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.
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.
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
The true conspiracy was in the response, not in the virus itself.
Less of a conspiracy and more people just acting a fool... But yea, there were plenty of pretty dodgy actions in the response because everyones paranoia was cranked up to 11 with the fear mongering as is usually the case, doubly so when someone becomes political.
So yea, agreed to some extent there.
Aside from not being remotely true, i guess that sounds nice or something.
The reality is most people who support mRNA vaccines as safe are oftne in no way connected with money or in any way being paid to show that support.
Myself being a research scientist who worked on COVID-19 for two years without receiving a penny associaterd with vaccines (my research was unrelated to vaccines) yet I clearly support them.
So you are literally talking to a counter-example that shows your supposed evidence is factually false.
It doesn't bother me that you reached a different conclusion. That's your right. Maybe I'm wrong about the viability of the technology. It's totally possible, as this isn't my field of expertise. But I can smell a load of one-sided bullshit a mile away, and this past several years has absolutely reeked of it.
Now to be fair, I'm also aware that there is an equal amount of bullshit coming from the opposing side. But it's mainly from people who've very rightly lost trust and faith in the establishment medical industry, and otherwise have no academic background by which to judge in any case. I lost that trust and faith long long before Covid was a thing because of my experience both with the incompetence of many of the doctors I've seen for personal health issues, and because of my experience with the natural health (ie. herbal medicine) industry and the ubiquitous regulatory capture involved. That and due to having a penchant for studying history. So much so that I was able to accurately predict that this was going to happen back in 2014 based simply on the social-media narratives which were popping up supposedly spontaneously all over the place misrepresenting and outright gaslighting people who opposed vaccines for whatever reasons. In IT it's called "reputation management" (an industry in it's own right), and was clearly a coordinated effort to lay the foundation for exactly the events which have since occurred. The value of science is it's predictive capacity, and on that basis, I think my claims on the subject are demonstrably as well founded as any of the contrary opinions, to say the least.
Other than wanting to preserve my human rights and those of my fellow citizens against medical/scientific tyranny, I don't have a dog in the race. I was even considering getting the vax to protect the elderly folks and parents/families whom I associate with, but only if it were a traditional vax, and not this experimental mRNA tech. However since then, I frankly won't touch anything to do with the establishment medical industry short of a situation which would place me in the ER. Even then, a large part of me would rather just accept it and let nature take it's course. The status quo medical industry has zero credibility in my view. Their only concern is profit. People who act as apologists to deflect from that reality, are arguably just as dangerous as the people who profit off this directly, and can aptly be characterised as useful idiots, who are at best suffering from an egregious level of conceit and myopia. Scientism is not science. Period.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
> The vaxxmaxxers and alarmists who persisted after that initial period despite the mortality data...
LOL, dont tell me you you bought into that conspiracy theory nonsense about the vaccines being dangerous and there being meaningful "mortality data"? Please tell me I am just misreading what you said...
Orn it just means i have nothing of interest or note to say about your main point.
I wasnt aware the subject was fixed and had to be maintained at the cost of all other conversation. That seems like a rather strange way to operate, I usually prefer conversations to evolve naturally and discuss the points of interest, particularly if the point of your statement has nothing worth pointing out in its own right.
A donkey raped me on my way to the pinnacle to watch the sunset. Once I got there it was a beautiful deep red sunset....
So we cant point out the donkey raping you because the point of the statement was to mention the sunset? We have to force ourselves to remark on the less interesting sunset that doesnt seem to have much value discussing rather than the donkey raping you, which may be of actual interest to me?
@freemo Haha fair enough
With the vaxx stuff, I’m kinda fuzzy on it. I don’t know if there have been a lot of large-scale studies on connections between the #mRNA #COVID19 vaccines and myocarditis, blood clots, etc., but from what I can tell, there are some undisclosed risks of dangerous blood clots for healthy people who get the vaccines. I don’t know what level that risk is, which is why I don’t call them dangerous (I call them “experimental”, as launching #mRNA vaccines of this scale is unheard of and unprecedented).
Undisclosed? How so? Those risks are all perfectly disclosed, well identified, real, and known. They are extremely rare, but real, and the people who are at highest risk are no longer given the vaccine and other vaccines are preferred. All handled exactly how it should have been, nothing undisclosed about it. They literally changed the administration protocols just to be even more safe than they needed to be.
@freemo I didn’t know that studies had come out quantifying all the risks (there might be a study about #myocarditis I forget), but then again it’s been a year or two since I’ve studied any #COVID19 data seriously. It doesn’t really matter much anymore since the virus has mutated into something far weaker at this point.
What is the quantified risk of blood clots from #mRNA vaccines?
There have been studies on the risks you mentioned for years now. It was studies done by the scientific community and the changes in protocol made that is how we know about it at all. Do you think the conspiracy theorists figured it out and scientists went "oh we should study this thing the flat earthers all keep saying about our vaccines"... lol... nah, the scientists found it on their own, announced it, did studies, changed protocols, all on a very very low risk event out of an abundance of caution.. then the conspiracy theoriests took it and went "seeeeeeeeeee its not safe after all!".
@freemo What is the rate of risk? Where are the studies?
These studies existing for years is news to me.
It varies depending on vaccine, but fir mRNA COVID-19 vaccine here is a more recent study with fairly accurate numbers.
The mycarditis and bloodclots first showed up in studies much earlier however.
> The incidence is reported to be around 1 per 100,000 to 250,000 vaccine recipients,
As for it existing for years... Pfizer for example announced the first risks in this regard April 2021, so about 3 years since they **announced** it. Of course you have to do studies first, so studies suggesting the risk were already availible sometimes before that, months to years.
So yea we can safely say this stuff has been public for 3-4+ years now in studies and even admitted and published by Pfizer directly for at least 3 years.
These numbers show extremely safe vaccines... one person out of a quarter million is insanely safe... Literally tylenol is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than numbers like this.
Why wouldnt they parade around numbers that show such an extreme level of safety as these?
@freemo That’s a good question, but the #MSM repeatedly saying “the vaccines are safe” would probably stick better with the public than “there’s a 4 in 1 million chance that you’ll get #Thrombosis” lol
> The vaccines are safe” would probably stick better with the public than “there’s a 4 in 1 million chance that you’ll get #Thrombosis”
Sure, but both these statements are just different phrasings of the same statement. They are just two different ways of saying it is safe. The reason the second one is less likely to be used is because most people wont understand what it means or that it is equivelant to saying its safe.
To put it in to perspective your chance of being struck by lightening in your life time is 16x higher than your chance of getting myocarditis from a covid vaccine. It would literally make more sense to never leave your home again for fear it isnt safe from lightening than it would be to get the vaccine.
@freemo Well, it cites something that debunks conspiracy theories. That’s kind of important to me. There is validity and weight to citing science and studies that just doesn’t exist when it comes to stating their conclusion without the underlying evidence.
There is no supported evidence of weakened mutation, rather those must susceptible have usually already been adversely impacted and whether through viral infection or vaccination (or both) antibodies have led to reduced rates of severity in the remaining population. Yet COVID remains many times more likely to cause severe illness or long-term health outcomes than flu (even if mild cases are often far milder).
