Jump to content

Jacksonx3

Members
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jacksonx3

  1. Jacksonx3

    Broome County covid map

    Amazing how consistent the sourcing is. Used to be that the guy in the sandwich board with the loony conspiracies was a pariah. Now they have a union. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
  2. Jacksonx3

    SHAME on Ascension. SHAME on UHS

    Catholic church’s position on this is very clear. Vatican say Vaccine is a social responsibility - no religious exemption. https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/catholics-seeking-religious-exemptions-vaccines-must-follow-true-church-teaching Other religions seem to share this view. https://apnews.com/article/health-religion-united-states-coronavirus-pandemic-coronavirus-vaccine-9c947acecd6ba26b4c78827b7b87c185
  3. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Wow. Don’t have to scratch too deep to get to the crazy. Yeah, consider your interaction with me a victory in your fight against tyranny - it’s as real as anything else you have posted. Yet you keep coming back - Everyone needs to listen to me cuz I’m special and have the best research on the inter webs. Then tell mom it’s time for your meds. What a sad, lonely angry man.
  4. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    We’ve been through this. You can always find an outlier with letters after his name to support almost any fringe theory you want. You are especially talented at it. It is not science, it is you tube. Bye now
  5. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    You have funny rules. Lol is disqualifying, but links to fringe websites and proclamations that a global pandemic is designed to discredit a former political leader are the ticket to being taken seriously. I’m internetting wrong I guess.
  6. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Fighting tyranny… on bcvoice. Hope you win. Lol.
  7. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Logic without a premise in fact is without value. You start with an incorrect assumption - that the global pandemic is not real. It is untrue. To accept it would be to accept that you are right and the world is wrong (and they are doing it just to get at Trump, but I don’t even need to add that fallacy). Sorry, no. Any logic built from there is without value. And please don’t talk about health outcomes when denying that the pandemic is real. Even the logic portion of your routine is falling down. I think we would agree that this is a challenging time in America, but not for the reason you think it is.
  8. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Glad you enjoyed the day outdoors. I certainly did. Your assessment of the crux of our differences seems accurate. I believe that those sources for unbiased information exist, but have been devalued by those with ulterior motives, be they individual, partly or international political. One of the things we know about humans store information is that even if information seems suspect when heard the first time, when we hear it again we internally say “oh yeah, I’ve heard about that” and accept it less critically. We tend to forget that we questioned it the first time. Hence the need to repeat the lies over and over - they become the truth. To me, the vehicle for objectivity is science which has rigorous protocols for accepting facts. I do not think that those protocols should be modified to accept notions that people “intuit” to be facts in order to achieve consensus. As an aside, there is an excellent book by Tom Nichols called “The Death of Expertise”. It is built around the premise that access to information via the internet has created legions of people who think that their internet “research” puts their knowledge base at a par with experts who have spent their lives studying a topic area. It is an interesting read, you may enjoy it. You are correct, the Trump connection would be a total waste of time. Viewing the pandemic as a political issue is a big part of how we got here. In terms of the vaccines, they received emergency approval. That is based on an established protocol for risk rewards assessment. Please stop with the VAERS data. Your other writings show that you have researched enough to know that this is a misuse of this data. VAERS is raw data indicating only that an outcome occurred after a vaccine, not that the vaccine caused it. If you are curious, and it seems you are, spend some time researching the placebo effect and some common outcomes in the placebo group. This captures the process for determining delta prevalence pretty well. “Mutations in viruses are neither new nor unexpected. Viral mutations and variants in the United States are routinely monitored through sequence-based surveillance, laboratory studies, and epidemiological investigations. The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has contributed to a surge in cases across the globe, and in the U.S., data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that currently more than 80 percent of cases of COVID-19 are the Delta variant.” https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/delta-vaccines-faqs.php They do this for a living and studied for years before entry into the workforce. You won’t find “what about” questions on the internet that they haven’t thought of (refer back to “The Death of Expertise.). They use a spread number of 4 others infected per infection rather than the 6 I used - I’d like to know the current estimate. Finally, we have very different experiences in terms real life impact of the virus. You are fortunate to have minimal personal impact. I have had several friends and acquaintances who have been impacted, including several deaths. Some were frail, some not. My father had covid. He survived, which is nothing short of amazing given his age, but spent six months in rehab after and has lost significant function. You may consider him a necessary casualty in the fight for freedom. I wouldn’t wish what he went through on anyone and will take any steps I can to help stop the spread. Which leads to the Christian hospital part. My catholic school years, dim as the recollection may be, taught me that my responsibility was to do the right thing even if I don’t want to, even if I face personal costs. I don’t always succeed but I try. And a health care organization certainly can make the decision that their staff need to be leaders in the currently accepted medical intervention to prevent spread of a disease that spreads death and long term health consequences. This is true both on an infection control and a messaging level. The hospital leadership has to make a call. They did. If the staff disagree for personal reasons, they can make the decision they want to, realizing that the decision also involves remaining with the organization. Freedom to choose doesn’t mean freedom to choose and not experience consequences, nor does it include making choices that impact others. So, having sufficiently beaten this topic to death I think we should agree to disagree. I wish you the best and hope we get another beautiful day to enjoy. Despite no real movement on either part it’s been an interesting discussion.
  9. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Ok last one. I will stick with the best numbers science has to offer. Other stuff is just conjecture- I don’t have to disprove it, you have to prove it. That’s how science works. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, require that someone prove that they’re wrong about the “question” they have about the accepted data. It’s almost impossible and, if you do, the person just jumps to the next “question”. The alternate therapies have not yet held up to scrutiny. They may with time, but not now. Same with conjecture about flu - could be, but could also be due to decreased contact and better infection control procedures I.e. hand washing and masks. I know I used hand sanitizer more in the past year than in the preceding decade. The problem is, or at least one problem is, nobody wakes up and says “I’m going to get covid today and spread it to my friends, family and coworkers while I don’t even know that I have it”. That’s not how this works (except for psychopaths! They exist but are not the norm. Lol). It is mainly airborne particles that can remain suspended even after the spreader has left (this is the latest science on the topic and I admit it has been a moving target as the knowledge base has increased). People are contagious before they know that they have it and often mistake early symptoms for something they have had before like a cold or the flu. It is estimated with the delta variant that an infected individual will infect 6 others. Do the math and before too many x6’s you’ll see the exponential growth that epidemiologists are worried about. And viruses are adaptive to ensure their own survival, every infection gives them a chance to mutate into a strain that is more contagious or more lethal. So, every infection is a risk point for everyone. Misinformation can be deadly. There is a ton of it out there and now infection control has been mixed up with political loyalty. Bad combination imho. I will definitely agree with you that we have spent entirely too much time going back and forth about this. I for one am going outside to enjoy the day and hope that you do too - if that’s how you choose to spend your leisure time!
  10. The same way we managed other diseases before vaccines for them came out. The unfortunate caught it and many died.
  11. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Our current situation is 600,000+ deaths attributed by the cdc to covid - of 35,000,000 known cases (approximately 10% of the population, 90 to go, do the math). That does not include persons with long term sequella to the disease. It is convenient to speak in terms of percentages and does not capture the sheer numbers of people affected. The masking, subservience, slavery argument is a nice touch. Your creative writing skills are excellent. So are Stephen King’s but that doesn’t mean that the things in his books happened. I stand by the drunk driving analogy with one exception. - about 10,000 deaths are attributed to drunk driving per year and yet we legislate behavior. And thank you so much for the compliment as to how I “try” to make compelling arguments. It seems that you are the one here trying to prove how intelligent they are. I know that all my googling will never hold a candle to the accumulated knowledge of our scientific community. This is not debate club, not talk radio, and the person with the snappiest comeback and most flamboyant writing style isn’t the winner. So thanks for the witty repartee, but you remain on the wrong side of this one.
  12. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    We tried this, but the “but muh freedoms” crowd found that problematic too. One of the factors contributing to the current situation is that we relied on the honor system in terms of masking I.e. persons who are unvaccinated are still supposed to wear masks - but often don’t for a variety of reasons. This again shifts the burden for their behavior, be it due to misinformation or outright malice, back to the mainstream to protect themselves. That’s not generally how it works. I’ve rarely heard the case made that “if you don’t like my drunk driving you need to wear a seatbelt or stay off the roads when I drive drunk” - I actually have heard those words said, but they are not mainstream thought and we don’t organize our laws around them.
  13. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    America’s Frontline Doctors. Lol https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536 https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/back-away-americas-frontline-doctors but that’s ok because someone on the comments section said… Lol
  14. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    “I don’t need to fall back on ad hominem attacks” but …“people a lot smarter than you”. Lol. Of course you could post links. That’s how confirmation bias works. You start with what you believe and search for something that supports it. You will always find it, especially if your sources are freedom first network, bitchute, infowars, YouTube, etc. There will always be outliers in the medical and scientific community. That’s why there are worthless supplements hawked by doctors, opioid prescriptions sold, etc. That’s why scientific consensus is used to make policy. Freedom first network is not a peer reviewed journal and a single study is not scientific consensus. Believe what you will, but don’t expose me to it.
  15. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Nice ad hominem. Now let’s try facts. This is the employer, not the government. It is an agency responsible for health care and it is becoming the norm. Albany Med just did the same - there are tons of others. My choice is to have those who provide health care follow the recommendations of scientists. Similar to smoking, do something known to be hazardous if you must. Just don’t expose others to your bad choices. The rest of the world doesn’t believe something just because you think it. You shouldn’t either.
  16. Jacksonx3

    Oh how "Christian" of Lourdes

    Respectfully, people are not forced to vax by this approach. Rather, they are forced to experience the consequences of their choice, rather than transferring that cost to the rest of society. Expect more of this approach, as well as proof of vaccination to participate in events where spread is possible. Conceptually, this is similar to the “choice” to smoke. People are free to smoke, but can’t endanger others with their bad decisions and they pay extra taxes to defray the costs of their “choice”. I would also expect insurance companies to increase premiums for those who “choose” not to vaccinate - keeping the costs of the “choice” within the group making the choice. The actuaries who determine premiums tend to be unpersuaded by anti vax websites and actually understand how the VAERS data is to be used. In both cases, the health effects of the choice are not in doubt.
  17. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    Pure speculation but I would imagine that vaccination status will evolve much like smoking I.e. you have the right to make a bad choice, but not to subject others to it. We went through a period where we had no tools in the arsenal except staying home. Now we do. Don’t want to vax? Your choice, but this time you stay home (the honor system of requiring the unvaccinated to mask hasn’t worked out so well). Currently, responsibly for the bad choice is shifted to others behaviorally (if they are concerned they should stay home), health wise, and economically through unneeded spread which impacts economies on a large scale. I’m not thinking that will be the long term approach. I would also anticipate impacts on insurance (health and life). The actuaries who determine rates and availabilities aren’t known to be swayed by “but I found this video on you tube”. Republican leadership has recently changed their messaging on this to a pro-vax message - polling must show that anti-vax as a political strategy is not a winning position. That puts them in step with science. This got morphed into a political fight (as had previous vax campaigns such as smallpox) but it appears that the health and socioeconomic costs got too great to maintain that front of the battle.
  18. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    Sorry. This guy has gone rogue - if he was ever truly mainstream. He’s on a ton of anti vax propaganda sites but can’t find a trace of him on anything mainstream/science oriented. That’s the problem with confirmation bias. You start with a premise e.g. “vax is bad” and search the net for it you will find a ton of sites with “verifiable proof that the government and big pharma don’t want you to know about”. There will be “experts” quoted and lots of degrees. Within science you can always find a credentialed outlier to support almost whatever point you wish. That’s why science relies on scientific consensus - a pool of accumulated knowledge. He would need to present scientific verification that outweighs the accumulated knowledge on the topic. So far he hasn’t. Here’s one example of his claims being debunked by a mainstream publication (with references). “…So far no scientific evidence is available that gives credence to claims that spike proteins created from vaccines travel in our bloodstreams. Research shows that spike proteins stay stuck to the surface of the cells around the vaccine's injection site. They are not known to wander around to other parts of the body. A very tiny dose of the vaccine does make it to the bloodstream (about 1%), but as soon as it gets to the liver, the enzymes there destroy it completely. The U.S. CDC refers to the spike protein made from the vaccine as “harmless.”” https://health-desk.org/articles/what-do-we-know-about-the-toxicity-of-spike-proteins-made-from-covid-19-vaccines Here’s another https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/16/youtube-videos/no-sign-covid-19-vaccines-spike-protein-toxic-or-c/
  19. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    Agreed! Have a good one!
  20. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    I certainly agree about the need to keep science fact based. But if you look at the progress of the discussion we’ve moved from “top flight Drs and scientists say” to “Don’t listen to what they say cuz they’re all corrupt”. We’ve arrived at “All those social structures built to track health issues are wrong because I think they are”. Sorry, it’s not perfect but I’ll stick with the science on this one.
  21. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    Bless your heart. You are correct, I didn’t. The post about links to autism were a good start to my ignoring them. The link of vaccines to autism was based on a debunked article which was withdrawn from the publishing journal decades ago due to fraud by the author. There is no scientific evidence of this link. None. Yet the myth persists. And it was hard for me to resist the video posted from the feed of Dr. phukkgovt (sp?) but I find I simply don’t have the time or energy for such pursuits. Call me judgmental but once I’ve seen stuff like that posted, I suspect anything further I see and tend to disregard it. Not all opinions are equally credible, nor valuable.
  22. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    Thanks for the articles. I’m actually doing pretty well with the numbers, I don’t even need to slow them down so I can understand them. Based on an admittedly quick scan, the first article that covid fatality rates are overestimated as we are under diagnosing covid I.e. we know the number of deaths, but many more people have actually had covid so the death rate is lower. The cdc covid tracker indicates 34,413,532 cases with 608,528 deaths. That works out to 1.7% actual (not projected) deaths of known cases. This does not consider individuals with long term issues as sequelae to the infection. That 608,528 is with 10% of the US population known to have been infected - that leaves a lot of headroom. Conversely, even If the entire population (334,000,000) of the US had already been infected the 0.15% model would predict 510,000 covid deaths. Guess we’re just overachievers. Even using the prediction model of 0.15% global, using the article’s estimate of 2,000,000,000 people infected that is 3,000,000 deaths. I would personally look to mitigate that with effective tools. Interestingly,the lancet article refers to them as vaccines - if it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me. Thanks for that. As I read it, again admittedly a quick scan, it says that further information is needed for clarification of efficiency of effectiveness. The main point seems to be that the concern is what portion of the population needs to be vaccinated to see the effect I.e. that you may need a higher NNV to show the desired effect of suppressing the virus. This seems to argue for the need for MORE of the population to be vaccinated I.e. herd immunity. Nowhere in either article do I see that covid isn’t a serious health risk, that vaccination is a greater risk than covid, or that vaccination is ineffective. The bigger point still is that I do not and will not ever have the depth of knowledge needed to make policy decisions on this topic. I will rely on the experts whose life has been spent learning the background info necessary to do so. So while I found the articles interesting I won’t “do my own research”. I might be prone to clinging to a single line from a single article that proves the point i already believe I.e. confirmation bias. I’ll rely on scientific consensus, even if it changes as new information becomes available because that’s what science does. Thanks, and have a great evening
  23. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    Cute meme. Now I’m convinced. Not familiar with the Doctor’s work, but one of the interesting things about science is that it relies on peer reviewed studies. I’d love to see the journal article that citation is from. It flies in the face of the following from JAMA regarding excess mortality from March 1, 2020 through January 2 2021 - it was referenced on the CDC website. The US experienced 2,801,439 deaths, 22.9% more than expected (522,368 excess deaths). Deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for 72.4% of excess deaths in the US. This is standard scientific method for determining the impact of a phenomenon on mortality. Note that this is only through 1/2 - the peak of the pandemic (so far) was well after. I know we are all encouraged to “do our own research” but honestly, I will never have the depth of knowledge needed to form a coherent opinion on the risks/benefits of MRNA vaccines. I do know enough to be susceptible to massive confirmation bias by rooting through articles - yeah, that’s what I thought and here it is right on you tube! I will stick with the expert consensus. There is no scientific consensus that vaccines are anywhere in the ballpark of covid in terms of health risk. None. It is not a both sides issue - not all opinions are of equal merit.
  24. Jacksonx3

    How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

    I woke up this morning unsure of how to best take care of my health during a pandemic. I have the choice of following the advice of the best professionals science has to offer, who have dedicated their lives to studying their fields, or following the advice of the guys at BCVoice who have really snappy memes, access to real internet websites with “information that the government and big pharma doesn’t want you to know about”, who quote VAERS data despite the VAERS program stating directly that it is raw reporting and should not be utilized until validated, and who know that the statistics regarding 90+% of hospitalizations being unvaccinated (despite being a minority of the population) are just manipulations to scare people. Thank the lord I found this thread before making a foolish decision. Seriously, there are no “both sides” to this topic. The verified risks of vaccine are not even in the ballpark of the verified risks from covid. To use a poker analogy, if you draw to an inside straight you are making a losing bet. You may occasionally still win, but if you do, you made a bad decision with a good outcome. It’s not evidence of having made a good decision. Don’t believe everything you think. Incorrect facts are not opinions, they are simply incorrect.
×