Safe and Effective®

13 Replies to “Safe and Effective®”

1. “no idea” is absolutely correct.

2. Canada is still pushing this poison. Where the Marmot on this? I would like to hear his critique.

   1. Um, going to have to go with “who cares?” I don’t need that guy’s paid opinion here when I’ve got the evidence of my own lyin’ eyes.

      One thing I’m sure of, you’re never going to see a climb-down much less an admission of being wrong, or Ghod forbid an apology. It isn’t going to happen.

   2. Speaking of Marmots, below is an excerpt about Marmots gleaned from Wikipedia…
      Just sayin’…
      Some historians and paleogeneticists have postulated that the Yersinia pestis variant that caused the Black Death pandemic that struck Eurasia in the 14th century originated from a variant for which marmots in China were the natural reservoir species.

3. Hilarious that I’ve just mentioned Covid in the thread before this one, and here’s Kate posting more proof that everyone who resisted the Mad Science jab was right.

   Nice to be right, ain’t it?

4. “Good Governance” at its finest.
   Giving bureaucrats a free hand in any matter,will always produce such shitshows.
   There is something about the subservient man that lusts after power while resisting all responsibility.
   Sane people do not seek power over all others.
   Seems sane people do not become minions.

5. KM usually brings cogent arguments to the table without arm waving. The common flaw with many of his arguments is an appeal to authority. I’m going to guess that since it is now the authorities raising the alarm, he will resort to ad hominem against the current authority, or stay silent.

   1. Appeal to authority? No. Appeal to the best available evidence.

      This is just a couple of guys making claims from sources we can’t verify, not unlike sports pundits BSing on a podcast.

      1. Your problem is that you accept the evidence presented as “best available” by authorities without question or skepticism. And don’t think we don’t notice the beginning of the climbdown now with the “best available” qualifier.

         It was starkly, screamingly obvious from the very beginning that every Western government was lying its face off about everything related to the vaccine. If the vaccine was actually safe, effective and reliable there was no need to lie.

         You’re a great example of what the late James Randi was describing when he said that the scientific method was great at weeding out inadvertent error, but terrible at detecting intentional fraud. And with the hubris of most scientists, there will be no apologies or acknowledgements.

         1. I never do that. Rather I look at the scientific evidence directly, and ignore what government authorities say. That’s why I provide so many links to scientific papers, like this one:

            https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(23)00015-2/fulltext

            Here we’re supposed to be impressed because Campbell is interviewing the Director of the NIH. Notice how Campbell emphasizes Doctor Jay Bhattacharya . Campbell appeals to authority as well as anyone.

            1. Ah, yes. The ever truthful Lancet. ‘Cause they’d never publish anything that wasn’t absolutely, 100% guaranteed, factual. Nope. Not even once.

               [click on the link, then search for “Lancet”. There’s 11 hits.]

               https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/

            2. You made a fundamental error in statistical analysis. You forgot to measure the base population — that is, the total number of articles published by all Lancet journals that had either coronavirus or COVID in their title:

               https://www.thelancet.com/action/doSearch?text1=covid+OR+coronavirus&field1=Title&Ppub=&Ppub=&SeriesKey=ebiom&SeriesKey=eclinm&SeriesKey=lancet&SeriesKey=lanchi&SeriesKey=landia&SeriesKey=landig&SeriesKey=langas&SeriesKey=langlo&SeriesKey=lanhae&SeriesKey=lanhiv&SeriesKey=laninf&SeriesKey=laneur&SeriesKey=lanonc&SeriesKey=lanplh&SeriesKey=lanpsy&SeriesKey=lanpub&SeriesKey=lanam&SeriesKey=lanwpc&SeriesKey=lanres&SeriesKey=lanrhe&SeriesKey=lanhl&SeriesKey=lanmic&SeriesKey=lanogw&SeriesKey=lanprc&SeriesKey=lansea&SeriesKey=lanepe&journalCode=lancet&type=advanced

               A staggering 4,814 articles. Of these, 11 were apparently retracted, or about 1 out of every 438 articles.That’s actually pretty impressive, and does not detract from the journal. A journal that did NOT issue retractions would be more concerning.

            3. ‘Cause they’d never publish anything that wasn’t absolutely, 100% guaranteed, factual. Nope. Not even once.

               This attitude seems to be common among the antivaxx crowd. They’ll accept almost any “evidence” that supports their views, no matter how shoddy and transparently flawed. But as for evidence that runs counter to their beliefs, they demand absolute perfection.

               And in truth they don’t even accept that.