Select to expand quotejapie said.
I worked at a reasonably elevated level for a corporation for a while. I left because I grew sick of rubbing shoulders with sociopaths who tend to gravitate up the ladder. Their capacity to screw people over for personal gain is sickening and it would defy logic to expect it not to occur in the pharma/medical industry.
Trying to sway people's minds on an issue on an anonymous water sports forum is far from ideal but it certainly has its uses as I've indicated before. Because you're writing your thoughts down it is crucial to do so as competently and clearly as you can. Which makes reading critical. Which in turn leads to being able to recall what has been learned and being able to repeat it verbally. I run the risk of being accused of blowing my own horn here but my forte is conversation.
I learned decades ago that people are more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you let them do most of the talking. And if you ask them sensible questions. They then become more inclined to hear and process what it is that you have to say.
It works. None of my immediate family succumbed to the pressure to "vaccinate" and most of my workmates held out for as long as they did because they listened to what I had to say. Some resisted entirely. All bar one who did have admitted they regret it.
Finally the CT nutter thing! When people resort to verbal abuse it's similar to a boxing opponent losing his temper. You know you've got him rattled!
Can you provide evidence of this "reasonably elevated level" or is it just some more unsubstantiated 'hearsay'?
Select to expand quotejapie said..D3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..
Oh and whilst we are at it who funded her?
Because the scientific community has taken a pretty hard blow to the solar plexus over the past four years and I'm still a little suspicious.
I've just read it. She obviously has a talent for spotting fraudulent images which is what the article appeared to focus on. That and plagiarism. Both of which are odious. I can see how scientists would now be particularly meticulous about the work they submit from that perspective. Not surprising either, that people cheat. As I stated in another post, the financial incentive will always result in temptation.
However the article does not deal with any of the concerns raised by the former editors of the journals I quoted. Look at that compilation of fines incurred by big pharma. Whilst they are enormous and presumably indicative of the extent of the crime, they are obviously only a deterrent to doing sloppy work. A cost of doing business if you will.
Take the analogy of a repeat offender. A person who has a record of stealing is a thief. That's not arguable. I fail to see why the pharmaceutical industry should be awarded a waiver from that logical conclusion.
Anyway this debate will never sway people whose opinions are die cast. It is now taking up more of my time than I'm prepared to commit and as I've said to you before, I use the forum to practise and learn and with regard to this subject I'm happy that I have met my goals. Not to say that I won't participate in the future
Perhaps only to say I told you so ??
The article was to assist with answering your question of who was funding her.
Because you implied that she had been bought and paid by corporations trying to improve their image.
I would be interested to know what you have learnt from this discussion?
I do try to keep my comments at least vaguely rational so as to have these sorts of discussions. So it would be interesting to see what you got out of it
The article was informative. Refreshing to see her put her talents to good use. As I said not surprising to hear that people were cheating and that that avenue has been curtailed to a degree.
From the discussion as a whole I learned one very important thing. Or rather I confirmed it and that was that Google is seriously biased.
I'd read a few of those quotes by journal editors over the years but struggled to find them as I couldn't recall the names. I switched search engines and the article appeared on the first page. So that was a bonus!
Another thing I've had confirmed is that it takes a heck of a lot of effort to get people to acknowledge the truth. I've known since 1974 that there are bad players in the pharma industry when a cockies wife in the Karoo blurted out that she was injecting labourers wives on a monthly basis to prevent pregnancy.
I was 19 at the time and knew better than to open my trap for fear of copping a flogging. But it is one of those things that stick in the memory. And I've gone on to learn of so many instances where vulnerable third world communities have been used as cheap Guinea pigs.
To get people to see that behind the shiny labels of many of the medicines they get relief from is not an easy task. Generally the ego plays a massive role in people's opinions. Which the advertising industry knows only too well and exploits to the max!
I worked at a reasonably elevated level for a corporation for a while. I left because I grew sick of rubbing shoulders with sociopaths who tend to gravitate up the ladder. Their capacity to screw people over for personal gain is sickening and it would defy logic to expect it not to occur in the pharma/medical industry.
Trying to sway people's minds on an issue on an anonymous water sports forum is far from ideal but it certainly has its uses as I've indicated before. Because you're writing your thoughts down it is crucial to do so as competently and clearly as you can. Which makes reading critical. Which in turn leads to being able to recall what has been learned and being able to repeat it verbally. I run the risk of being accused of blowing my own horn here but my forte is conversation.
I learned decades ago that people are more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you let them do most of the talking. And if you ask them sensible questions. They then become more inclined to hear and process what it is that you have to say.
It works. None of my immediate family succumbed to the pressure to "vaccinate" and most of my workmates held out for as long as they did because they listened to what I had to say. Some resisted entirely. All bar one who did have admitted they regret it.
Finally the CT nutter thing! When people resort to verbal abuse it's similar to a boxing opponent losing his temper. You know you've got him rattled!
Interesting that you now say that you didn't learn anything from this discussion, only that you confirmed something.
I think I learned a bit about you. And I agree that ego plays a big part in why people can be so oppositional on topics, particularly when they've held a position for a long time or its tied to family/community and therefore identity.
Interesting that you were so vocal with your endorsement of RFK Juniors book about Fauci, claiming it must somehow all be true because Fauci has been silent about it.
But you went quiet on it when a couple of us pointed out just a few of the blatant hypocrisy and very loose definition of truth.
You then claimed a scientist was likely bought and paid for by big corporations based on nothing but your disillusionment with scientific community.
Your position on these points was not supported by the evidence, which I guess is why you moved on from them quickly and quietly without acknowledging any error.
I really liked how you then followed it up with a quote about holding onto positions because of the fear that admitting you can be wrong means you have to change yourself.
I'm sure you can understand why I think it ironic to post a comment containing this sentence, "Power over others is weakness disguised as strength", immediately after your flashy mic-drop
"I'm happy that I have met my goals. Not to say that I won't participate in the future
Perhaps only to say I told you so ??"
Japie:
" learned decades ago that people are more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you let them do most of the talking. And if you ask them sensible questions. They then become more inclined to hear and process what it is that you have to say."
That's pretty much what I've been doing to.
I've been reading what you've been posting and then asking questions to try prompt a bit more analysis or review of a particular point.
When you've asked questions, I've tried to find those answers.
When you've provided answers yourself, I've tried to verify them. Then look at how that information affects my current understanding of the topic/point.
I'm not afraid to change if I discover I've been wrong, it's not easy and definitely not a quick process, but it happens.
I agree that the medical and scientific literature industry needs overhaul, and people are trying to make that happen.
I don't think it means you can use that as a basis to accuse all published scientists of corruption until proven otherwise.
I definitely agree that commenting here can be a difficult method of discussing these topics, but it does allow for greater accuracy in our communications and allows us time to fully digest others comments.
And allows us to re-read thread to see what sensible questions still need answers
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..Chris 249 said..
According to the nutcases, big pharma corrupts the science
Calling people nutcases because they have a different opinion from yourself exposes your character.
You appear to be driven by ego.
Ego refers to an individual's sense of self-identity and self-importance
That's utterly ridiculous given the abuse and allegations you threw at tens of thousands of scientists, doctors and other people. It is also disgustingly dishonest considering the abuse you throw at professionals who know far more than you, merely because they don't follow your CT babble.
You are the one driven by sickening egocentricity. You are the one who regularly claims to know more about medicine and science than the vast majority of people who have spent years studying and working in those areas.
Only the most revoltingly arrogant people can believe that despite the fact that they have no proper education in extremely complex areas, they know more than people who are definitely experts in those areas.
You are the one who is so self-important that you feel are such an expert in areas you have never worked in or been educated in that you can tell the vast majority of professionals in those areas that they are wrong and you are right.
In contrast, I know that climate scientists and medical science know more about their fields than I do. Only the most vile of liars would claim that shows self importance.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
And allows us to re-read thread to see what sensible questions still need answers
The reason there are CT nutters is because they don't answer sensible questions that would show that their claims and "research" are wrong. If they had the honesty to answer those questions in an honest way, they would find out why their silly conspiracy theories are incorrect.
The simple questions Japie ran away from about Atlas are typical. He refuses to answer them because doing so would make it apparent to all, including him, that he made incorrect claims because he's gullible and he refuses to admit that because he's dishonest.
Another proof of the CTers' dishonesty is that they throw filthy claims that implicate tens of thousands of people of incompetence or complicity in mass murder, and yet they get offended when anyone makes strong remarks about them. They feel that they can allege people of mass murder with impunity and still remain protected from insults themselves. The hypocrisy is bizarre.
^ CT Loons are experts at Projection, Trump made it an art form. Pcdefender is in good company.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
The reason there are CT nutters
If they had the honesty to answer those questions in an honest way
The simple questions Japie ran away from about Atlas are typical. He refuses to answer them because doing so would make it apparent to all, including him, that he made incorrect claims because he's gullible and he refuses to admit that because he's dishonest.
Another proof of the CTers' dishonesty is that they throw filthy claims
Using words such as nutters, dishonest and liars to describe others who have a very different take on the world than yourself only exposes your own character.
Hopefully few will not fall for the smear.
"The insult dishonors the one who infers it, not the one who receives it."
- Diogenes of Sinope
Fake news and rumors thrive online because few verify what's real and always bias towards content that reinforces their own biases. - Ryan Higa
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Look at their stated goals of The World Economic Forum on their website.
Reads like something out of 1984.
I went to their website and I had trouble finding anything Orwellian. Admittedly there is a good amount of corporate wankspeak and lightweight commitment, but not anything 1984 on first glance.
Their mission statement seems to be a reasonable expression of good intention.
For example, here is an excerpt from their mission statement:
"At the heart of our mission of improving the state of the world lies the belief in the power of human ingenuity, entrepreneurship, innovation and cooperation. We recognise the need for a forum fostering rigorous and respectful dialogue between and among leaders with different beliefs and viewpoints, where diversity of thought is respected and all voices can be heard. Achieving this mission is made possible by all our stakeholders, who come together to find common ground and seize opportunities for positive change."
full statement here:
www.weforum.org/about/world-economic-forum/
I searched the site for 'goals' and 'stated goals', but again didn't find any policy statements that sounded threatening.
Obviously you have read the WEF website more thoroughly than me, so can you please post a link to the '1984 like' stated goals?
I am still waiting for Pete (or anyone) to show a cause of death for the bloke posted 3 pages back, who died 6 weeks after getting the jab. But cos he took the p!ss outa of antivaxxers, and was a political candidate so thus well-known, they are implying the jab killed him.
Asked a direct question of Pete (or any CT person) and dead silence (pun not intended). Google shows nothing apart from the meme style stuff posted by you Pete. I can't find anything with a cause of death.
So not much critical thinking on your part, when u post a pic with a narrative about what he wrote online and now he is dead. Is that what constitutes 'proof' in your mind? Maybe if there is lots of similar unsubstantiated things it all adds up to 'proof'?
That's how Whacka-CT-Mole works. When they are wrong, they just hide in the hole and emerge later with more rubbish. Some time later, they repeat the original crap thinking people have forgotten. Look at how many times Pete has repeated his bogus story about 140,000 ovaccine injuries. He just makes stuff up and repeats mindless drivel to attract attention. Young people have alway died unexpectedly, CT loons are now using family tragedies to support their ego-driven position.
The reason I enjoy exposing CT lies is becuase there could be vaccination fence-sitters on SB, who have not had the good fortune of a free education in statisitics, analytics and critical thinking. Science is not a belief system.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
The reason I enjoy exposing CT lies is becuase there could be vaccination fence-sitters on SB, who have not had the good fortune of a free education in statisitics, analytics and critical thinking. Science is not a belief system.
Given the volume of posters and 30 year history of SB, I'd estimate those vaccination fence sitters to be in the hundreds of thousands.
On behalf of these 'vaccination fence sitters' I'd like to extend a warm thank you for doing your bit to save us them.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
Given the volume of posters and 30 year history of SB, I'd estimate those vaccination fence sitters to be in the hundreds of thousands.
On behalf of these 'vaccination fence sitters' I'd like to extend a warm thank you for doing your bit to save us them.
Thank you.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Look at how many times Pete has repeated his bogus story about 140,000 ovaccine injuries.
According to the TGA website there have been 140 000 reports of harm caused by the covid shots.
They are reports from ordinary Australians mostly.
Some report suffering more than one adverse event.
I said they are reports of harm.
Have all of them been confirmed, of course not.
It is also worth remembering that only around ten percent of all adverse effects are reported to the TGA.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
It is also worth remembering that only around ten percent of all adverse effects are reported to the TGA.
How do you know this? It seems an odd certainty you have for this when everything else is an unknown.
This is what the TGA site says:
"Learn more about how the TGA identifies and responds to safety issues.
Anyone can report a suspected side effect, either:
directly to the TGA
through a health professional
by calling 1300 Medicine (1300 633 424) or visiting www.1300medicine.com.au- external site.
You can report anonymously.
Learn more about how to report a suspected side effect to a COVID-19 vaccine."
It also says:
"The most frequently reported side effects suspected to be associated with the vaccines include headache, muscle and joint pain, fever, chills and nausea. Skin reactions at the site of the injection are also common and can include pain, swelling, redness and an itchy rash. These are recognised side effects of vaccination and are usually transient and mild."
I think we all understand it. These vaccines have caused severe harm with some people, but a lot of people have had minor reactions. We also don't seemingly care enough to actually look at the stats and instead keep coming up with '140,000 reports of harm'.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..Chris 249 said..
The reason there are CT nutters
If they had the honesty to answer those questions in an honest way
The simple questions Japie ran away from about Atlas are typical. He refuses to answer them because doing so would make it apparent to all, including him, that he made incorrect claims because he's gullible and he refuses to admit that because he's dishonest.
Another proof of the CTers' dishonesty is that they throw filthy claims
Using words such as nutters, dishonest and liars to describe others who have a very different take on the world than yourself only exposes your own character.
Hopefully few will not fall for the smear.
"The insult dishonors the one who infers it, not the one who receives it."
- Diogenes of Sinope
You and your fellow CTers are the ones who are vastly more insulting than anyone else here. You are the ones who claim that tens of thousands of innocent people are complicit in conspiracies. You are the ones who abuse scientists, astronauts and vast numbers of other people by claiming they are liars. You called others here "trolls", "fools" and abused them in many other ways.
For you to complain with you are insulted, when you insult millions of others, shows the foul depths of your depraved dishonesty. And it's perfectly reasonable for others to feel annoyed when you spew such foul lies at so many people who are incomparably smarter, more successful, more honest and better than you.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
That's how Whacka-CT-Mole works. When they are wrong, they just hide in the hole and emerge later with more rubbish. Some time later, they repeat the original crap thinking people have forgotten. Look at how many times Pete has repeated his bogus story about 140,000 ovaccine injuries. He just makes stuff up and repeats mindless drivel to attract attention. Young people have alway died unexpectedly, CT loons are now using family tragedies to support their ego-driven position.
The reason I enjoy exposing CT lies is becuase there could be vaccination fence-sitters on SB, who have not had the good fortune of a free education in statisitics, analytics and critical thinking. Science is not a belief system.
Agreed, when they are wrong they don't reply but that strategy is not unique to CT nutters, there's some pretty horrible stuff going on here in Australia right now and when the facts are put on the table we hear crickets, there's no reply when the facts don't suit the ideology.
Your guilty of hiding in holes rather than risk exposure as well.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
How do you know this? It seems an odd certainty you have for this when everything else is an unknown.
This is what the TGA site says:
"Learn more about how the TGA identifies and responds to safety issues.
Anyone can report a suspected side effect, either:
directly to the TGA
through a health professional
by calling 1300 Medicine (1300 633 424) or visiting www.1300medicine.com.au- external site.
You can report anonymously.
Learn more about how to report a suspected side effect to a COVID-19 vaccine."
It also says:
"The most frequently reported side effects suspected to be associated with the vaccines include headache, muscle and joint pain, fever, chills and nausea. Skin reactions at the site of the injection are also common and can include pain, swelling, redness and an itchy rash. These are recognised side effects of vaccination and are usually transient and mild."
I think we all understand it. These vaccines have caused severe harm with some people, but a lot of people have had minor reactions. We also don't seemingly care enough to actually look at the stats and instead keep coming up with '140,000 reports of harm'.
Remember individuals can report multiple side effects. I looked at the top 10 and presented them here. I I think 9 of them were just aches and pains.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Agreed, when they are wrong they don't reply but that strategy is not unique to CT nutters, there's some pretty horrible stuff going on here in Australia right now and when the facts are put on the table we hear crickets, there's no reply when the facts don't suit the ideology.
Your guilty of hiding in holes rather than risk exposure as well.
Generally there are no "facts" presented, just lies and misinformation that are easily debunked. Perhaps you imagined I was hiding while I was unfairly banned and censored because I wouldn't follow the CT loon narrative.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
.... I was unfairly banned and censored because I wouldn't follow the CT loon narrative.
Why was I suspended?
Occasionally members don't understand why they get suspended. No amount of explanation by moderators or other members of the community seems to provide an adequate explanation to these people.....
If this is you, you might need to consider whether this website is for you? ....
The fact is, that if the moderators, through consensus and feedback from the community determine that a members is ruining the experience of other members or generally degrading the forums, our invitation to you to participate will be withdrawn. Otherwise know as 'suspension'.
Just like you can get kicked out of a nightclub for ruining the pleasure of other patrons, you can also be refused access to this site..........
www.seabreeze.com.au/Members/Help/ForumRules.aspx
Select to expand quoteremery said..cammd said..
Agreed, when they are wrong they don't reply but that strategy is not unique to CT nutters, there's some pretty horrible stuff going on here in Australia right now and when the facts are put on the table we hear crickets, there's no reply when the facts don't suit the ideology.
Your guilty of hiding in holes rather than risk exposure as well.
Generally there are no "facts" presented, just lies and misinformation that are easily debunked. Perhaps you imagined I was hiding while I was unfairly banned and censored because I wouldn't follow the CT loon narrative.
no I wasn't referring to your ban, I was pointing out that you "hide in the hole and emerge later with more rubbish", when the facts are inconvenient.
140000
thats 1 in a hundred if most people got jabbed
a sore muscle at injection site is an adverse reaction
so basic critical thinking shows fairly quickly that 140000 reported adverse reactions does not show it is unsafe. It may still be unsafe, but that stat is not proof. Not even persuasive.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
140000
thats 1 in a hundred if most people got jabbed
a sore muscle at injection site is an adverse reaction
so basic critical thinking shows fairly quickly that 140000 reported adverse reactions does not show it is unsafe. It may still be unsafe, but that stat is not proof. Not even persuasive.
It's actually much lower than that, because it's not 140,000 people, many people reported multiple reactions.
From the report....
Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common but underreported.
Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Look at their stated goals of The World Economic Forum on their website.
Reads like something out of 1984.
Please don't forget to post the link to the 1984 bit on WEF website.
They use buzz words that get you believing a whole lot of lies.
Read the details.
They have openly stated their goals.
Have you started to eat ze bugs to reduce a problem that does not even exist?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
It's actually much lower than that, because it's not 140,000 people, many people reported multiple reactions.
Correction: the TGA DAEN reports 140,997 "cases" with 137,037 with a single suspected medicine. The include the note that 'multiple adverse events have been reported in some patients".
