On Thu 25 Mar at 7:09pm Nevillman wrote:
Symes has banned any posts by anti vaxxers and responses to them by Pro vaxxers. On the one hand this is once again blatant censorship and it really doesn't take long to scroll past. Anyone stupid enough to believe their argument deserves to get it. On the other hand it would mean that Tom would be banned..........
To save me having to come back and respond I would like to point out that I am obsessed, I do need to get a life, I realise that splitting everyone up as pro or anti vaxxers is ridiculously simplistic and I don't care whether you want to have the vaccination or not.
On Thu 25 Mar at 10:21pm Tom Pain wrote:
I think you'll find that Facebook don't tolerate any deviation from the World Hoax Organisation dictates. How else could you get the entire world acting in lockstep? You will own nothing and you will be happy (as long as you take your medicine). The term- Anti-vaxxer is such a weaponisation of language. Someone who wishes to make their own decisions about their own health and bodily integrity is not anti anything but criminal violation of their god given rights. You might as well say they are anti cancer or anti being tortured. It's deliberately giving a negative connotation to a positive attitude.
On Sun 28 Mar at 5:42pm Formerly AC-T wrote:
But it's not just a decision about their own health, is it, TP?
Anyone becoming infected is likely to affect someone else. Vaccination reduces the viral load in the affected person and thus reduces both the risk of infection and and the severity of infection if it occurs.
There are plenty of people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, people with certain auto-immune disorders or having cancer treatment, and the vaccine hasn't been tested on pregnant women, so its effects on them and their babies is unknown.
I think not having the vaccine if you are able to have it is pure selfishness, tbh.
On Tue 30 Mar at 11:37am Tom Pain wrote:
Bang on target, act, emotional blackmail at it's finest. Beautifully crafted with a final twist of the knife at the end. I'm sure this line is being insinuated by the media 24/7, that's why I don't watch or read it. The experimental gene therapy is being tested on us as we communicate and the benefits you describe are NOT PROVEN. All we have are details released by pharmaceutical companies with a track record which, should you have the inclination to examine, is far from spotless; communicated by a panel of experts, many of whom with a substantial financial interest in the drugs they are pushing.
If we were talking about the Black Death there might be a good reason for the corner cutting in drug testing and licensing which is being carried out; but in the case of complaint that has a 99+% survival rate, I'm not so sure. This corona virus is nothing more than what was commonly known as the flu, a cold or a virus. The fact that they have disappeared should alert you to that in spite of it not being pointed out in the media.
Thus I utterly repudiate your imputation of selfishness and repeat the old maxim- take the plank out of your own eye before looking for sawdust in another's.
On Tue 30 Mar at 11:37pm Tom Pain wrote:
In an instance of serendipity, I chanced on a report from October 2008 by the American National Institute of Health co-authored by Dr. Fauchi. It was a study of the cause of deaths in the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic. It was concluded that death was caused by BACTERIAL pneumonia.
I don't pretend to have any professional medical knowledge, but I have read that wearing masks can cause bacterial infections. Whether or not this has any bearing on the present situation I have no idea but it does sustain my belief that mask wearing is not healthy and may be as bad for others as myself.
On Thu 1 Apr at 5:16pm Chartist wrote:
TP: Bacterial pneumonia is a complication of viral respiratory infections. Whether it was bacterial pneumonia or the Spanish flu virus, the fact is that 100,000,000 people died from it.
And it doesn't spontaneously generate behind a mask - you pick it up by contagion (touching something contaminated then transferring it to your mouth or nose) or infection by inhaling contaminated air (someone else's cough or sneeze for example).
You're not Piers Adams are you? He spouts similar anti-vax nonsense.
On Thu 1 Apr at 6:11pm Tom Pain wrote:
A chartist is not a medical expert, at least not to my knowledge. Bacterial pneumonia is caused by a bacteria called streptococcus and other bacteria. A bacteria is not a virus nor the product of one. Masks have as much to do with vaccinations as sunglasses . Do you wear them ? Are you anti vaxx? You sound like Matt Hancock, is that who you are? Perhaps you are the handy man, in which case you have replied in the wrong thread because your statements have nothing to do with this one.
On Fri 2 Apr at 3:04pm Chartist wrote:
TP, let's not waste time on the nonsense of nominative determinism.
I know full well the difference between a bacterium (the singular of bacteria) and a virus. Bacterial pneumonia can be a complication (as in secondary infection) of a viral respiratory infection.
Masks help reduce the risk of spreading infection, and of picking it up. Yes I wear a mask. No I'm not anti-vax, in fact I'm ardently pro-vax. What on earth made you think I might be anti?
No I am not the handy man, whoever they are, and my statements are relevant to this thread.
On Fri 2 Apr at 8:23pm Tom Pain wrote:
At first you sounded like dreamer, now you're turning into the ferret.
On Tue 6 Apr at 6:50pm IDM wrote:
We seem to have drifted off thread a bit, but if the thread has changed purpose ....
Survival here is 99%+ now, but for quite a while it was about the world average and the experience of other countries, more like 97%. That's why, despite the unknown risks, I had the first dose.
I don't understand how masks can cause a bacterial infection. That is not to say that you are wrong TP, I'm just a bit flummoxed. Can you remember where you read it?
One of the pieces of guidance which seem to have been missed is "Don't share masks".
Of course the vaccine approval was rushed; it was all a question of balancing risks. It's because it was rushed that the results (as they were) were not properly understood; hence the AZ continental hoo-ha. For all we know, those vaccinated will all expire after about three years. Each individual has to weigh up the risks and make a decision.
On Tue 6 Apr at 7:40pm IDM wrote:
To return to the censorship issue. It seems to me if Symes (who s/he?) bans both vaxxers and anti-vaxxers, that's not really censorship. It's more like "No discussion of this please, it will only cause trouble". Rather like the pub signs, "No religion or politics".
I've changed my mind about the thread contents. For this stuff, I am moving to BSP2. If anyone wants to follow me ...
On Tue 6 Apr at 11:28pm Tom Pain wrote:
It's always been less than 99% and we have some of the worst stats in the world. That might be because they're exaggerated by the the recording method of including everyone who dies after testing positive no matter what they died of. That 99% is of people who GOT the damned flu. I don't know anyone who did. It's not a serious disease despite the propaganda. Did you enjoy the Christmas Pantodemic this year? The dullest show on earth- The Uncommon Cold.
On Wed 7 Apr at 10:04am Father Hackett wrote:
4000+ deaths due to covid in Brazil yesterday but its not a serious disease? Feckin eejits. Do your bit. Go and have your jabs and at least try to be like good citizens.
On Wed 7 Apr at 3:59pm Tom Pain wrote:
How many die each day in Brazil?
On Wed 7 Apr at 5:15pm Green Sleeves wrote:
@TP - a very good question, and one i struggled to easily google myself, perhaps someone else can dispute or correct these figures below if they can find something better though?
What i found is a figure of around 5.5m deaths, but I'm not entirely sure if this is for a 1 year or a 5 year period. If its 1 year, then it would equate to around 15,000 deaths per day on average. If that statistic covers an entire 5 year period, then we are talking about 3,000 deaths in Brazil on average per day.....so if 4,000 people died of COVID in one day, then its an alarming stat either way. Probably why we see news clips in Brazil struggling to cope with burying the dead....
On Wed 7 Apr at 6:30pm Father Hackett wrote:
It's not happening. It's all lies. Just like the holocaust and moon landings. Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and all the Gestapo were quite nice chaps too actually.
On Wed 7 Apr at 10:23pm Tom Pain wrote:
The American Food and Drug Administration has said that the "vaccination" does NOT prevent person to person infection of covid. For information about the moon landings the specialists will be the NASA. They're quite nice chaps as well. As for techniques of psychological manipulation and emotional blackmail may I suggest the Gestapo you kindly mentioned, though I don't think you need any assistance.
On Thu 8 Apr at 9:36am Father Hackett wrote:
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
On Thu 8 Apr at 5:36pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom Pain is probably a big fan of Brazillian president Jair Bolsonaro who is another covid denier.
Almost another 4k deaths recorded yesterday after the previous days record number. As per my previous post, Brazil averages in non-covid years around 1.3m deaths of all causes per year. This averages out to about 3000-3500 deaths per day. When Brazil starts to announce over 4000 deaths in a single day simply from covid, it's no wonder why Bolsonaro is being labelled as a genocidal maniac.
Seasonal flu blah blah blah...
On Thu 8 Apr at 9:56pm OscarCroft wrote:
Tom Pain is dirty little pissbaby
On Thu 8 Apr at 10:15pm Tom Pain wrote:
You've pre-empted me greenie. I was wondering,why Brazil? Then it hit me- Bolsonaro! He had to be the replacement bogy man for the Trump derangement syndromistas. Keep your eyes glued to the TV, he'll soon be biting the heads off kittens.Copacabana will be littered with corpses and only zombies will be dancing at Carnival. By the way, I think 15,000 a day average is nearer the mark, but that's not quite scarey enough, keep up the fear factor. As far as genocidal maniacs are concerned, you ought to check out the head of the WHO,he's no slouch.
On Thu 8 Apr at 10:34pm Tom Pain wrote:
Oh, oh, it's good to see the youngsters getting involved and so enthusiastically.
On Fri 9 Apr at 9:08am Green Sleeves wrote:
@tom pain. No, I double checked the death numbers in Brazil after my earlier post and 15000 a day (or over 5m a year) wasn't accurate and that 5m+ figure was indeed over a 5 year period. Hence why my more recent post centred on around an average of about 3-4k deaths per day in Brazil of all causes.
As I said before, it would have been alarming enough had it even been the larger figure, but the fact that it's average is 3k and covid has been killing 4k in recent days is even more staggering. It's not about causing fear, it's about facing reality. This pandemic has killed 3m people globally in just over a year despite enormous efforts to curb it and a huge vaccine roll out.
You think Bolsonaro is an ok guy then? I've only ever heard deluded Trump fans and Trump himself use the term "Trump derangement syndrome". It's never too late to admit you may have been wrong on all this. You would get a lot more respect for doing so...youll only face more ridicule by doubling down on this, which you appear to be. Pure denial and ego.
On Fri 9 Apr at 5:08pm Tom Pain wrote:
I'll leave the ego to you greenie, and the guilt by association ploy you use with depressing regularity.
On Fri 9 Apr at 5:59pm Father Hackett wrote:
Somewhere a village has lost its idiot.
On Fri 9 Apr at 7:10pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I'm guessing with the terse response that he does now think 4k deaths in a single day of COVID in Brazil is rather concerning. Perhaps he'll counter that many of them had car accidents, and just happened to test positive in the morgue for covid.
On Fri 9 Apr at 11:27pm Tom Pain wrote:
It's possible. The media shares your bias, the BBC is sponsored by the unnameable after all. Re another matter: the orange one was considerably less lethal to the rest of the world than his predecessor, n'est ce pas?
On Sat 10 Apr at 1:28pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Trump worse than Obama? GTFO. Trump claimed a lot of things, you'd be a fool to accept it. Drone strikes and bombing raids increased under Trump, despite his efforts to lie otherwise.
On Sat 10 Apr at 4:24pm Tom Pain wrote:
On Sat 10 Apr at 6:05pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I can just picture Trump dealing with the mess the Bush administration created and left in 2008. We should be somewhat grateful that Obama was around to pick up the pieces of that, as well as the banking recession, instead of Donald Trump. That would have been a spectacular disaster given his track record of multiple bankruptcies. Can I imagine Trump being a middle-east peacemaker during the peaks of Daesh in the region? Of course not, he's a total buffoon, and would have made a bad situation worse.
However, the 400k deaths caused by coronavirus in the US during his clumsy handling of the pandemic truly exposed Trump the elite incompentent imbecile he is.
On Sat 10 Apr at 7:58pm Tom Pain wrote:
Quite. I don't give a damn about Trump, I just can't understand why you think he's worse than any of them. The banking crisis was caused by the banks, they do it every so often to hoover up physical assets. Their license to create credit out of nothing is too enticing to resist abusing it.
On Sun 11 Apr at 1:03pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Because Trump IS a worse person than most others, and his incompetence has no bounds. Yes, bad stuff occurred without/before Trump, but the world certainly didn't need one of its superpowers to be set on fire by a buffoon like Donald Trump.
On Sun 11 Apr at 11:03pm Tom Pain wrote:
Yes you're right, the place is scheduled for demolition, just look at mentally impaired vegetable in charge of the once viable democratic party.
On Mon 12 Apr at 10:59am Green Sleeves wrote:
Biden is superior to Trump in every metric, and yet is still a weak democrat candidate. But it's still better than before so can't moan too much. I would have preferred Bernie Sanders, but Biden will do if the only alternative was Trump or another republican ghoul.
On Mon 12 Apr at 2:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
Still haven't realised that you'll never get Bernie? Just like the Right believers would never have got Ron Paul. The game is fixed.
On Mon 12 Apr at 3:18pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I believe Bernie Sanders would have been good enough to have beaten Trump (in both 2016 and 2020), but just grateful that someone in the Democrat Party did beat him. Biden is far from perfect, but I'd take him over anyone in the GOP.
On Mon 12 Apr at 11:35pm Tom Pain wrote:
Neither party can possibly have any power to do anything until they take back the power to create the currency from the privately owned Fed. They're little boys asking father for pocket money until that time. It's obvious.