Confirmation by new study. A Confirmation of another CDC lie. All the money spent on it was wasted. Who knows how many died because CDC can’t tell the truth.
Before you follow the guidance of the CDC, you might want to consider their history of intentional falsehoods. I know I will.
Been getting blood clots since my last one.
As near as I can tell, it doesn’t work. I have had it 3 times. No thanks. Never ever going to take the word of CDC ever, ever again. They lied about the virus. They lied about the effectiveness of the shot. The lied many times about AIDS and knew it. Amazing how people can get paid so much for outright dishonestly.
Now they want us to take, what is it? the 10th or 11th.
I figure, if I can survive the virus 3 times, I’ll likely it survive again.
The doctor asked me what’s wrong? I have heard of folks who like to dianose their own illness. I know better than that, but still I said, “If I had to self-dianose, I’d say I have a blood clot in my upper leg.
After the test, after the doctor pronounced the results, I told the doctor, “You know, sometomes I hate being right.” He had a small laugh. Then effectively announced I will be paying about $300 a month. That is when I really didn’t like being right.
Then the doctor told me, if I have any symtoms of the clot going to my lungs, immediately call an ambulance.
I am convinced that I can thank J&J for this clot. It has been a couple of years since I took the stab of the needle to prevent the China virus. Still I am convinced it was them…. and the media for not lettin me take meds they knew work and they cared not.
It is a blatant lie. They know it and they know we know we don’t believe it. At least twice a day, they still tell the lie on radio in hopes of changing our minds.
The so-called covid 19 inoculations don’t work. I would guess they made an effort at it, but I had it and, since then, I am sure I have had the virus 3 times. I am not alone. Some of those that had the inoculations suffered from the inoculations. Some died from it.
And now, the argument is being made, “let’s knock out covid 19,” as if we can strike it with blow our fist and the dreaded disease will go away. It won’t happen that way. The virus will not go away from the inoculations. However, of course, those who make the inoculations will have a very healthy bottom line.
Meanwhile , the government keeps us from using things that do work.
Now let me see. Do you suppose the government is providing financial aid to those who make that which works not? This, of course while some of us suffer illness, while young people suffer long term heart problems, and some even die…needlessly.
I am sick with a runny nose and caugh. Because of the caugh, my voice has turned very deep. It is what a friend called my Johnny Cash.
It does cause a little curiosity. Do you suppose anyone will pay to hear me sing one of Johnny’s big hits. If so, just what is the going price for Fulsome Prison Blues?
There is one problem. I will need to pause occasionally to caugh.
It does remind me of a question. Has Fauci ever caught the China virus even once. maybe not. Maybe he ha a big cache of hydroxycloroquine. You suppose he said it doesn’t work so as he would have plenty for himself?
Recently heard about another booster shot for the China virus. If you ask me if I’m going to take it, that would be a no!
Don’t mind taking a shot or two when the effectiveness has not be proven, but this is ridiculous. After, what two or three years, not only can’t they prove it has any effectiveness, it seems obvious that the only effect it has is negative. People have died from that shot, you know. Yet, it seems it will not even slow the effect of the disease. Since I have had the shot, I have had the virus twice. I don’t think the shot works. I’d much rather take the Hydroxycloroquine. It has better proven results than the dumb shots. More important, I know it won’t kill me, as the shot might.
It is another reason I call the old man Joe. He tried to force the men in the armed forces to take an experimental drug. Those who refused to take it, he made them leave the armed forces. That’s not just nuts. That is crazy nuts. It’s one more thing he will not be able to explain to Jesus when he sees Jesus face-to-face. My best guess, from his appearances, form his mannerisms, that does not seem to be much into the future.
A preacher (Bishop Woods) caught my attention a while ago. He knew what he was talking about. Then he mentioned roughly that he went into a Walgreens and picked up a package of masks. On the reverse side, he saw the disclaimer “Will not prevent corona disease.”
Now that just makes a person want to shake his head. It causes me no end of confusion. Just what is the purpose of the masks? Just why is it that we were required to wear masks that the manufacturer admits won’t work? What is it that Fauci knows that we don’t? Just why does he want us to wear masks that he knows don’t work?
I mean, if the manufacturer knows they don’t work, I’m sure Fauci is well aware of it. Does he like the discomfort they cause? Does he like it when we all walk into banks looking like bank robbers? Does he enjoy the fact that he has made it impossible to eat, drink, or play the oboe. Does he like all the commotion he created on airplanes from 2-year-olds?
Let us take this just a little farther. What about the shots. Properly, the shots should have been marked, “Will not prevent corona virus.” You do realize it had nearly zero affect. On the other hand, they did cause problems, especially with younger people. Some had heart problems. I suspect there were deaths from it.
Yet, even today, the boosters are still encouraged.
Guess what? They don’t work. It’s time to stop pretending they work. It’s time we start using different means, something that might actually work. You know. Things like those meds that actually showed signs of working that the government and social media mocked so devastatingly.
Just shows to go, the government, especially one run by Joe doesn’t know best. Oh! And by the way. Those social media outfits have a lot of apologizing to do. Some folks lost their jobs. Some were forced from the military and lost their retirement. Some folks went to jail for their the stupidity of a few who had not an inkling of knowledge on the subject. Best to let real doctors, real researchers do the job. We need to keep the politicians and social idiots out of it.
Oh! By the way, many unmasked diseased were welcomed into this country by the government with diseases far worse than the corona virus.
Just makes a person want to shake his head.
It is something, likely, as old as stoves. Most folks quickly learn not to touch hot stoves.
Actually, it is not so important today as it was a couple of centuries ago when ole Ben first started building stoves. Generally speaking, when someone would touch a hot stove, they were not apt to repeat it.
Actually, I suspect it went back even farther than that. Before there were stoves, there were fireplaces. Before fireplaces campfires, or their equivalent.
I even heard a tale of one of the big wigs at Levi learning not to kneel next to campfires…first time. It was then that they decided to remove one or two of the rivets from the area just below the fly of their famous canvas trousers.
The one thing brought away from the first experience was the probability of pain, sometimes a little embarrassment too. However, here’s the news. Not all stoves are hot. Not all rivets are hot. It just is that once exposed to these experiences we mostly come away thinking they are, or at least can be. It is referred to as inductive reasoning. Because the first stove we touch is hot, we assume all stoves are hot.
What if the reverse is true. What if the first stove you touch is ambient temperature? Do we then assume that all stoves are cool to the touch. If we do this, we expose ourselves to many painful experiences. This is called inductive reasoning.
While it is useful, it can easily lead to errors. For instance, if we see a brown Labrador retriever, it would be wrong to assume that all dogs are brown and weigh eighty pounds. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that all Labs are brown. Oddly there are some that are black.
On the other hand, suppose we touch a hundred cool stoves. Can we then assume are stoves are cool? If we see a hundred brown Labs, are we to assume that all labs are brown.
You see, even though we see a large number of examples, we cannot truly assume anything.
Until we see a large enough number of examples, we cannot positively say that we know all labs are brown and that all stoves are cool. Even when working with large numbers, inductive reasoning can lead us astray.
I wish that kids in the eighth grade were required to spend a few hours learning about inductive and deductive reasoning. I am convinced the concept is extremely important in so many parts of life.
Let’s take for instance, the woman that is robbed by an African American. Is it right for her to be afraid of all African Americans? Of course, not. Yet, it may take her years to get over the experience. Our fears are not always founded on good logic. Indeed, her fear might keep her from many good friendships.
The somewhat opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we draw conclusions from many, perhaps exhaustive numbers of examples. It is best that these examples are at random. It is the way that medical research is done. I suppose we can say that statistics and deductive reasoning are interrelated. The more the examples and the more random, the more accurate will be the stats deductive reasoning that depends on the stats.
If we have a random selection of a million dogs, it is likely that only a few will be Labs and we will likely see a few black dogs, white dogs and even a few multi-color dogs. Therefore, we can have a more accurate idea of the coloring of dogs. If we take a random measurement of a million stoves, we might actually find that only 30% are hot enough to cause pain, or even discomfort. (only a wild guess, not am actual statistic)
I’m not going to try to create an equivalent example with the thievery. It’s far too complex and there are too many ways it can go wrong with my imaginary statistics. Moreover, I am not going to suggest that a woman should get robbed a million times. Two or three maybe, but no more. Still, the principles remain firm. With a larger number of examples, we would be able to draw more accurate deductions.
However, we need to be careful about drawing snap conclusions. When we go from the millions of examples and try to derive a single situation from millions of examples, we can still be wrong. For instance, if I may. It would not indicate that a thief is of any ethnicity, and it would be wrong to make any such suggestion.
Yet, every day, I see some people blame Black men because of individual as well as vast statistical data. Those methods just don’t work. And, by the way, the methods don’t work on Caucasian policemen, again, regardless of past inductive or deductive reasoning. You cannot convict a policeman based on past experience just as the woman cannot convict based on past thieves.
Perhaps the most horrible example of inductive reasoning is when the person says, “Single parent families are just as good as two-parent families.” Then they go about calling out two, three or four examples of good kids brough up by single parents. That logic has two holes. First, it is based on a very small count of examples. Second, there is the probability that, if there is a second parent, the child would likely have turned out better. The statistics back it up. We are talking millions of examples not just two or three.
On the other side of the coin, I see people say that a particular person turned out good or bad because of his parent(s). The stats prove that some good kids come from bad or broken homes and bad kids come from homes with good parents.
In this case, the inductive logic gets us nowhere and the deductive logic only shows trends. The trend shows overwhelmingly that two parent homes are better. But logic tells us that it is only true if they are good parents. Abusive and or alcoholic parents rarely qualify as good parents. Yet, again, some good kids come from homes with abusive parents. Sorry. I have no explanation for that. I’m not sure there is one.
For those who are not truly familiar with the terms inductive and deductive reasoning, may I suggest you take an hour or two and look into it on the net. Most will find it far more complex than most of us realize. For instance, one thing that must accurately be determined in inductive reasoning is an accurate correlation. For instance, that dance by that Voo-do doctor likely has nothing to do with that solar eclipse. On the other hand, all that rain I dumped on my lawn the other day likely had nothing to do with the thunderstorm we got the next day, though it did seem a little coincidental. If we collected enough data, it is likely to be proved that the one thing had nothing to do with the other.
Obama Care insurers that Uncle Sam can veto any procedures we think we need. Now mandatory vaccinatins insure we must undergo anything Uncle says we need.
Then too, just in time, they found a new variant to make sure we must be confined to our homes, regardless of the disasters to our economy and, or our society.
It does look to me like a good weapon for the final destruction of what is left of our nation…if we allow them.
Came up with an idea the other that would save untold lives. We need to never exceed 20 mph in a motor vehicle. In general, we have over 35 thousand deaths attributed to auto-accidents each year in this country. Driving at the top limit of 20 mph might not save all these lives, but it would save the vast majority of them.
Also, we need houses with one foot walls of steel reinforced concrete. It would be expensive, but think of all those who die yearly, in their own houses. This would vastly decrease the lost of lives due to fire, falling trees, tornadoes and hurricanes. By the way, we would want to make sure those houses are ten or fifteen feet above the ground to avoid deaths by flood.
All highways and public buildings should be built to withstand 12 on the Richter Scale. This would virtual save all lives from earthquakes.
Okay. I’m being flippant. Certainly you have figured that out. Yet, almost daily, we hear the phrase, safety first. In truth we really don’t mean that. If we did, our lives would be radically different. Every day, we make compromises. Because we don’t want to spend an hour or two going to work each day, we go at speeds of 55 to 65 mph. To be sure, it is an unnecessary chance. However, those of us with families would like to see them now and then so we travel at the higher speed.
The house idea would save lives. However, it would like cost 4 or 5 times more. Again we compromise. Most of us don’t sustain house damage so we have learned to take the risk. If buildings had to be built to withstand all earthquakes, we would certainly be better off but hardly anyone would be able to live in them.
Every day, we make life/death decisions. Sometimes people do die.
I had heart surgery. They did four bypasses on me. They put an IV in my arm and the next thing I knew I woke up with a horrible pain in my chest. I made a life/death decision. The doctor that worked on me knew what he was doing and he had a very good reputation. He obviously did it right, because that was about twelve years ago.
It took some time after they came up with the vaccine that I had the opportunity to get it. But I did get it. That too was a life and death decision. None of the vaccines are fully approved. We, as people with brains, made decisions knowing this. If it were safety first, very few of us would have the vaccinations. That does not give the government or anyone the right to chose for us. It is a life/death decision which we mush make for ourselves, just as I did when I decided for the bypass surgery.
Well, actually, there is a difference. The surgery was totally accepted. It was not experimental and I was still given the choice.
To be sure, maybe it is time for government and media to stop telling us what to do or not do. They can give me the pros and cons, but I still had to sign that paper before they could put me under. Should it be any different for an experimental shot.
bfrhodes99 