Originally Posted by
fj1200
Sorry, "single digit benefit" with a distinct difference between those two numbers. For example there's a single digit difference between 1 and 9 but there's an 800% difference between the two numbers. Over 3 and under 1 is a not insignificant difference.
isn't the "difference" between 1 and 2.... 100%!!!!
So you want to look at the "difference" between 2 and 5 rather than as presented... 2 and 5... per 100,000?
In math class "the difference" may be part of an honest answer, but in real life the factor of 100,000 makes THE DIFFERENCE... and you know it FJ?
Originally Posted by
fj1200
I was presented with a raw assertion that India is on the Ivermectin bandwagon and based on what I found it is no longer true if it ever was. I also quoted some studies which showed no statistical difference in treatment outcomes with Ivermectin and without. So my raw assertion stands along with the fact that there is a larger number of obese in this country who probably insist that drinking Diet Coke gives them a positive outcome. So, to get those people, and the mass population, to adopt Ivermectin over a two shot vaccine is a fools errand.
your assertion was false.
And if the gov't and companies MANDATED walking 30 minutes on the job/school everyday OR NO JOB, NO SCHOOL, NO entry in bakeries, bars, or fast food places I suspect more than few would do it.
Originally Posted by
fj1200
Show me some links to actual studies please. I've seen plenty of crap in video form on the internet.
there are all the links to studies needed in the post,
If you'd actually taken time to look rather than assume there are none you would have seen them.
But here's one of the links embedded in the post before.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...323#post987323
Originally Posted by
fj1200
How did you know that I simultaneously own and work for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen selling my wares to any unsuspecting independent thinker
getting them on the vaccine bandwagon with the knowledge that I'm protected from lawsuits from aforementioned suckers!!!!!!!!!!! BwahhahahahahaajrWE;KJHFASD'LK.
Just as i suspected.
Originally Posted by
fj1200
Believe what you like. Each of your points can be, and have been, refuted or at the very least aren't as cut and dry as you want them to be. So go ahead and get on your bandwagon of getting everyone on a diet. Because that'll work.
Each of the points have been denied.. but not refuted
several of my points have been ignored in your reply not refutedAll the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
unrefuted
All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups, many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
unrefuted
The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT.
Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.
downplayed but unrefuted
the vaccines don't stop transmission,
unrefuted
they don't stop infection
unrefuted
and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway,
downplayed but unrefuted
and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.
games played with stats
AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.
Info proving this is censored, downplayed, ignored and mocked ... but never fully debated or refuted.
As i said before, taken together the argument FOR vaccines is WEAK at best.
However the propaganda for them is EXTREMELY STRONG. (and the censorship/suppression of information is real)
Trying to access things objectively in this climate is not easy for anyone.