Latest numbers from Europe,

[Wingman68]

No. Even Reformed1689 indicated your error.

You posted that covid was fake. Now you are backing off your comment. That is fine. You need to back away from it.

It is not your business how much I post. I'll post ever minute if I feel like it.

Stop trying to take away other people's freedoms.

I posted a story, I proceeded to say what if, then you twist & obfuscate.

As far as I can see, there are no posts missing on this thread, & Reformed1689 has NOT posted to this thread. Is that ‘misinformation’ on your part?

Take away other people’s freedoms? That would be you, in spades.

 

[JonC]

I posted a story, I proceeded to say what if, then you twist & obfuscate.

As far as I can see, there are no posts missing on this thread, & Reformed1689 has NOT posted to this thread. Is that ‘misinformation’ on your part?

Take away other people’s freedoms? That would be you, in spades.

You did on one account. Not the second.

You are wrong, also.

I support your freedom to reject a vaccine.

I also support a business owners decision to determine qualifications of employment within the confines of the law.

I support the right of citizens to regulate their own private property within the law.

You want to make your own decision about a vaccination. I'm all for that.

But you advocate socialistic ideas in that you want to deny private control of property.

Supporting freedom is not just supporting rights when it suits you. The anti-covid-vaxers are anti-freedom. They hold socialistic ideologies.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Don't play dumb.

Don't insult me.

The covid mortality rate (excluding age, etc) is 3.4%. But anti-vaxers prefer to use estimations from over a year ago of .5%.

We may never know the real number, due to the effect of hype on cause-of-death determinations (a well-known problem in epidemiology). Nevertheless, your numbers did not come from the O.P. so neither claim that they did nor insult my intelligence for pointing out this fact.

Either way the risk of serious reactions to the vaccines are far (very much lower) less than tge risk of covid death.

I estimate that the risk of physical harm to one's health as a result of vaccination is 100%, whether or not that damage leads to death. This, alone, is sufficient reason to rebel against the tyrannical mandates.

Time has moved on, brother. Science has left you in the dust just as it left the flat- earthers in the dust long ago.

I am a scientist, and don't call me brother by the same breath with which you insult me.

 

[JonC]

Don't insult me.



We may never know the real number, due to the effect of hype on cause-of-death determinations (a well-known problem in epidemiology). Nevertheless, your numbers did not come from the O.P. so neither claim that they did nor insult my intelligence for pointing out this fact.




I estimate that the risk of physical harm to one's health as a result of vaccination is 100%, whether or not that damage leads to death. This, alone, is sufficient reason to rebel against the tyrannical mandates.



I am a scientist, and don't call me brother by the same breath with which you insult me.

I did not insult you. The number I gave for the vaccine deaths did come from the OP. I was giving you credit, brother, in saying you were "playing".

Then we can also not know the real number of adverse vaccine effects.

Your estimation of 100% physical harm due to vaccines is without substance.

Like I said, brother, there are scientists who believe the earth is flat, the sars-cov-2 virus does not exist, and Jesus is not God. In fact, there is a scientist for just about anything.....like the unscientific notion the vaccines will result in some harm 100% of the time.

I am not saying you are....or are not...a scientist. I am saying you reject science. If you are a virologists then I doubt you are top in your field.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I did not insult you.

Then I don't need to forgive you.

The number I gave for the vaccine deaths did come from the OP.

The number you gave for the virus deaths did not. It takes two parts to devise a ratio.

I was giving you credit, brother, in saying you were "playing".

You must think I'm doing more than playing if you expect me to believe that.

Your estimation of 100% physical harm due to vaccines is without substance.

I'm glad you were able to dig through my mind and sift through my sources, thusly saving me the trouble of evaluating them. No, Jon, that's the way live virus vaccines work, and it's especially true for mRNA vaccines. The vaccination absolutely requires the destruction of host cells (which equals tissue damage) in order to work. I'm sorry you cannot grasp that. I lack the superpowers required to convince you of this, but you are not qualified to evaluate the veracity of this fact, apparently.

Like I said, brother,

Don't call me brother. I really hate that.

there are scientists who believe the earth is flat....

The fact that you think this statement is relevant is insulting.

like the unscientific notion the vaccines will result in some harm 100% of the time.

Been round that mulberry bush with you once too often. You can stick your head in the sand, but even the scientists from Moderna and Pfizer know that mRNA transfection results in the death of the host cells. Originally, they had tried to use the method for gene therapy, but it failed, because the affected cells were all killed by the immune system. The term "killed" means that something in the body was damaged. I'm sorry you can't grasp this. The method's use as a vaccine was a lemons-to-lemonade solution.

Yes, Jon, I know what I'm talking about.

I am saying you reject science. If you are a virologists then I doubt you are top in your field.

Yeah, you love to insult people. Don't ever call me brother, please.

 

[JonC]

Then I don't need to forgive you.



The number you gave for the virus deaths did not. It takes two parts to devise a ratio.



You must think I'm doing more than playing if you expect me to believe that.



I'm glad you were able to dig through my mind and sift through my sources, thusly saving me the trouble of evaluating them. No, Jon, that's the way live virus vaccines work, and it's especially true for mRNA vaccines. The vaccination absolutely requires the destruction of host cells (which equals tissue damage) in order to work. I'm sorry you cannot grasp that. I lack the superpowers required to convince you of this, but you are not qualified to evaluate the veracity of this fact, apparently.



Don't call me brother. I really hate that.



The fact that you think this statement is relevant is insulting.



Been round that mulberry bush with you once too often. You can stick your head in the sand, but even the scientists from Moderna and Pfizer know that mRNA transfection results in the death of the host cells. Originally, they had tried to use the method for gene therapy, but it failed, because the affected cells were all killed by the immune system. The term "killed" means that something in the body was damaged. I'm sorry you can't grasp this. The method's use as a vaccine was a lemons-to-lemonade solution.

Yes, Jon, I know what I'm talking about.



Yeah, you love to insult people. Don't ever call me brother, please.

No. You have no reason to forgive me. If I insult you you will know it.

The fact is there is no evidence that the vaccines will do damage except for rare potential reactions shortly after vaccination. There certainly is no scientific basis to fear mRNA (which, as a virologist....or scientist....whatever...you already know). And there is no scientific reason to suspect the vaccine will have adverse effects beyond the life of the mRNA (3 to 4 days) or the protein produced (about 4 weeks).

But hey....you guys list dentists as your experts on vacvines and viruses. So whatever floats your boat bro.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Don't ever call me brother

Unless neither of you'll are Sons of God, you are each other's brother in Christ. Not necessarily all that close, many brothers in blood have been known not to speak to each other. However, the relationship still exists.

 

[Wingman68]

Unless neither of you'll are Sons of God, you are each other's brother in Christ. Not necessarily all that close, many brothers in blood have been known not to speak to each other. However, the relationship still exists.

If you are familiar, & at this point, you must be, you know that the way the ‘term’ brother is used is like every other word. It can mean many things based on the intent of the user. Some users here throw it out at the wrong time, like a husband who has just beat his wife telling her I love you. It doesn’t fit at that time & he is using it to justify his behavior. I find the use questionable as well as you can see in this thread, post 27. Do I need a reminder of what is acceptable?
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/the-cdc-has-something-at-stake.121640/page-2

 

[Wingman68]

No. Even Reformed1689 indicated your error.

You posted that covid was fake. Now you are backing off your comment. That is fine. You need to back away from it.

It is not your business how much I post. I'll post ever minute if I feel like it.

Stop trying to take away other people's freedoms.

Pretty funny. I wanted to go back & find where you likened me to prominent dems, & in another post you basically called me a dem. I knew you were playing your game trying to get me, shall we say, upset to the point of hanging myself. Here was a problem, Mr Moderator, don’t take away other’s freedoms guy…..your profile page is blocked, making it difficult to find such posts of yours without wasting precious time. I would have thought it required for transparency that your page should be free to all, guess not. Maybe I need to block my page, oh wait…..you still have access to everything anyone else posts, nevermind.

 

[JonC]

Pretty funny. I wanted to go back & find where you likened me to prominent dems, & in another post you basically called me a dem. I knew you were playing your game trying to get me, shall we say, upset to the point of hanging myself. Here was a problem, Mr Moderator, don’t take away other’s freedoms guy…..your profile page is blocked, making it difficult to find such posts of yours without wasting precious time. I would have thought it required for transparency that your page should be free to all, guess not. Maybe I need to block my page, oh wait…..you still have access to everything anyone else posts, nevermind.

I do see you as trying to deny the ownership and control of private property, which is a socialistic idea. You have constantly rejected the right of a business owner and implied the employees - not the owner - should determine conditions of employment.

We differ because I believe men should be free to control their property within the confines of the law. We also differ because I am a conservative capitalist. The voice of the people when it comes to private enterprise is how they spend their money.

I am not saying you are a socialist. I am saying you support ideas that are too socialistic and liberal for my taste.

 

[Revmitchell]

No one has denied ownership of private property. Such claims are a poor choice of words at best and out right false at worst. It’s an unnecessary accusation and only works to inflame emotions which appears to be the intent.

Disagreeing with employment standards of requiring vaccine is not denying property rights. Such claims are absurd. Again only intent is to fan emotional flames.

 

[JonC]

No one has denied ownership of private property. Such claims are a poor choice of words at best and out right false at worst. It’s an unnecessary accusation and only works to inflame emotions which appears to be the intent.

Disagreeing with employment standards of requiring vaccine is not denying property rights. Such claims are absurd. Again only intent is to fan emotional flames.

Not ownership but control. One aspect of socialism is to remove the right for an owner to make decisions in operating their business within the confines of the law.

This is what anti-covid-vaxers are doing. They rightly want the freedom to make their own medical choices but they also want to strip freedoms away from citizens. They are socialistic.

They also hold anti-capitalistic ideologies in that rather than allow the market and economy dictate the actions or needs of the company they want the employers or a minority group of likeminded people to determine business policy for other men.

They are socialist and anti-American in the 7drologies they hold. It is "good for me, not for thee" thinking.

 

[Revmitchell]

More flaming posts. Not necessary trying to frame the opposition in the worst possible terms just because one disagrees. Very obvious and nothing but inflammatory. I’m not intent is to raise the temp around here

 

[JonC]

More flaming posts. Not necessary trying to frame the opposition in the worst possible terms just because one disagrees. Very obvious and nothing but inflammatory. I’m not intent is to raise the temp around here

No. Just facts.

The issue is not one of disallowing people to decide whether to get a vaccination - nobody is forcing them.

The issue is anti-covid-vaxers are trying to take away freedoms our nation has held for centuries. They are slowly stripping away the freedoms of the American businessman.

 

[Revmitchell]

More flaming nothing more

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem is that the fed is pressuring employers to fire employees that do not get the vax. This is clearly federal interference . The only socialist liberals are the ones who support this federal interference in capitalism

 

[JonC]

The problem is that the fed is pressuring employers to fire employees that do not get the vax. This is clearly federal interference . The only socialist liberals are the ones who support this federal interference in capitalism

This is an assumption. The fed is mandating (or trying to mandate) employers either require a vaccine or a test. But even prior to this overreach dome employers were requiring vaccinations.

Again, we differ because I am a capitalist. If the government mandates an expense this is passed on as a cost of business. It will take care of itself.

We do not have to turn to socialism. Allow free enterprise. Allow capitalism. Stop pretending to care a but liberty by protecting your "right" a specific employment or your "right" to make decisions about another's property or interest.

Socialism has proven to be a failed system. Stop pretending it will work if in small doses for your desires. Capitalism, a free market, and private ownership is not the evil you make it put to be.

 

[Revmitchell]

More flaming. Pitting each other based on implications that’s we are different than we say we are. It’s only meant to inflame, raise emotions, get a desired reaction out of others

 

[JonC]

More flaming. Pitting each other based on implications that’s we are different than we say we are. It’s only meant to inflame, raise emotions, get a desired reaction out of others

No. We are different.

I take a capitalistic approach. Let businesses decide whether to require a mandate. Increased costs in doing business is always a factor. Allow business owners the freedom to run their companies within the boundaries of the law.


You take a socialistic approach. Give employees the right to determine conditions of employment, take away this right from business owners, do not allow the market to determine the outcome.

These are very different approaches. You have a very socialistic ideology (as long as it is your opinions being forced). I believe our liberty should be protected.

 

[Revmitchell]

Capitalism doesn’t support federal interference. Capitalism has to do with the moving of capital and whether or not it is done by private corps or controlled by the government.

employees not wanting to be forced to take a dangerous vax has nothing to do with the choice between private corps or government controlling the means of production.

Just a sophomoric attempt at flaming.