Son, I also looked into that, and what you are pointing out is a Chines study that some Brazilian medical scientists are pointing to as an excuse (a lot of people died because of it) for why they got the dosage so wrong. A study that is being promoted by the Chines Government, who are also promoting the idea they have it under control with only 50,0000 deaths. A study that was written early on in the pandemic before they realized that most people were asymptomatic to it, and already had high immunity to it. That the study is more likely flawed, or part of a Chines propaganda. But, if you want to trust the Chines government, and the medical scientist who killed a lot of people with it out of political kowtowing.....

And here you are gloating over the comments by some Brazilian medical scientist in June of 2020 who was doing it for political kowtowing, who is giving an excuse about why he gave out high doses that did a lot of damage to people's health there by pointing to a Chines government study in march of 2020 on why he got it so wrong..... And it's been months since then, and you would think we would have heard about some measure of success if they got the dosage right there. Nope. But here is a recent study that should be a nail in the coffin for your claim, not that it will end your conspiracy since it's not what you want to believe.

Son, I also looked into that, and what you are pointing out is a Chines study that some Brazilian medical scientists are pointing to as an excuse (a lot of people died because of it) for why they got the dosage so wrong. A study that is being promoted by the Chines Government, who are also promoting the idea they have it under control with only 50,0000 deaths. A study that was written early on in the pandemic before they realized that most people were asymptomatic to it, and already had high immunity to it. That the study is more likely flawed, or part of a Chines propaganda. But, if you want to trust the Chines government, and the medical scientist who killed a lot of people with it out of political kowtowing.....

And here you are gloating over the comments by some Brazilian medical scientist in June of 2020 who was doing it for political kowtowing, who is giving an excuse about why he gave out high doses that did a lot of damage to people's health there by pointing to a Chines government study in march of 2020 on why he got it so wrong..... And it's been months since then, and you would think we would have heard about some measure of success if they got the dosage right there. Nope. But here is a recent study that should be a nail in the coffin for your claim, not that it will end your conspiracy since it's not what you want to believe.

Three mistakes on your end - one, I didn't gloat. That's what you're doing right now, talking like you know it all. Second, you assume I would just trust the CCP just because someone made a mistake - that's a slippery slope right there. Clearly, the problems in the Brazillian study were caused by overdosing on something which was completely different from hydroxychloroquine (their words, not mine), and which doesn't have (in the same article) substantial evidence to prove that an overdose is "needed". Three, you people will never be satisfied unless a study follows the Party Line. Why does something that aligns with your opinion considered an 'unshakeable truth' while a study that does not is considered 'fake'?

3) Hydroxychloroquine is not a 'miracle cure' - only a supplement that should not be overdosed whatsoever, and not used as a primary prophylactic (which the studies I've pointed out takes notes - yours doesn't. It would help if you read the whole thing, and not just the abstracts).

The Predict program involved having observers from the US stationed in certain "hotspots" around the world, mainly China and parts of Africa where novel diseases could start.

It was canned late last year, and the rest is history.

Explains it far more comprehensively than I can.

At 12/10/20 10:08 AM, CitizenGoose wrote: Im referring to the Pfizer one, but you could decide to choose one from another company.

I personally would choose getting the coronavirus than this vaccine. Do you know how long they have to be testing this stuff to confirm it works right? And if it doesnt work right, the side effects are dangerous.

In latin america, one of these big companies(i think it was pfizer) was testing out a vaccine with volunteers. The volunteers would sign that they wouldnt have children for the following 2 years. That does not sound good.

And Covid is weird AF. It mutates a ton. If we dont have a vaccine for stuff that is less weird, that we understand better, and that has been under observation for way way longer... how can we be sure they got it under control?

Ive seen articles about old people taking them and everybody going like "yeah if they do it we can too!"... well, first, how do you know they took it, and second, they already lived their fricking life, young people are yet to have kids and develop.

So idk thats my argument.

At 12/16/20 03:46 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 12:59 PM, EdyKel wrote: Never said I trust them, just mocking you for your about face in trusting their study over Hydroxychloroquine while you rip the WHO for what you think is kowtowing to them.

You really are clutching at straws right now, aren't you. Ignoring entire sections on safe use and just going for an unmarked claim that it needs higher dosages to work and taking that as an absolute truth while several other studies break that claim, then trying to conflate reasonable skepticism with 'BLINDLY TRUSTING CHINA'.

Mocking, huh. I expected better of you. Too bad that 'nail in the coffin' was a coilgun round that's cutting through your arguments instead.

It's an interesting study, to be sure. But did you take a close look at how it was done? If you only read the editorial and the headline, it might have slipped right by you.

So, just in case, I'll read it out to you; Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020. "This study, from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network, focused on hospitalized patients with moderate to severe disease." 

See where the problem comes up?

It contradicts the standard usage of hydroxychloroquine-zinc as a supplement to help the body's immune system fight the infection in question early on.

I'll keep going in case you don't believe it.

With antiviral therapies, early treatment is important. The best known example of this is the over-the-counter drug Abreva. Cold sore sufferers are instructed to apply Abreva as soon as they sense a tingling, before a cold sore actually appears. A further reason for early treatment in COVID-19 is to win the race against the cytokine storm that emerges in response to the virus, when the immune system actually attacks the patient’s own cells. This is why proponents of hydroxychloroquine-zinc universally recommended its use early, before hospitalization, rather than late when the body's immune system is effectively overloaded.

See why hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in this study? Because the volunteers were all already hospitalized with an immune system that had been overrun by the viral infection to the point a few of the test participants actually needed to be put on ventilators.

By analogy, to study the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by assessing patients treated so late would be like testing the effectiveness of parachutes by looking at cases where the parachutes had only been deployed after the volunteer had passed the safe threshold for landing. What you're essentially doing is taking such a study and saying "Parachutes aren't safe! This is a nail in the coffin for anyone who argues that airplanes should have parachutes!"

Now that's pathetic.

Now have some actual studies done with patients in the correct treatment window, where the supplements were administered in safe and measured doses while you sit there and consider the fraility of your so-called fact checkers who have been lying to you this whole time. Oh, and these studies disprove the claim that a 'higher dose' is needed.

I'm not moving any goalposts - you were the one who claimed it was a 'dangerous, unproven' drug. And I know exactly where you got that talking point from. Unfortunately, the claim that “We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.” has been retracted, citing that the data used in the core study was unverifiable.

At 12/16/20 04:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/16/20 03:46 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 12:59 PM, EdyKel wrote: Never said I trust them, just mocking you for your about face in trusting their study over Hydroxychloroquine while you rip the WHO for what you think is kowtowing to them.

You really are clutching at straws right now, aren't you. Ignoring entire sections on safe use and just going for an unmarked claim that it needs higher dosages to work and taking that as an absolute truth while several other studies break that claim, then trying to conflate reasonable skepticism with 'BLINDLY TRUSTING CHINA'.

Mocking, huh. I expected better of you. Too bad that 'nail in the coffin' was a coilgun round that's cutting through your arguments instead.

It's an interesting study, to be sure. But did you take a close look at how it was done? If you only read the editorial and the headline, it might have slipped right by you.

So, just in case, I'll read it out to you; Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020. "This study, from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network, focused on hospitalized patients with moderate to severe disease." 

See where the problem comes up?

It contradicts the standard usage of hydroxychloroquine-zinc as a supplement to help the body's immune system fight the infection in question early on.

I'll keep going in case you don't believe it.

With antiviral therapies, early treatment is important. The best known example of this is the over-the-counter drug Abreva. Cold sore sufferers are instructed to apply Abreva as soon as they sense a tingling, before a cold sore actually appears. A further reason for early treatment in COVID-19 is to win the race against the cytokine storm that emerges in response to the virus, when the immune system actually attacks the patient’s own cells. This is why proponents of hydroxychloroquine-zinc universally recommended its use early, before hospitalization, rather than late when the body's immune system is effectively overloaded.

See why hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in this study? Because the volunteers were all already hospitalized with an immune system that had been overrun by the viral infection to the point a few of the test participants actually needed to be put on ventilators.

By analogy, to study the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by assessing patients treated so late would be like testing the effectiveness of parachutes by looking at cases where the parachutes had only been deployed after the volunteer had passed the safe threshold for landing. What you're essentially doing is taking such a study and saying "Parachutes aren't safe! This is a nail in the coffin for anyone who argues that airplanes should have parachutes!"

Now that's pathetic.

Now have some actual studies done with patients in the correct treatment window, where the supplements were administered in safe and measured doses while you sit there and consider the fraility of your so-called fact checkers who have been lying to you this whole time. Oh, and these studies disprove the claim that a 'higher dose' is needed.

I'm not moving any goalposts - you were the one who claimed it was a 'dangerous, unproven' drug. And I know exactly where you got that talking point from. Unfortunately, the claim that “We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.” has been retracted, citing that the data used in the core study was unverifiable.

Son, take a multi-vitamin, it might help boost your immune system, whether it helps with covid or not, and it's a lot less costly, political, and hypocritical.

At 12/16/20 04:23 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 04:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/16/20 03:46 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 12:59 PM, EdyKel wrote: Never said I trust them, just mocking you for your about face in trusting their study over Hydroxychloroquine while you rip the WHO for what you think is kowtowing to them.

You really are clutching at straws right now, aren't you. Ignoring entire sections on safe use and just going for an unmarked claim that it needs higher dosages to work and taking that as an absolute truth while several other studies break that claim, then trying to conflate reasonable skepticism with 'BLINDLY TRUSTING CHINA'.

Mocking, huh. I expected better of you. Too bad that 'nail in the coffin' was a coilgun round that's cutting through your arguments instead.

It's an interesting study, to be sure. But did you take a close look at how it was done? If you only read the editorial and the headline, it might have slipped right by you.

So, just in case, I'll read it out to you; Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020. "This study, from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network, focused on hospitalized patients with moderate to severe disease." 

See where the problem comes up?

It contradicts the standard usage of hydroxychloroquine-zinc as a supplement to help the body's immune system fight the infection in question early on.

I'll keep going in case you don't believe it.

With antiviral therapies, early treatment is important. The best known example of this is the over-the-counter drug Abreva. Cold sore sufferers are instructed to apply Abreva as soon as they sense a tingling, before a cold sore actually appears. A further reason for early treatment in COVID-19 is to win the race against the cytokine storm that emerges in response to the virus, when the immune system actually attacks the patient’s own cells. This is why proponents of hydroxychloroquine-zinc universally recommended its use early, before hospitalization, rather than late when the body's immune system is effectively overloaded.

See why hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in this study? Because the volunteers were all already hospitalized with an immune system that had been overrun by the viral infection to the point a few of the test participants actually needed to be put on ventilators.

By analogy, to study the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by assessing patients treated so late would be like testing the effectiveness of parachutes by looking at cases where the parachutes had only been deployed after the volunteer had passed the safe threshold for landing. What you're essentially doing is taking such a study and saying "Parachutes aren't safe! This is a nail in the coffin for anyone who argues that airplanes should have parachutes!"

Now that's pathetic.

Now have some actual studies done with patients in the correct treatment window, where the supplements were administered in safe and measured doses while you sit there and consider the fraility of your so-called fact checkers who have been lying to you this whole time. Oh, and these studies disprove the claim that a 'higher dose' is needed.

I'm not moving any goalposts - you were the one who claimed it was a 'dangerous, unproven' drug. And I know exactly where you got that talking point from. Unfortunately, the claim that “We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.” has been retracted, citing that the data used in the core study was unverifiable.

Son, take a multi-vitamin, it might help boost your immune system, whether it helps with covid or not, and it's a lot less costly, political, and hypocritical.

There there. Don't take this too hard. This is the real world, you know - not one that's defined by fact checkers owned by corporate interests and celebrities suffering from outrage addiction, but by independently verifiable data. And when you use falsified data to prop up a claim, it's only natural that it gets disproved by various independent observers with cited sources no matter how hard you throw buzzwords.

At 12/16/20 04:26 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/16/20 04:23 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 04:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/16/20 03:46 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 12:59 PM, EdyKel wrote: Never said I trust them, just mocking you for your about face in trusting their study over Hydroxychloroquine while you rip the WHO for what you think is kowtowing to them.

You really are clutching at straws right now, aren't you. Ignoring entire sections on safe use and just going for an unmarked claim that it needs higher dosages to work and taking that as an absolute truth while several other studies break that claim, then trying to conflate reasonable skepticism with 'BLINDLY TRUSTING CHINA'.

Mocking, huh. I expected better of you. Too bad that 'nail in the coffin' was a coilgun round that's cutting through your arguments instead.

It's an interesting study, to be sure. But did you take a close look at how it was done? If you only read the editorial and the headline, it might have slipped right by you.

So, just in case, I'll read it out to you; Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020. "This study, from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network, focused on hospitalized patients with moderate to severe disease." 

See where the problem comes up?

It contradicts the standard usage of hydroxychloroquine-zinc as a supplement to help the body's immune system fight the infection in question early on.

I'll keep going in case you don't believe it.

With antiviral therapies, early treatment is important. The best known example of this is the over-the-counter drug Abreva. Cold sore sufferers are instructed to apply Abreva as soon as they sense a tingling, before a cold sore actually appears. A further reason for early treatment in COVID-19 is to win the race against the cytokine storm that emerges in response to the virus, when the immune system actually attacks the patient’s own cells. This is why proponents of hydroxychloroquine-zinc universally recommended its use early, before hospitalization, rather than late when the body's immune system is effectively overloaded.

See why hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in this study? Because the volunteers were all already hospitalized with an immune system that had been overrun by the viral infection to the point a few of the test participants actually needed to be put on ventilators.

By analogy, to study the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by assessing patients treated so late would be like testing the effectiveness of parachutes by looking at cases where the parachutes had only been deployed after the volunteer had passed the safe threshold for landing. What you're essentially doing is taking such a study and saying "Parachutes aren't safe! This is a nail in the coffin for anyone who argues that airplanes should have parachutes!"

Now that's pathetic.

Now have some actual studies done with patients in the correct treatment window, where the supplements were administered in safe and measured doses while you sit there and consider the fraility of your so-called fact checkers who have been lying to you this whole time. Oh, and these studies disprove the claim that a 'higher dose' is needed.

I'm not moving any goalposts - you were the one who claimed it was a 'dangerous, unproven' drug. And I know exactly where you got that talking point from. Unfortunately, the claim that “We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.” has been retracted, citing that the data used in the core study was unverifiable.

Son, take a multi-vitamin, it might help boost your immune system, whether it helps with covid or not, and it's a lot less costly, political, and hypocritical.

There there. Don't take this too hard. This is the real world, you know - not one that's defined by fact checkers owned by corporate interests and celebrities suffering from outrage addiction, but by independently verifiable data. And when you use falsified data to prop up a claim, it's only natural that it gets disproved by various independent observers with cited sources no matter how hard you throw buzzwords.

Not going to bite your troll shit, son.

At 12/16/20 08:41 PM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/16/20 01:54 PM, Yomuchan wrote: attempts at initial safety precautions were mocked, and the list goes on.
Maybe Trump was rattled by this case?

I've had enough of this bad faith arguing. You're twisting everything to suit your narrative even if it means grasping at straws. Kindly fuck off.

At 12/17/20 02:09 AM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 08:41 PM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/16/20 01:54 PM, Yomuchan wrote: attempts at initial safety precautions were mocked, and the list goes on.
Maybe Trump was rattled by this case?

I've had enough of this bad faith arguing. You're twisting everything to suit your narrative even if it means grasping at straws. Kindly fuck off.

Why do you automatically assume that I'm arguing in bad faith? Because your sources don't hold up? Because ypur petty arguments have run dry?

At 12/17/20 04:39 AM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/17/20 02:09 AM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 08:41 PM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/16/20 01:54 PM, Yomuchan wrote: attempts at initial safety precautions were mocked, and the list goes on.
Maybe Trump was rattled by this case?

I've had enough of this bad faith arguing. You're twisting everything to suit your narrative even if it means grasping at straws. Kindly fuck off.

Why do you automatically assume that I'm arguing in bad faith? Because your sources don't hold up? Because ypur petty arguments have run dry?

Because any reasonable person knows it when they see it. I can accept your premises based on scientific evidence, even if they by and large conflict; that's fine. However, what I take huge issue with is reaching for straws over the other parts, which bring the rest of your arguments into serious question.

Even the rest of your reply is bare nonsense: it is easier for you to accept the existence of a grand conspiracy than the actions of an incompetent government.

It takes two to tango, and I'm done.

At 12/17/20 11:40 AM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/17/20 04:39 AM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/17/20 02:09 AM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/16/20 08:41 PM, Gimmick wrote:

At 12/16/20 01:54 PM, Yomuchan wrote: attempts at initial safety precautions were mocked, and the list goes on.
Maybe Trump was rattled by this case?

I've had enough of this bad faith arguing. You're twisting everything to suit your narrative even if it means grasping at straws. Kindly fuck off.

Why do you automatically assume that I'm arguing in bad faith? Because your sources don't hold up? Because ypur petty arguments have run dry?

Because any reasonable person knows it when they see it. I can accept your premises based on scientific evidence, even if they by and large conflict; that's fine. However, what I take huge issue with is reaching for straws over the other parts, which bring the rest of your arguments into serious question.

Even the rest of your reply is bare nonsense: it is easier for you to accept the existence of a grand conspiracy than the actions of an incompetent government.

It takes two to tango, and I'm done.

And I've pointed out how officials are being incompetent. Glad we agree on that. The only straw-clutching you're seeing here is from the media and their apologists who wanted to shoot nails into the coffin of scientific credibility, but ended up shooting their own foot with the industrial nailgun. And aside from a few people that were labeled 'conspiracy theorists' and disregarded, there was no way to know that a major pandemic was on the horizon. I wish I could have listened in 2017, but hindsight is 20/20.

Also, thanks for pointing this subject out to me - again, it was an interesting read, which brings up several flaws in the political arguments used by people opposed to Trump's administration.

Don't get it yet? I know exactly where this specific point hails from, and why it can be disproved with ease. Ready for it? Hold on to your hat-equivalent because it's going to be spectacular.

Senator. Chris Murphy of Connecticut(D) tweeted this to politicize the pandemic to engage in political mudslinging against a political opponent, but recall that the Predict program was run by government funding, and the job of finalizing how funds are distributed is one of the duties of members of the House of Representatives in the United States House Committee on the Budget.

And what, may I ask, was the house of representatives doing around that time?

Go on. Think.

Getting there.

Almost....

Aha!

Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump over Ukraine scandal.
24 September 2019

So while the house of representatives were touting lies cooked at the behest of their 'leaders' to own drummmmpppffff, the end of the second term for the Predict program was rapidly closing in. While the house of representatives were trying to impeach Trump over what would eventually be a 'nothingburger', the Predict progam's second term came to an end, with no renewal pending from the House of Representatives.

It would be indeed more accurate to say Nancy Pelosi and the house of representatives shut the Predict program down. And again, let me remind you again who was touting falsified data and basically letting a massive pandemic happen because they didn't want to offend the chinese authorities and opposed Trump's (admittedly half-baked) travel ban for political reasons.

I admit that the US government's response is below average, a (4.1 out of 10) - Trump should have had followed the Taiwanese example from the start, or failing that, fielded operatives lurking in obscure imageboards and taking note when the first cases were reported in late november 2019. Unfortunately, for the sake of political mudslinging, the Predict program was ignored while the House of Representatives went around with their nothingburger of an impeachment campaign 2: electric boogaloo.

Now that's more than just incompetence. It strays into malicious territory, in my opinion.

Once I realized that this could be the huge pandemic in the making that amateur biologists and healthcare workers were warning us about for the last two years, I began preparing in mid-late december. Alas, most of us were called 'conspiracy theorists', for making careful plans and stockpiling food, emergency supplies, funds and water while the WHO was in full damage control mode. Then we were called 'racists' by the mainstream for discussing the outbreak. The sheer amount of salt that flows when I flex on them today has to be seen to be believed.

It's true that it takes two to tango, but what you did was stab your credibility with an easily disproved lie. I'm just sitting here watching you make an embarrassment out of yourself. And no, I'm not going to ask you to stop - it's your life, your choice as to what you ultimately do.

At 12/17/20 11:19 PM, S3C wrote:

At 12/17/20 12:55 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/17/20 12:46 PM, EdyKel wrote: I think you just wasted several hours of your life writing something that no one is going to read, including the person you are trying to egg on.

First off, I'm not egging anyone.

then be the better man and abstain from making statements like "The sheer amount of salt that flows when I flex on them today has to be seen to be believed."

At 12/18/20 05:10 AM, JosephStarr wrote: I think you're confusing two different things. People getting tired of being talked down to by a narcissistic moron and then moving on with their day, and you winning something. (Whatever that's supposed to be, I don't know.)

People can only point out flaws to a blind person for so long until they say screw it and move on with their life.
I can't believe I still bother to look at your posts, but they're just so...disturbingly fascinating.
The sheer levels of immaturity, smugness, denial, capacity to ignore things, and immature baiting is sadly humorous.

Just because somebody got tired of trying to explain why the things you're saying are flawed (if not outright incorrect on a worrying level) doesn't mean you won a debate or shut them down. It just means they got tired of seeing you act smug about forcing a narrative and insulting people like an edgy 15 year old from 4chan who didn't get hugged enough as a child.

tl;dr - People quit because they think you're hopelessly delusional, not because of some sick burn you pulled.
...and then they get dragged right back in when you say something so absolutely ridiculous that it just has to be corrected for the sake of other people who might come across it.

At 12/18/20 06:23 AM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/18/20 05:44 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: I’d suggest that we move on from the last few pages, for the sake of not drowning out other people who intend to take the vaccine or not.

Completely agree on that. I've made my point and backed it with evidence from multiple sources. While I admit watching them melt down was quite funny, you raise a good point; There's no need to prolong this debate any longer, because they ran out of arguments and got personal. It'd indeed 'drown out' others.

Yes, let's move on.

At 12/10/20 11:07 PM, RoboHex wrote:

At 12/10/20 08:19 PM, TylerFromTexas wrote: When it's my turn, yes.

I'm going through the coronavirus right now, and it's not fun.

I'm doing much better, but I can't taste anything and it makes me very sad. :(

You don't need the vaccine if you already got COVID.

At 12/18/20 02:57 PM, NeonSpider wrote: And I realize it's @EdyKel's favorite argument (or trolling technique?) to claim whoever disagrees with him must be Trump supporters, among other fallacies, but in this case I'm not really seeing anyone outside of hardcore Trump supporters adamant about rejecting these vaccines, and I'm pretty sure even most Trump supporters have at least enough sense to go ahead and take a vaccine. So it's a subset of a subset.

At 12/18/20 03:16 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/18/20 02:57 PM, NeonSpider wrote: And I realize it's @EdyKel's favorite argument (or trolling technique?) to claim whoever disagrees with him must be Trump supporters, among other fallacies, but in this case I'm not really seeing anyone outside of hardcore Trump supporters adamant about rejecting these vaccines, and I'm pretty sure even most Trump supporters have at least enough sense to go ahead and take a vaccine. So it's a subset of a subset.

Have I? Or are you just shooting that out of your ass because it sounds good to you? I rarely call people Trump supporters who disagree with me, unless they outright state they support him or continue to dodge the question over it. And I include libertarians, the more right leaning ones, among covid deniers and are who are more reluctant to take the vaccine, since I have see a lot of them saying that shit.

And studies show that Republicans are less likely to believe that covid is a threat, and less likely to get the vaccine.

At 12/18/20 03:41 PM, NeonSpider wrote:

At 12/18/20 03:16 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/18/20 02:57 PM, NeonSpider wrote: And I realize it's @EdyKel's favorite argument (or trolling technique?) to claim whoever disagrees with him must be Trump supporters, among other fallacies, but in this case I'm not really seeing anyone outside of hardcore Trump supporters adamant about rejecting these vaccines, and I'm pretty sure even most Trump supporters have at least enough sense to go ahead and take a vaccine. So it's a subset of a subset.

Have I? Or are you just shooting that out of your ass because it sounds good to you? I rarely call people Trump supporters who disagree with me, unless they outright state they support him or continue to dodge the question over it. And I include libertarians, the more right leaning ones, among covid deniers and are who are more reluctant to take the vaccine, since I have see a lot of them saying that shit.

And studies show that Republicans are less likely to believe that covid is a threat, and less likely to get the vaccine.

In general, yes, you have. You've claimed I was supporting Trump when I voted Libertarian because I didn't like Trump or Clinton. So because I don't agree with your "Vote for Hillary Clinton", I therefore must be a Trump supporter? And FYI I wanted Bernie Sanders to win and would have voted for him.

As for other fallacies, you seem blind to your own racist tendencies. But yes, for one who claims to want to improve conditions for minorities, you really need to stop down-talking to people of other races (or who are potentially of other races from your own), calling them "son" and such. Or do you need to be reminded that is exactly what slaveholders did back in the days of American slavery? It is racist. You may not intend it to be, but it is, so you may want to stop doing that. You do this very often. I would suggest you stop. It doesn't help your reputation.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the claim that Republicans are less likely to believe COVID a threat or to get the vaccine, because that's the direct conclusion from what I just said.

I wasn't aware of any Libertarians avoiding vaccines. But you may have a point there.

At 12/18/20 04:49 AM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/17/20 11:19 PM, S3C wrote:

At 12/17/20 12:55 PM, Yomuchan wrote:

At 12/17/20 12:46 PM, EdyKel wrote: I think you just wasted several hours of your life writing something that no one is going to read, including the person you are trying to egg on.

First off, I'm not egging anyone.

then be the better man and abstain from making statements like "The sheer amount of salt that flows when I flex on them today has to be seen to be believed."

If you had any level of reading comprehension, you would have realized that I was referring to the dimwits who kept calling me a 'conspiracy theorist' when I started carefully stockpiling food and water, and planning ahead for a complete lockdown that could have, in a worst-case scenario, may have lasted at least upto mid-2021, and possibly beyond.