Pfizer is holding governments to ransom

1337WuLF

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
433
PS: Your idea would in fact be the bigger racket as it would result in endless treatments; let the people continue to get hospitalized with COVID and treat them with numerous rounds of drugs like Regeneron or Ivermectin vs giving them two/three shots and calling it a day... :anyway:

This kind of response shows me you haven't looked at any of the meta analysis data I linked you, because if you did you'd understand that there would be lower amounts off hospitalisations and ICU admissions with Ivermectin use, not more. I am not sure where you're getting that assumption that there would be more hospitalisations with Invermectin use? Do you not understand what profelactic means? Perhaps you should do some actual research for yourself and read some of the studies and meta analysis I have linked you.

Nobody is saying there would be no more vaccine if we started using Ivermectin. It's not an Ivermectin vs Vaccine situation like you seem to be insinuating. There's no reason why both can't be used where necessary.


It's not just two or three shots and calling it a day though is it? It's a 6 monthly booster shot or you don't count as being vaccinated.

As I said previously: these COVID discussions make me feel like my IQ is approaching that of a sunflower.
Hey, you said it man. ;)
 

jonnyah

Jr. VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Apr 6, 2016
Messages
739
Reaction score
1,229
This kind of response shows me you haven't looked at any of the meta analysis data I linked you, because if you did you'd understand that there would be lower amounts off hospitalisations and ICU admissions with Ivermectin use, not more. I am not sure where you're getting that assumption that there would be more hospitalisations with Invermectin use? Do you not understand what profelactic means? Perhaps you should do some actual research for yourself and read some of the studies and meta analysis I have linked you.

Nobody is saying there would be no more vaccine if we started using Ivermectin. It's not an Ivermectin vs Vaccine situation like you seem to be insinuating. There's no reason why both can't be used where necessary.


It's not just two or three shots and calling it a day though is it? It's a 6 monthly booster shot or you don't count as being vaccinated.


Hey, you said it man. ;)
Hey mate, looks like there's a bunch of plaigiram and fraud accusations being levelled at at least some of the Ivermectin trials, with papers being withdrawn from publication due to numerous inconsistencies.

Looks like it's very much still not a proven effective treatment.

Why would you constantly promote something that likely doesn't work or is at least unproven?




 

Crazycam727

Power Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Messages
764
Reaction score
926
Except none of that makes any sense.

All biotech and drug contracts are like that. The covid ones aren't different.

If you people are against this, then you should stop eating and drinking anything at all. Don't go near chicken, coke, pizza, burgers, fries, saturated fats, etc.

Every single fertilizer contract on the corn you eat, meats, potatoes, grains, everything contains chemicals that you would never go near if you read their fine print.

So if you people are radically against the only solution to the pandemic, then you should stop eating all processed foods and stop using all other medications as well. You should also never go to a hospital again, because thefirst thing you do at a hospital is sign waivers. They cannot be held responsible for anything unless it's gross negligence. For all issues, like allergic reactions, sudden death and so on, they can't be held liable.

Now, knowing that this is the case, then why are people still against the only thing that can solve the pandemic??

You eat poison all day and now you take issue with a vaccine that is safer than eating a street hotdog? Why? Makes zero sense.

Very good points.

That’s why I eat organic wherever possible, haven’t used the NHS since I was born, and I eat processed foods on special occasions.

Now, knowing all that, will you please accept my view on the vaccines? :anyway:
 

andyframpton

Jr. VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
698
Reaction score
1,056
Very good points.

That’s why I eat organic wherever possible, haven’t used the NHS since I was born, and I eat processed foods on special occasions.

Now, knowing all that, will you please accept my view on the vaccines? :anyway:
You have never been the dentist?
Never had any vaccine of any kind? MMR? Rotavirus? BCG?
Never been checked as a baby to see your growth?
If not I would really question your parents.
 

IMMFROMPORTUGAL

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
54
This kind of response shows me you haven't looked at any of the meta analysis data I linked you, because if you did you'd understand that there would be lower amounts off hospitalisations and ICU admissions with Ivermectin use, not more. I am not sure where you're getting that assumption that there would be more hospitalisations with Invermectin use? Do you not understand what profelactic means? Perhaps you should do some actual research for yourself and read some of the studies and meta analysis I have linked you.

Nobody is saying there would be no more vaccine if we started using Ivermectin. It's not an Ivermectin vs Vaccine situation like you seem to be insinuating. There's no reason why both can't be used where necessary.


It's not just two or three shots and calling it a day though is it? It's a 6 monthly booster shot or you don't count as being vaccinated.


Hey, you said it man. ;)
aren't you worried about the long term damage of using ivermectin? I heard liver failure is not very pleasant.
 

IMMFROMPORTUGAL

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
54
Very good points.

That’s why I eat organic wherever possible, haven’t used the NHS since I was born, and I eat processed foods on special occasions.

Now, knowing all that, will you please accept my view on the vaccines? :anyway:
thats hilarious "eating organic will protect you against a novel virus" XD
 

splishsplash

Jr. Executive VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
6,077
Website
wolfofblogstreet.com
thats hilarious "eating organic will protect you against a novel virus" XD

I'm sure you think that makes you sound really smart to say "novel virus". But you might want to check what that means first.


"A novel virus is a virus that has not previously been recorded."

You use it to sound like it's some sort of hardcore virus.

This just shows the level of education of the people commenting here on biology. The most simple of terms are incorrectly used.

No offence, but you aren't qualified in the slightest to be saying things like this :-

aren't you worried about the long term damage of using ivermectin? I heard liver failure is not very pleasant.
 

polecat

Jr. VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
2,447
Website
www.banatgamesstyle.com
It's bullshit. It's also illegal.
Even if it was true, that's one person.
I doubt a MD would be revealing illegal trading to some random chump on the Internet.
Just because something is illegal does not mean it does not happen.

Illegal things happen everyday of the week I don't think this is big secret to anyone else except you .

It never happened online it happened in real life

Try and smarting up if you can instead of living in your make-believe life as you seem to be in.
 

IMMFROMPORTUGAL

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
54
I'm sure you think that makes you sound really smart to say "novel virus". But you might want to check what that means first.


"A novel virus is a virus that has not previously been recorded."

You use it to sound like it's some sort of hardcore virus.

This just shows the level of education of the people commenting here on biology. The most simple of terms are incorrectly used.

No offence, but you aren't qualified in the slightest to be saying things like this :-
lmao the level of your ego to think that "Novel" was used in a manner to make me sound smart haha

Dude everyone that has been following this pandemic knows already the meaning of "novel virus" i used the term because if you knew anything about epidemiology you would understand that the term is used when talking about the immune response of the human body when dealing with a virus that never encountered before, thus the emphasis scientists have made on using the term so laymen can understand why the virus is so rampant and hard to deal with, there is no natural immunity.

The term was not used incorrectly, your ego got in the way of understanding the meaning of the phrase lmao, i will explain in a manner that your mind can comprehend that doesn't cause you to have difficulties understanding:

Eating organic food is good for your overall health and may help with your immune system but won't protect you from a novel virus that your body doesn't have antibodies to deal with. That goes to counter the argument of many people that say "just be healthy bro" , that doesn't matter when your immune system ist facing a "NOVEL VIRUS".

Do you understand now?
 

poliku

Newbie
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
62
That goes to counter the argument of many people that say "just be healthy bro" , that doesn't matter when your immune system ist facing a "NOVEL VIRUS".

Over 95% percent of those who "died of covid" had other health problems as well .

That means if we followed "just be healthy bro" advice the death rate would be 20 times smaller.

So how can you say : "that doesn't matter" ?

If you're healthy your immune system is prepared enough for this "extremely deathly novel virus" lol
 

IMMFROMPORTUGAL

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
54
Over 95% percent of those who "died of covid" had other health problems as well .

That means "just be healthy bro" advice would make the death rate 20 times smaller.

If you're healthy your immune system is prepared enough for this "extremely deathly novel virus" ...
being healthy gives you a much bigger chance of surviving, so far i haven't seen much data regarding long-haul-covid or other symptoms that prevail months after contracting the infection, but we have many cases of athletes and healthy people that develop those long-term issues. I'm steaming my broccoli right now and grilling my meat, did exercise already, but i'm vaccinated and try to take as much precautions as possible.

Also you have to think about the rest of society, if this is a wake up call for many people that were living carelessly without taking into consideration what they eat and how they live their daily lives? True. But there are many others that simply have diseases that put them at risk, others are just old, eating healthy and doing exercise is a good mantra for everyone but won't be enough to deal with this pandemic.

(CNN)Oonagh Cousins was training up to 35 hours a week after she was picked for the British rowing team for the Tokyo Olympics, despite contracting Covid-19 in February 2020.
The 26-year-old from Surrey experienced a mild case of the disease, so she felt able to make a quick return to training. But she thinks that the intense exercise may have exacerbated the virus, adding that "it ended up developing into really bad long Covid," forcing her out of the Olympic team.
"At its worst, for a couple of months, I would say I really struggled to get out of bed at all," Cousins said. "Getting out of bed to make breakfast was a huge mountain to climb."


https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/21/...gling-with-long-covid-spt-intl-cmd/index.html

How elite athletes have struggled with the long-term effects of Covid​


https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2021/3...overy-stories-jayson-tatum-mo-bamba-asia-durr

Researchers estimate about 10% of COVID-19 patients become long haulers, according to a recent article from The Journal of the American Medical Association and a study done by British scientists. That’s in line with what UC Davis Health is seeing.
This condition can effect anyone – old and young, otherwise healthy people and those battling other conditions. It has been seen in those who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and patients with very mild symptoms.


https://health.ucdavis.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-information/covid-19-long-haulers.html



10% Thats a big number and another reminder to the anti vaxxers that talk about the vaccine side effects that are less likely to happen than when contracting the virus.
 
Last edited:

ttmschine

Power Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
717
Reaction score
420
Edward Bernays was the guy who came up with changing public thinking and behviour, the nephew of Freud he is the one responsible for getting women smoking and doctors pushing smoking as good for you, he also convinced the world that breakfast is the most important meal of the day and bacon is the perfect food (again using doctors while working for the bacon industry) and a whole lot more.

A lot of his work involved using doctors in white coats because the public won't dare to contradict "experts", and the basic premise for diempowering the public is, to paraphrase,

"split them down into groups by religion, race, colour, gender, etc and convince one of them that the others are a danger to them. Because each side will fervently believe that their beliefs are obviously right there can be no chance of rational discussion between them, they will distrust and dislike each other, and then by pushing the invisible buttons of emotions, desires and fears that will bypass their cognitive function they can be unknowingly to them, directed to think and behave as the "invisible government" want them to. In this way where they had strength previously through their unity, now they are weak through division."

Or words to that effect. You have seen this over the last few decades (toxic masculinity, etc), and you can see exactly that happening right now re jabs.
 

splishsplash

Jr. Executive VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
6,077
Website
wolfofblogstreet.com
lmao the level of your ego to think that "Novel" was used in a manner to make me sound smart haha

Dude everyone that has been following this pandemic knows already the meaning of "novel virus" i used the term because if you knew anything about epidemiology you would understand that the term is used when talking about the immune response of the human body when dealing with a virus that never encountered before, thus the emphasis scientists have made on using the term so laymen can understand why the virus is so rampant and hard to deal with, there is no natural immunity.

The term was not used incorrectly, your ego got in the way of understanding the meaning of the phrase lmao, i will explain in a manner that your mind can comprehend that doesn't cause you to have difficulties understanding:

Eating organic food is good for your overall health and may help with your immune system but won't protect you from a novel virus that your body doesn't have antibodies to deal with. That goes to counter the argument of many people that say "just be healthy bro" , that doesn't matter when your immune system ist facing a "NOVEL VIRUS".

Do you understand now?

No, "everyone", including you doesn't know the meaning of "novel virus".

Randomly using the word "epidemiology" doesn't impress me. Especially since you really haven't used it correctly either.

The word "epidemiology" has nothing to do with "talking about the immune response of the human body when dealing with a virus that never encountered before".

A novel virus is simply a virus we haven't encountered before. You are implying that a novel virus is "more rampant" and "hard to deal with", because we have no natural immunity.

This is not true at all.

Most people have no natural immunity to the majority of viruses in the world. Novel or not.

You have no natural immunity to the ebola virus. It is not a novel virus. Therefore, this proves your statement is untrue.

Also, epidemiology is the study of the causes of diseases in a population. It's got nothing to do with immune response when a novel virus is encountered. There are novel viruses that are near harmless.

And your statement about organic food is silly.

Once again, a novel virus has NOTHING to do with your immune system. There is no difference between a novel virus and a virus we already know. Your immune system has never seen it before. As I said, your immune system has not seen the ebola virus. It is NOT a novel virus.

Please, stop pretending to be an expert in viruses and the immune system. You are not.

I am not.

But I know enough to spot bullshit from someone pretending they know what they are talking about.

I won't even attempt to explain any of this. The immune system is very complex. Reducing this down to "a healthy immune system won't protect you from a novel virus" is biology at the level of a caveman. It's so far off the mark there's no point even discussing it.

You may as well say "A blue banana won't help you win a marathon!!"

This whole line of attack is ridiculous. STOP TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO TAKE EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE. Mind your own business and get on with your own life.
 

IMMFROMPORTUGAL

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
54
No, "everyone", including you doesn't know the meaning of "novel virus".

Randomly using the word "epidemiology" doesn't impress me. Especially since you really haven't used it correctly either.

The word "epidemiology" has nothing to do with "talking about the immune response of the human body when dealing with a virus that never encountered before".

A novel virus is simply a virus we haven't encountered before. You are implying that a novel virus is "more rampant" and "hard to deal with", because we have no natural immunity.

This is not true at all.

Most people have no natural immunity to the majority of viruses in the world. Novel or not.

You have no natural immunity to the ebola virus. It is not a novel virus. Therefore, this proves your statement is untrue.

Also, epidemiology is the study of the causes of diseases in a population. It's got nothing to do with immune response when a novel virus is encountered. There are novel viruses that are near harmless.

And your statement about organic food is silly.

Once again, a novel virus has NOTHING to do with your immune system. There is no difference between a novel virus and a virus we already know. Your immune system has never seen it before. As I said, your immune system has not seen the ebola virus. It is NOT a novel virus.

Please, stop pretending to be an expert in viruses and the immune system. You are not.

I am not.

But I know enough to spot bullshit from someone pretending they know what they are talking about.

I won't even attempt to explain any of this. The immune system is very complex. Reducing this down to "a healthy immune system won't protect you from a novel virus" is biology at the level of a caveman. It's so far off the mark there's no point even discussing it.

You may as well say "A blue banana won't help you win a marathon!!"

This whole line of attack is ridiculous. STOP TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO TAKE EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE. Mind your own business and get on with your own life.
so many straw mans your whole dribble is extremely hilarious.

Your ego is so big that you think that normal words used on a daily basis are used to sound smart or to pretend to be an expert on a digital marketing forum, i understand you have an image to defend here that's your problem, but you sound delusional.

Tell me more about how Epidemiologists that study Immuno-epidemiology don't study immune response of pathogens on the human body xD

"I won't even attempt to explain any of this. The immune system is very complex. Reducing this down to "a healthy immune system won't protect you from a novel virus" is biology at the level of a caveman. It's so far off the mark there's no point even discussing it."

lmao you are attacking me for saying that eating organic food won't be enough to deal with the virus but you are ok with someone saying that eating organic food is the way. We have enough data to say that being healthy won't be enough to protect you from the virus and that's a fact.

"This whole line of attack is ridiculous. STOP TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO TAKE EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE. Mind your own business and get on with your own life."

you are the king of fallacies, where did i force anyone to take the vaccine? Just quote me... i will be waiting, you are just making a fool of yourself. I always posted that it is a personal choice, everyone has to read and take into consideration the data and science behind it. But nice try.
 
Last edited:

splishsplash

Jr. Executive VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
6,077
Website
wolfofblogstreet.com
so many straw mans your whole dribble is extremely hilarious.

ok

Your ego is so big that you think that normal words used on a daily basis are used to sound smart or to pretend to be an expert on a digital marketing forum, i understand you have an image to defend here that's your problem, but you sound delusional.

You keep saying this about my ego. There isn't really a response to this other than to perhaps call you out on ad hominem.

lmao you are attacking me for saying that eating organic food won't be enough to deal with the virus but you are ok with someone saying that eating organic food is the way. We have enough data to say that being healthy won't be enough to protect you from the virus and that's a fact.

You've used a straw-man argument here. I never said I was ok with someone saying organic food will protect you from a virus.

I am saying to you, that a novel virus or non-novel virus is irrelevant when discussing an immune response. Novel virus does not imply what you are implying that it implies. Ie, that it's more harsh and harder for the immune system to deal with. This is false.

"This whole line of attack is ridiculous. STOP TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO TAKE EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE. Mind your own business and get on with your own life."

you are the king of fallacies, where did i force anyone to take the vaccine? Just quote me... i will be waiting, you are just making a full of yourself. I always posted that it is a personal choice, everyone has to read and take into consideration the data and science behind it. But nice try.

Ok.

One question, when you see things like this https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com do you still believe that those that died believing that covid was an hoax shouldn't have just took the jab and be alive for their friends and family ?

There you go.

That's me made a "full" of myself now.

That's as clear-cut as it gets. Posting a disgusting website full of "anti-vaxxer" deaths. If this isn't trying to fear people into taking the vaccine, then I don't know what is.

But. Chega. Por favor. CHEGA. Vai fazer dinheiro.
 

IMMFROMPORTUGAL

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
54
ok



You keep saying this about my ego. There isn't really a response to this other than to perhaps call you out on ad hominem.



You've used a straw-man argument here. I never said I was ok with someone saying organic food will protect you from a virus.

I am saying to you, that a novel virus or non-novel virus is irrelevant when discussing an immune response. Novel virus does not imply what you are implying that it implies. Ie, that it's more harsh and harder for the immune system to deal with. This is false.



Ok.



There you go.

That's me made a "full" of myself, now.

That's as clear-cut as it gets. Posting a disgusting website full of "anti-vaxxer" deaths. If this isn't trying to fear people into taking the vaccine, then I don't know what is.

But. Chega. Por favor. CHEGA. Vai fazer dinheiro.

Tell me more about how Epidemiologists that study Immuno-epidemiology don't study immune response of pathogens on the human body xD

"That's as clear-cut as it gets. Posting a disgusting website full of "anti-vaxxer" deaths. If this isn't trying to fear people into taking the vaccine, then I don't know what is."

That's me forcing the vaccine into anyone? I was the first to question the vaccine weeks before taking it, i tell everyone to make their own choice. When i saw that site i was filled with sadness, that could be my father or my mother, there is only sadness when i think of that and the destruction and pain it brought to many people, 0 glee or happiness, as i said that could be one of my family members that doesn't want to take the vaccine, it's their choice but i think about it everyday, because i don't want them to die from something that is preventable.

As i said, not forcing anyone to take it and once again your attack was weak. But nice try.

"Novel virus does not imply what you are implying that it implies. Ie, that it's more harsh and harder for the immune system to deal with. This is false."

So are you saying that virus exposure doesn't mean a thing regarding immune response? That's interesting. The thing is it may imply or not and in this case it does, we have enough data to prove that.
 

splishsplash

Jr. Executive VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
6,077
Website
wolfofblogstreet.com
Tell me more about how Epidemiologists that study Immuno-epidemiology don't study immune response of pathogens on the human body xD

This is another straw-man.

Let me be ultra clear as I keep doing, to attempt to steer you towards the ONE single point you made.

You said: Having a strong immune system from eating good food does not help you against a novel virus, because novel viruses cause more harm due to the fact that the body has no antibodies.

I said: This is false. Novel, or non-novel does not imply a more dangerous virus and has nothing to do with the immune response. A novel virus can be harmless. A non-novel virus can be harmless. A novel virus can be dangerous. A non-novel virus can be dangerous. And on top of that, most people do not have antibodies for non-novel viruses, so novel vs non-novel is irrelevant. Quite simply put, your use of the word "novel" virus in an attempt to make it sound more dangerous, as the media love to do is NOT VALID.

Waiting on your next straw-man
 

IMMFROMPORTUGAL

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
143
Reaction score
54
This is another straw-man.

Let me be ultra clear as I keep doing, to attempt to steer you towards the ONE single point you made.

You said: Having a strong immune system from eating good food does not help you against a novel virus, because novel viruses cause more harm due to the fact that the body has no antibodies.

I said: This is false. Novel, or non-novel does not imply a more dangerous virus and has nothing to do with the immune response. A novel virus can be harmless. A non-novel virus can be harmless. A novel virus can be dangerous. A non-novel virus can be dangerous. And on top of that, most people do not have antibodies for non-novel viruses, so novel vs non-novel is irrelevant. Quite simply put, your use of the word "novel" virus in an attempt to make it sound more dangerous, as the media love to do is NOT VALID.

Waiting on your next straw-man
I would agree with you regarding the use of the word but not with the implications you are giving.

You are saying that i used novel because i want to fear monger, that's just nonsense that's a notion you have but it's entirely false, what do i gain from fear mongering on a marketing forum? That's why it's hard to deal with people that believe in all kinds of conspiracies, a normal conversation turns the opposition into a "paid shill" or someone that has an agenda when that's not the case.

After reading your posts i understand what you are saying regarding the use of the word novel as a novel virus per see doesn't mean it will be more dangerous but i would argue that a novel virus has bigger chance of being dangerous because of the lack of antibodies and previous exposure. In that sense you know we are talking specifically about the Novel CoronaVirus and the implication of being harsher or more dangerous is based on the data and information we have from the start of the pandemic.

I will give you that probably i should have said , novel coronavirus instead of using the novel term as i did, making you think that i was using it to imply that is a big scary virus. I should have just said, "eating organic food won't protect you from the coronavirus" and all of this would be behind us.


"You said: Having a strong immune system from eating good food does not help you against a novel virus, because novel viruses cause more harm due to the fact that the body has no antibodies."

i said this: "Eating organic food is good for your overall health and may help with your immune system but won't protect you from a novel virus that your body doesn't have antibodies to deal with."

Maybe i generalized and let myself fall into the trap of generalizing novel virus not taking into consideration the fact that many novel virus could be harmless but i was totally thinking about the pandemic at hand and referring to the coronavirus, that was a mistake by my part.
 
Last edited:

splishsplash

Jr. Executive VIP
Jr. VIP
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
6,077
Website
wolfofblogstreet.com
I would agree with you regarding the use of the word but not with the implications you are giving.

You are saying that i used novel because i want to fear monger, that's just nonsense that's a notion you have but it's entirely false, what do i gain from fear mongering on a marketing forum? That's why it's hard to deal with people that believe in all kinds of conspiracies, a normal conversation turns the opposition into a "paid shill" or someone that has an agenda when that's not the case.

After reading your posts i understand what you are saying regarding the use of novel virus as a novel virus per see doesn't mean it will be more dangerous but i would argue that a novel virus has bigger chance of being dangerous because of the lack of antibodies and previous exposure. In that sense you know we are talking specifically about the Novel CoronaVirus and the implication of being harsher or more dangerous is based on the data and information we have the start of the pandemic.

It's not about being a paid shill. It's basic human psychology. People are highly polarized in their views and most people will fight anyone who disagrees with their view. That's why you cannot change people's opinions with logic, ever. People choose a side, and that side is their identity.

So the mind believes that if they are proven wrong, it is ego-death basically. People will then fight to the death to defend their beliefs. This includes hammering anyone with opposing views and trying to convince them, because as long as that other person is alive with those beliefs, they are a threat to the ego-construct tied to this belief. That is why you are pasting outright disgusting sites.

And let me be clear. I have lost my temper, and it's because of the site you posted. I'm normally fairly neutral, but that site really disgusted me. It's full of people basically celebrating the deaths of "anti-vaxxers". It's sick. It make me want to vomit to be honest with you. To see people fall so far and get so manipulated that they start celebrating the death of their fellow man.

I will give you that probably i should have said , novel coronavirus instead of using the novel term as i did, making you think that i was using it to imply that is a big scary virus. I should have just said, "eating organic food won't protect you from the coronavirus" and all of this would be behind us.

Fair enough. I take my hat off to you for this and you've gained my respect for admitting this.

I really only nit-picked you because of that site. I really don't like it.
 
Top