(08-06-2021, 11:17 PM)Mav link Wrote:As Covid improves, we get slacker. Last Wednesday I was watching my son’s footy training with another 4 fathers in the vicinity. I was the only one masked notwithstanding the law required masking outdoors, we’d just come out of a lockdown and the signs were there we’d be going back into lockdown. And when we need to lockdown, you can always trust the antilockdown nuffies to spread it around just a little bit more.

(08-07-2021, 08:14 AM)Mav link Wrote:I’ve noticed you tend to project your faults on others. You regularly engage in ad hominem attacks but accuse others of using that tactic. And then you condemn taking “swipes at the man” but you do so immediately after declaring “Those fact check sites are drivel.” Hypocritical at best.

Of course, you know the fact check article we posted didn’t just say “he’s a wanker”. The fact checkers critiqued the good doctor methodically and compendiously. Just to take but 1 aspect:Fancy that: the good doctor makes a bombshell claim that mRNA trials had led to autoimmune disease but when challenged he sought to rely on a paper whose lead author says his paper didn’t support that claim. And experts in the area call Cole out for fearmongering and having no scientific basis for his claims.

And remember this is just one baseless claim amongst others that were methodically  debunked.

Well, well, well, it looks as though the good doctor is nationally recognised as a fraud.

Quote:No publications demonstrate that mRNA vaccines cause cancer or autoimmune diseases.

(08-07-2021, 11:36 PM)flyboy77 link Wrote:And therefor they're safe? 77, you're putting words/interpretations into the mouth of another. The quote that Wingman MAV shared, simply quoted that there is no evidence that xyz causes cancer. Full stop. You're manufacturing an interpretation to suit you narrative. No vaccine, no medication is 100% safe. You simply cannot think in absolutes when it comes to medications and vaccines.

If you read the sheet listing potential side-effects and risks associated with the medication I take for the management of PTSD (anxiety/depression disorders), you'd be fear struck and not touch it. But the alternative is far worse - poor quality of life and the potential for worsening mental health to the point of contemplating yourself leaving planet Earth. The plusses far, far out weigh the side-effects. I need liver function tests every 12 months to monitor the potential harmful effects of the medication - so what do I do about these potential, very real side-effects, etc? I ensure my diet includes foods that aid and support my liver function. That's taking responsibility for your own health. 22 years of liver function blood tests have revealed my liver is doing great.

If you want to focus on the things which potentially harm our bodies you need look no further than alcohol, sugar and processed foods. They do far more harm than any vaccines and many medications - a diet of these things fast tracks diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, some mental illnesses and so on.

Gee, that's stellar logic. ROFL. Were you pissed when you wrote  that? Putdowns never aid or strengthen your argument - ask yourself why you so need to do such things. In fact such putdowns only weaken your argument and succeed in divisiveness. This response and attitude will never strengthen or validate your opinion or supporting data.

By all means bury your brains 8 feet under and refuse to consider the' 'other' side.... again with the putdown... but what I do read into this sentence, and it is an assumption only, is someone wanting to be acknowledged for his contribution. Very reasonable. But whenever we do share any contribution pushback and questioning come with the territory... and it is often NOT personal, but you have an unfortunate tendency to get personal in response.

As Baggers so eloquently said (paraphrasing), do I really give a toss what you think? You used my comment to you totally out of context which is really quite manipulative. My comment to you was in relation to your expectations of me. To re-iterate, your expectations of me are of little to no interest to me.

As for your ad hominem allegation, BS. Not so. Sorry Cocko, but you do get personal. And you might want to acquaint yourself with the psychological fact/phenomenon of 'projection.'

I work with data professionally, I get data and I can interpret data. Okay, an important skill, but that does NOT assume nor is it evidentiary/proof that you are always right.

You lot ( a good few of you sadly) just opine without any supporting evidence....it's clear LP has long got way with his bully boy "I know more than you' mantra.....well, that's kindergarten stuff. I've never read anything from the Spotted One that stated he knew more than you... you simply interpreted his questioning of your data personally. Believe me, I know what it is like to be overly sensitive - again, an assumption only on my part (that you may be too sensitive to questioning).

I'll leave you with a few simple images.

Interpret them as you see fit.

ps Mav, I suggest you read up on what constitutes an ad hominem attack. Me saying a fact check site is carp is not an ad hominem attack on you. By definition. His ad hominem comment did not relate to your data or the interpretation thereof, it related to the manner in which you communicated your data.

(08-07-2021, 11:36 PM)flyboy77 date Wrote:And therefor they're safe?

(08-07-2021, 11:36 PM)flyboy77 date Wrote:Cole's hardly the only one raising big questions. Robert Malone, who essentially invented the mRNA technology, is another.

(08-07-2021, 11:36 PM)flyboy77 date Wrote:I work with data professionally, I get data and I can interpret data.

(08-07-2021, 11:36 PM)flyboy77 date Wrote:You lot ( a good few of you sadly) just opine without any supporting evidence....it's clear LP has long got way with his bully boy "I know more than you' mantra.....well, that's kindergarten stuff.

ps Mav, I suggest you read up on what constitutes an ad hominem attack. Me saying a fact check site is carp is not an ad hominem attack on you. By definition.

(08-07-2021, 08:14 AM)Mav link Wrote:I’ve noticed you tend to project your faults on others. You regularly engage in ad hominem attacks but accuse others of using that tactic. And then you condemn taking “swipes at the man” but you do so immediately after declaring “Those fact check sites are drivel.” Hypocritical at best.

Quote:Former deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth, one of the government’s top advisers in the early phase of the pandemic, said authorities underestimated the influence of commentators and academics who advocated an indefinite zero-COVID strategy and denigrated the AstraZeneca vaccine – and deliberately chose not to call them out publicly.

We always took the view in government, myself included, that this was a small group of people who didn’t have that much influence, and we would create more problems for ourselves if we started questioning academic freedom or asking people to stay in their swim lane,” Dr Coatsworth told The Sun-Herald and The Sunday Age.

“I actually think that was the wrong position to take. We should have been a lot firmer. We needed stronger voices out there. If I had my time again I think I would have been as forthright as I have in the last couple of weeks, [but] six months earlier.”

Dr Coatsworth, who is now executive director of medical services at Canberra Health Services, has recently used speeches, opinion pieces and social media to speak out against an indefinite “zero-COVID” approach and warn Australians must prepare for the virus to circulate as borders open.

He had suggested reopening at a vaccination rate of 50 per cent but called for the country to unite behind the 70 and 80 per cent targets modelled by the Doherty Institute and adopted by national cabinet.

Dr Coatsworth said he regretted underestimating the influence of zero-COVID advocates in the academy, whose commentary has shaped the discourse on COVID-19 management in Australia.

“There’s a very strong network in Australian academia that is pro COVID-zero,” he said. “There’s some very influential policy people, particularly down in Victoria, who have that particular view.

Extreme zero-COVID views look good, but they can have a fair few negative consequences that are difficult to count.”

Long-serving former Health Department secretary Jane Halton – who also sat on the government’s National COVID-19 Commission Advisory Board – did not agree with Dr Coatsworth about COVID-zero advocates but admitted the public health community had failed to counter misinformation about vaccines, especially AstraZeneca, and it was possibly too late to reverse the damage.

“I think nobody really understood how really problematic information that’s been circulating on social media – unchecked and unchallenged – has been for confidence in vaccines generally, and in AstraZeneca in particular,” Dr Halton told The Sun-Herald and The Sunday Age.

“We’ve all been out advocating vaccination. But I don’t think we’ve said enough about why people shouldn’t believe a lot of what they read. We shouldn’t assume that people understand all of these issues.”