. That's not what passes as debate these days.
Well, yeah. Because people like you have been saying that these restrictions are part of a march into a dystopian future of control. I don't agree. They're a response to a situation. In many cases I think it's been the wrong response, but it's a response none the less. "They" are not interested in whether we see our friends or go to weddings or get our hair done. None of those restrictions make sense except in the context of a pandemic. As the data around that has changed so the restrictions have. Hopefully the vaccine will be part of what gets us back to normality, We're certainly not going to have the army keeping us in our houses. You know this of course because you have observed people going about their day to day business. I don't know how you manage to reconcile that with the thought that they're locking everyone in their houses.And once you are "allowed" to have a degree of normality back in your life the liars will say, see!
AstraZeneca is not giving away the vaccine. We paid for all the R&D, material, manufacturing and distribution plus staffing and the company forgoes a margin on top of all those handouts FOR THE FIRST DOSE. As if having all the front end costs paid by the taxpayer is not profit enough.
Tell you what - you build me a new factory, buy all the stock and pay my staff and I'll give you a product for "free", deal?
Not to mention the all important earnings per share and how future, captive markets are set to drive an unheard of profits bonanza.
I wonder what Whitty and Vallance will do after leaving "public service"?
Für eure Sicherheit
The liar initially opened with the assertion no debate had been had and was indeed being avoided, no evidence, data, facts presented. He cynically reinforced his duplicity using mock speculation, that perhaps if debate was engaged in and data and supporting information presented, "hearts and minds" could be won. I won't even bother with that last bit. All the liar wants, you see, is a genuine, honest debate but nobody will oblige because they have no evidence, data, facts to support their argument like the liar himself has on tap provided by the mainstream media.
That's the liar's framing, IN ADVANCE. And then he laments behaviour that occurs "off the bat".
When picked up on the lie he claims the easily verifiable evidence of the posts here on his own forum that refute his lies is a "straw man" argument. Or the "wrong" answer to his framed assertion, I guess. Literally, in no instance whatsoever is the liar prepared to accept the exposure of his lie. Now, if I were to accept the lie you would quickly see him become ever so reasonable and even conciliatory, provided the basis of his lie held true and wasn't challenged again. He's a reasonable guy, you know?
He can't even present whole sentences and has to break them up so context can be shifted and distorted.
He then doubles down with an even more blatant lie claiming I have never explained why the tests do not work, even though the liar himself engaged in the discussions where I did just that. The lair knows this, but would prefer to pretend it is not the case in the expectation that nobody on a small site like this will have the inclination to check back. Instead, because he's a Christian and has perfected the role of generally good egg and has a laugh and a joke with the boys and is oh so reasonable in his approach, he's banking on the same effect that allows the mainstream media to push so many lies, the fake persona and the false veneer of authority and decency. It's a bit like abhorring violence while cheering for war. He's THAT sort of decent.
Those few opening lies are more than enough to demonstrate what sort of an individual hides behind the thoroughly unconvincing mask.
Für eure Sicherheit
Everyone else is obliging. You're the problem child here, everyone else is talking and debating perfectly cordially.
I didn't say you had no evidence, data or facts. I simply asked to see them.because they have no evidence, data, facts to support their argument like the liar himself has on tap provided by the mainstream media.
Your continued failure to present the data which backs up your views is telling
I did not say that. I said IF your claim about the tests not working is correct THEN why would the result correlate with hospitalisations and deaths?He then doubles down with an even more blatant lie claiming I have never explained why the tests do not work
You have repeatedly ignored this question.
You provided a video of Kary Mullis talking about the way the technique he invented can be misused.
You claimed the WHO admitted the tests don't work, the video on their website says the exact opposite.
All that's been said by the WHO is RTFM - if you do too many cycles then it will lead to false positives
Your entire post demonstrates your paranoia. It's sad you see ulterior motive and malicious intent everywhere you look where generally none exists.Those few opening lies are more than enough to demonstrate what sort of an individual hides behind the thoroughly unconvincing mask.
I am not the only person on this site who has expressed concern for you about that.