Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

song

Members
  • Posts

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

198 Excellent

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Pittsburgh Steelers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. thanks for responding. i don't know the reason either. i think we can safely assume it's not a good reason.
  2. tbh, given that essentially NONE of our population can be trusted to make ANY decision properly/optimally, it seems we are setting up for a dreadfully interesting future. Social Credits only bad for the Chinese?
  3. seems like. i'm interested in hearing you speculate about why the govt doesn't want to.
  4. 2Squirrels, because i have no doubt about your sincere good intentions in posting, i'm going to be silly and respond. It may be likely that every word in the link you provide (except the CDC study part, and that's close enough) is true. But to my eye, the article linked is a blatantly inflammatory piece of propaganda of the sort that contributes to the skepticism of those suspicious of the dominant narrative around Covid-19. Here are a few reasons i say that: 1st about the CDC study part. The article linked refers to it as a CDC study, but later states it was "produced by a Marin County health official and researchers from" three CA universities, "and was published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report". Like i said, close enough perhaps, but deceptive. If you click on the link in the article that says CDC study, you can see the study as published in the MMWR, as well as the disclaimer in fine print at page bottom that says (reasonably) that MMWR is not responsible for the information from non-CDC sites. The fact that the 2nd word in the headline is unvaccinated, when that may or may not be relevant to possibility of transmission, in a particular case, as even the CDC has acknowledged, reveals the article's primary goal of focusing negatively on vaccine status, whether relevant in this case or not. Now as for the 4th word in the headline "started", stated as fact. Right beneath the headline the article says the teacher was "presumed" to have started an outbreak. And though both the study and the article about it refer to the teacher as the "index patient" (initiator of chain of transmission), both also refer to the transmission chain as "assumes" and "thought to be". In the discussion section of the study the reason for hedging is clarified as it states, "The findings of the study are subject to at least three limitations. First, the teachers specimen was unavailable for WGS" (turns out that's whole genetic sequencing) "which prevented phylogenetic identification of the outbreak's index patient". Interestingly, the article states that four of the student's parents tested positive. It then makes a point of saying "one of them was unvaccinated". So, teacher may well be guilty as charged, but that kind of slanted, deceptive article does a disservice to anyone hoping to build trust. And CDC, really? smh
  5. Thank you. That's potentially wonderful. But careful, that's not the approved narrative. Interesting that 15 hours later, no one has commented on this at all.
  6. apologies. you appear to be more educated than myself. i am glad i provided an incentive for you to provide more evidence for your liability concerns.
  7. c'mon guys. i tend to stand with you "vaccine" skeptics, but please educate yourselves re: vaccine liability. vaccine liability has been eliminated or limited since 1986 and something called something like the Childhood Vaccine Injury Liability law. it's nothing new. what's new is changing the definition of vaccine in the last year to include the mRNA genetic therapies, presumably so they are covered. interestingly, the CDC has a page on these liability limitations in which it justifies them by citing the years of trials vaccines undergo to demonstrate their relative safety.
  8. thank you for responding. enjoy your break. 90k. whew, i feel better now. thought that was probably what you intended but wanted to make sure since you were speaking of red flags and not necessarily bullish volatility.
  9. well that got my attention. can you elaborate at all? and thank you.
  10. i agree with your points. not sure why they are important though unless you are addressing those who think "they" want to kill or physically harm people, (and there are those that think that). i certainly didn't say or imply that. my post was suggesting that our institutions have earned mistrust, and expressing my amazement that so many here seem to have a suspension of skepticism and say or imply that those who "don't trust the government" are crazy . to me, it seems weird to think that suddenly, globally, there would be such a 24/7 coordinated governmental/institutional effort motivated by sincere, passionate caring about the well being of everyone of us. call me crazy, but that seems..... different.
  11. yeah, the phenomena you mention is weird. but i said politics aside. my guess is that there are people across the political spectrum who mistrust government and powerful institutions, and that they are actually more likely to be apolitical and agnostic about the USA #1 status than average.
  12. i'm guessing main cause of vaccine resistance is the well deserved mistrust a whole lot of people (politics aside) have for government, MSM, corporations, and powerful organizations/establishment in general. i think the majority would agree with the generalizations: politicians lie business is primarily concerned with profit the more individuals and organizations have to lose, the more likely they are to go along with the current popular narrative to cover their ###. given that, i've been kind of amazed that trust seems to be the default mode for so many in this thread. kind of get it though. way back when WMD in Iraq was being questioned, my mom told me "you have to trust somebody".
×
  • Create New...