Experts Rip CDC for Redacting All 148 Pages of Information on Myocarditis After COVID

[Into the Night]

Coming out with the base insults now?

No, Sock.

We've agreed on some things, such as the origins of oil and certain parts of the Covid narrative, but when people start using base insults on me, that's when I tend to take out the thread ban hammer.

Censorship doesn't work, Sock. You are not Thor.

Since we've known each other for a while, I'll let it go, but consider this a warning.

Your warning is empty, Sock. Argument of the Stick fallacy. Censorship doesn't work, Sock.

As to your claim that my "own posts are the substance", once again, you are making an unsubstantiated assertion.
Anyone could say that someone's posts are the substance of whatever claim they wish. Providing evidence that their claim(s) are true is another matter entirely.

Denying your own posts won't work, Sock. Anyone can read them.

Do you have any evidence for the above assertions?

Your own posts.

I decided to do a search on this "attempted force of negative proof fallacy". I only found negative proof fallacy:
https://logfall.wordpress.com/negative-proof-fallacy/

Is that what you meant?

No. I meant an attempted force of negative proof fallacy. You cannot force someone into a negative proof fallacy.

I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that I believe that a link or a quote is proof of anything. Perhaps you'd like to explain?

Your posts, Sock.

Here we disagree. I strongly believe that any good argument requires solid evidence. Without it, I don't see how it could be a good argument.

No evidence or Holy Link required, Sock. You are denying philosophy again. You just cut and paste. You cannot think for yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

I did a search for your "argument of the stone fallacy", I came up with "Appeal to the stone" on Wikipedia. From its introduction to the term:

**
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.
**

What I find quite ironic is that I find that this is precisely what you are doing. You refuse to provide evidence for many of your claims and expect people to just believe them simply because you assert them. Sorry, but I'm not buying.

You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else, Sock. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

As you know, I made a thread to debate whether or not biological viruses exist, so I responded to the above statement and a few others you made in the above post in said thread here:

Post 1292, Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com

Makes no difference, Sock. Your thread does not prove there are no viruses. You cannot just ignore all those observations.

 

[Into the Night]

I never said they didn't. I seems you thought that just because I don't believe in biological viruses that I don't believe in bacteria. I believe in bacteria. The issue is whether the various bacteria in existence are actually the causes of the various diseases that allopathic medicine claims they are responsible for. A good example is syphilis. Long article on it at Mike Stone's substack if you're interested:

The Syphilis Scam | Mike Stone

You stated it, Sock. Don't try to deny your own posts. Anyone can read them.

Now you say you believe bacteria exist and don't exist at the same time. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Sock. It's irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

Here's my stance in a nut shell: The covid vaccines were rushed under emergency status and would NEVER HAVE BEEN VETTED under normal FDA standards. Bad diagnosing mandates coupled with a campaign of misinformation and demonization and dismissal of any alternative treatment made things worse. AND, if one pays attention to ALL information available FROM VALID, DOCUMENTED SOURCES, we are seeing more and more people literally dropping dead from cardio and respiratory problems each year from the initial vaxx push.

I am not against vaccines, as I and my brothers are recipients of mandatory vaxx from 1958 to 66. I am against the increased "load" that modern kids are faced with, and the questionable content (remember, hell had to be raised for big pharma to cop to using a mercury derivative and subsequently ban it's use). The sheer sandbagging of parents across the country who point to their kids suddenly becoming autistic after getting the vax series was just astounding to me.

That's all.

There was no mandatory vaccination from 1958 to 1966. Some schools did break the law, however, by failing to notify parents before vaccinating kids.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

any intelligent and rational person SHOULD see that the government agency is definitely trying to hide some embarrassing information by redacting ALL the pages of that report.

 

[Scott]

Your own posts are the substance, Sock.

Coming out with the base insults now?

No, Sock.

Perhaps you think that calling someone a sock isn't an insult. That's fine. I do, though, which means that I've decided to thread ban you in future threads I make. If you decide that perhaps you were too harsh in calling me a sock and let me know, I may unban you from future threads, but if not, I may yet see you around in threads I've made until now or in other people's threads. Best of luck in your future endeavours.

 

[Scott]

any intelligent and rational person SHOULD see that the government agency is definitely trying to hide some embarrassing information by redacting ALL the pages of that report.

Agreed.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Alright. As you probably know, I'm against all vaccines, but that doesn't mean that we can't share a good amount of common ground in relation to the covid vaccines. You also mention mercury, that was about previous vaccines, so it appears that the covid vaccines aren't the only ones you've had reservations about. Tell me, have you seen a documentary called Vaxxed? Robert Deniro has promoted it, though he did also pull it from his Tribeca Film Festival after getting a lot of pressure to do so. Even after that, however, he continued to defend it in general terms. Like you, Robert Deniro has said he's not against vaccines, but rather that he wants safe ones. Here's an article on the subject:

Robert De Niro: 'I'm not anti-vaccine, I want safe vaccines' | The Guardian

In relation to Covid vaccines in particular, I think this article is quite illuminating:

‘Definite Causal Link’ Between COVID Vaccine Rollouts and Peaks in All-Cause Mortality, New Study Finds | Children's Health Defense

From the article:
**
Researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest found more than half of the countries analyzed had no detectable rise in all-cause mortality after the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020 — until after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

They also found that all 17 countries, which make up 10.3% of the global population, had an unprecedented rise in all-cause mortality that corresponded directly to vaccine and booster rollouts.

Through a statistical analysis of mortality data, the authors calculated the fatal toxicity risk-per-injection increased significantly with age, but averaged 1 death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.

By that calculation, with 13.5 billion injections given up to Sept. 2, 2023, the researchers estimated there were 17 million COVID-19 vaccination deaths (± 500,000) globally following the vaccine roll-out.
**

Remember this, the "estimates" are on an annual basis, and do not really take into account similar cardio/vascular/pulmonary deaths that occur among those initially vaxxed in 21 and 22 ... much less if they've had boosters or not.

Scary times.

 

[Scott]

Remember this, the "estimates" are on an annual basis, and do not really take into account similar cardio/vascular/pulmonary deaths that occur among those initially vaxxed in 21 and 22 ... much less if they've had boosters or not.

Scary times.

Scary times indeed. One thing though, I believe they did account for the initial vaccinations and boosters. Here's another part of the article that gets into it:

**

All-cause mortality (ACM) — a measure of the total number of deaths from all causes in a given time frame for a given population — is the most reliable data used by epidemiologists for detecting and characterizing events causing death and for evaluating the population-level impact of deaths from any cause, the authors wrote.

[snip]

However, the researchers said, “In all 17 countries, vaccination is associated with a regime of high mortality, and there is no association in time between COVID-19 vaccination and proportionate reduction in ACM.”

Also, all 17 countries showed a strong correlation with higher rates of ACM in early 2021, following the initial vaccine rollout and in early 2022, when the boosters were rolled out.

The authors underscore the finding that where age-stratified data were available, there were “remarkable temporal associations” between rapid first dose and booster rollouts and immediate peaks in all-cause mortality, and the transition to what Rancourt called “a new regime in mortality, where the mortality just stayed high for a long time.”
**

 

[Into the Night]

Perhaps you think that calling someone a sock isn't an insult. That's fine. I do, though, which means that I've decided to thread ban you in future threads I make.

If you decide that perhaps you were too harsh in calling me a sock and let me know, I may unban you from future threads, but if not, I may yet see you around in threads I've made until now or in other people's threads. Best of luck in your future endeavours.

Censorship doesn't work, Sock. Argument of the Stick fallacy. If you dislike being a Sock, then stop using so many accounts.

 

[Scott]

Censorship doesn't work, Sock. Argument of the Stick fallacy. If you dislike being a Sock, then stop using so many accounts.

I only use one account here, as well as in every other online forum I'm in. So not only is what you're saying an insult, it's also not even true, which makes you guilty of slander.

 

[Into the Night]

I only use one account here, as well as in every other online forum I'm in. So not only is what you're saying an insult, it's also not even true, which makes you guilty of slander.

Yet you hallucinate just like your other accounts. You insult people just like your other accounts. You deny your own posts just like your other accounts. You talk about people that aren't even there just like your other accounts. You blame others for your own problems just like your other accounts. You are repetitive just like your other accounts. You ask the same questions over and over and over and over and over just like your other accounts. You think censorship actually works, just like your other accounts.

I am convinced you're just another rendition of the Sock.

 

[Scott]

I only use one account here, as well as in every other online forum I'm in. So not only is what you're saying an insult, it's also not even true, which makes you guilty of slander.

Yet you hallucinate just like your other accounts. [snip]

Oh boy -.- Alright, keep on with your unsubstantiated assertions, I think I'm done here.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh boy -.- Alright, keep on with your unsubstantiated assertions, I think I'm done here.

You aren't done, Sock. You need the attention.