I have the worst #OCD about #COVID.
I wonder if this happened to others before me. I keep thinking I test positive on lateral flow tests when seeing an extremely faint line, only when looking from certain angles from up close with a flash. Looking online ofc it says a faint line means positive.
But, I just noticed that when doing the same to an empty test, before I put any sample in at all - I can still see those lines around both the C and T.
So lost rn. Doctors??
🇳🇱
The faint line you see is the chemical placed there that reacts. You should be able to see it regardless.
what they mean by a faint line is positive they mean if the line is colored pink but light, not if you can see the discoloration at all.
You look good here.
By the way I have had COVID at least 7 confirmed times. It is a serious disease, and be mindful of course. But I wouldnt let it stress you too much. Not the end of the world if you get it.
Thank you I appreciate that. I had it 4 times, I'm not stressed so much about getting sick, I'm stressed about infecting anyone else :/
But with a bit of garlic, plenty of water, and rest, I got over it completely. Got Covid again a few times in the next year or two because of housemates being front-line workers, but thanks to having a functional immune system, the next bouts were successively more mild. Now, I can safely say Covid is completely a non-issue.
What's more troublesome and injurious is the violent public hysteria which continues to persist, in large part thanks to people who refuse to understand that "science" does not trump "ethics", and that big-pharma is demonstrably more interested in protecting their profit margin than they are in protecting public health. They spent over a decade developing that technology which was shown to be next useless, but had to create conditions to recoup their investment. Hence the plandemic. To say nothing of the military bioweapons angle. At this point (arguably from day one) the most dangerous thing about Covid is the NPC useful idiots who continue to shill this mRNA snake oil on behalf of big-pharma corporations and their bought and paid for gov't cronies.
There was no doubt an element of harmful hysteria. But to try to claim it as some evil conspiracy theory to sell some new tech of vaccines is a pretty absurd claim as well, just as bad if not worse than the hysteria.
> I use 4 basic criteria: means, motive, opportunity and historical track-record.
I notice this has the usual failing of conspiracy theorists to consider 1) Actual evidence of the truth 2) feasibility of the conspiracy... if those arguably far more important qualities were considered most conspiracy theories wouldnt get very far.
The evidence on the topic of some giant conspiracy regarding vaccines is.. basically none. There is no evidence supporting it exists.
I am looking at a lack of evidence, along with the absurdity of carrying it out simply being impractical, and concluding that it does not deserve attention or time until actual evidence comes up suggesting it is true.
The default when you lack evidence is to not make an assumption that a thing exists until you have that evidence.
I do agree that there has been bias due tot he hype around COVID that has caused bias and stifling of true academic debate and criticism. No doubt, when things become political that is common. But that is all there is evidence for, people becoming political and biased and unable to reason fiarly and objectively about the topic in many social settings (and even sometimes in academic ones)... That is not, however, evidence of a global coordinated conspiracy.
That said, if the point here is that there's not enough evidence to get off the fence, then there's equally not enough evidence to claim the critics are wrong in their assessment. So why take a side?
Personally, I have no issue with genetics. I don't even have a problem with people freely choosing to inject themselves with experimental drugs. That's their personal choice. I feel that the genetic manipulation of the human species is practically an inevitability, and provided it's done in a voluntary and ethical manner, it could even be a good thing.
But given the socio-economic pressures which have been brought to bear on a global level against dissenting voices and alternative treatments, my instinct and my ethical sense, tells me that those doing the censoring/censuring are on the wrong side of the issue. I don't really care how much "science" is involved. It doesn't trump ethics. Full stop.
In terms of conspiracy though, there is more than ample evidence. I wish I had more time to inundate the thread with a selection of that, but alas, will have to hope (fingers crossed) you'll eventually have enough integrity to do some open minded investigation of your own. I have, and my opinion on the matter is well informed by that.
> Unfortunately I have other pressing stuff to deal with today, so won't be taking the time to dig up a fraction of the copious evidence which exists
As I expected would be the case.
Have a good day then.
> That said, if the point here is that there's not enough evidence to get off the fence
Umm, no.. I mean no more so than there isnt enough evidence to get off the fence about unicorns or fairies being real.
If I had more time, I'd love nothing more than to dig up some stuff to show you. But if you're interested, you could always take a scroll down my timeline, as I've posted about it repeatedly over the past years. I just don't have time to spoon feed you today as I have other work to do, and trying to force a horse to drink water isn't really my idea of a good time.
> Have a good day then.
:) Same to you, in the same spirit this was intended.
> If I had more time, I'd love nothing more than to dig up some stuff to show you. But if you're interested, you could always take a scroll down my timeline, as I've posted about it repeatedly over the past years. I just don't have time to spoon feed you today as I have other work to do, and trying to force a horse to drink water isn't really my idea of a good time.
I already follow you and have seen your posts on the topic. My comments were made fully aware of what you think is evidence to support your claims but is really just absurd failures in logic.
> :) Same to you, in the same spirit this was intended.
And what spirit is that? Sounds like that paranoia may be cranked a bit too high. I truely wish your day to be a pleasant want, while explicitly ending this conversation. It is worded that way to show 1) in no uncertain terms I wish to end this conversation due to any lack of value for my time and 2) to show I hold no ill will by wishing you a good day despite the absurdity of your argument.
I could say the same about you bud. Claiming I have a failure in logic is quite a different matter than demonstrating what that failure consists of. Your silence in that regard says more than your baseless accusation.
> And what spirit is that?
You tell me? It was your statement. I'm just not taking it at face value.
> I could say the same about you bud. Claiming I have a failure in logic is quite a different matter than demonstrating what that failure consists of. Your silence in that regard says more than your baseless accusation.
No you couldnt. You are the one making the claim and presenting absurd evidence. I am making no such claim or presenting evidence. Much as I have made no claims about unicorns or presented any evidence that they dont exist either.
> You tell me? It was your statement.
I just did, and told you it is meant at face value.
> I'm just not taking it at face value.
What happened to "you tell me", i told you it was meant at face value in my last message, now your asking me to tell you what it meant and that you arent taking it at face value... which is it?
Yet it doesn't stop you from proffering a derisive opinion about it, without any example or evidence to speak to.
> I just did, and told you it is meant at face value
Pardon me, but your attitude belies that claim. So I'm not prepared to take it at face value right now. Maybe we'll cool off and have a more civil discussion at a later date. Right now, as I said, I have other stuff to focus on. So gonna go do that, and put this puerile antagonistic non-discussion behind me for the rest of the day, at least until the priority work is out of the way.
As to unicorns and fairies, nice bit of hyperbole. If you studied that subject whatsoever you'd probably have a different perspective. For instance, apart from possibly referencing an extinct species of European rhino, goats also have two glands on their head which are responsible for releasing a horn growing hormone. If those are surgically moved close together, then a single horn will develop instead of the usual 2 (or more depending on species). Ringling Brothers had one on display for quite some time. As to fairies, the word means "fate", and refers originally to the mythological characters associated with past/present/future. It is also synonymous with the spirits of the dead (hence fairy forts, which are ancestral burial mounds). Point being, your conceit on these subjects is based on a misunderstanding formed on the basis of ignorance and conceit. No more, no less. Same as with the other subjects under discussion afaict.
> Yet it doesn't stop you from proffering a derisive opinion about it, without any example or evidence to speak to.
Correct, I have strong opinions about theories which draw conclusions based on a lack of evidence, very strong opinions.
> Pardon me, but your attitude belies that claim.
My attitude has been polite but honest. I have refered to ideas as idiotic, but refrained from any personal attacks. Any feelings you have about my attitude is completely fabricated in your head based on the fact that I mock ideas you hold dear, which you take personally. Thats on you, I have stated in no uncertain terms what my words meant so you didnt have to speculate but here we are... This deserves no more energy or thought from me, you continue to waste my time.
Good bye (read: leave me alone) and have a good day (read: I still want you to be happy despite you insisting on wasting my time further)
> Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Never claimed it was. In fact my wording was quite careful not to make this claim.
I have asked you twice now, each time with increasing levels of assertiveness to make sure it was stated in no uncertain terms.
Go away, right now you are welcome to reach out to me on future threads. If you continue to insist on spamming me when I asked you multiple times to go away the next time I just block you.
You didnt offend me. You insisted on enaging me when I didnt want to.
Which now you did, yet again, as another chance to force your opinion on an audience when you otherwise dont have one.
I am not offended, I simply have no wish to interact with someone who acts this way
In terms of feasibility, I'm not quite sure what you mean there, so if you would, please elaborate.
Personally, I'm not a medical or biotech professional. Nor do I have sufficient background in these fields to make an informed decision about it. I basically have to take someone else's word for it (meaning it's essentially "hearsay" either way). But when looking at the power dynamics, and how that power has been wielded to prevent discussion and critique, it seems clear to me who has something to hide. To say nothing of the financial and political motivations concerned.
However as a software developer of 25 years, who's worked in environments where the codebase numbers in the many millions of lines of code, I have enough experience to know that our relatively simple (by comparison with genomics) software, is riddled with bugs, and fundamentally impossible for anyone to understand the potential regressions and side-effects of changes. And that is true in spite of the fact that we created that software and understand it's functionality from the ground up, at least at a high level.
There is no "test driven development" in genomics, unless you count long term multivariate analysis with appropriate control groups, which was NOT DONE in the case of Covid vax. To pretend that we have a sufficiently bulletproof comprehension of the mechanisms of genetics to label such products "safe and effective" without said long-term analysis, is absolutely asinine. The science (to say nothing of common sense) doesn't even begin to back such claims. Whether it's an "evil conspiracy" or not, at the very least it's arrogant and misguided to pretend the "science is settled" on this. Pretending otherwise is a blatant dangerous lie. It's an experimental treatment for which the entire human species has been forcibly reduced to caged guinea pigs at public expense.
It is absolutely unquestionably clear that there has been a globally coordinated effort to suppress critique and indemnify the corporations and politicians from liability for their misinformation and the resulting public health and economic fallout involved. IMO, the only way you can claim my conclusion is not based on "actual evidence" is if you're deliberately burying your head in the sand and refusing to see the big picture, presumably because the claim of "science" gives you a false sense of intellectual superiority which prevents you from looking beyond that conceit.