HCQ works … Facebook has now admitted it!

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I’ll tell you what - pull out the relevant section of the 557 page report you want me to read that leads you to believe that the vaccines were ineffective. Let’s discuss that a bit. Otherwise, you are just using the report as a smokescreen.

I appreciate the offer for me to fetch the stick for you.

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

... you can most certainly be reinfected with a pathogen your immune system has already warded off.

You are right, but that is a very deceptive way to put it.  The truth is that if a person naturally gets some type of virus, and lives to fully recover, their immune system will spot any re-infection and take care of it before the human host even notices a sniffle.  A person might get hundreds of re-infections per day, but the body will recognize it due to 'memory,' and it will kill an infection off before it can take hold.  You absolutely can ruin an immune system with vaccines, though, and this whole effect.

I am sure that is what you mean to say.

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I’m not the one making up 20 million deaths based on speculative testimony of a single “whistleblower” while simultaneously ignoring data from hospitals all over the world. Nah, your accusations are garbage.

Sometimes a single Whistle Bl0wer is all you get.  The honesty pool is very shallow in government work, but considering you won't even look into the accusation or do the math yourself with the raw data provided, who cares what you think about it?  Your One.Opinion becomes irrelevant when you know nothing about it, and then claim it is speculative.  How would you know without looking?

You honestly sound like those officials at the Pentagon trying to explain away whatever is hovering over military bases, as safe.  They claim to have no idea what those things are, but then they claim they do know they are safe.

How silly. 

Just so you know, you cannot perform science without observing.  You don't just get to claim something is garbage, but never look at it.  I know the Liberal Scientific Method is to state something as fact, and then discount anything that gets in the way (an a priori fallacy), but that is not how the real Scientific Method works.

[Sparks]

On 12/27/2024 at 11:42 AM, one.opinion said:

How do “we” know this? If you have verifiable knowledge of a worldwide cabal, I’d be interested in seeing it.

There is a lot of speculation on this topic. The truth is, we don’t know exactly where it came from, but most experts (people with far more expertise than mine in epidemiology) believe it most likely spilled over from the wet market in Wuhan into the human population.

“On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. On checking into the clinic, the patient put on a mask in the waiting room. After waiting approximately 20 minutes, he was taken into an examination room and underwent evaluation by a provider. He disclosed that he had returned to Washington State on January 15 after traveling to visit family in Wuhan, China.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7092802/
 

I don’t know for certain, but I do not believe the 35 year old man was in a nursing home.

I’ll read and respond to more later.

Congress told you where the virus came from in a recent report.  Patents tell you where it came from.  Funding from NIH tells you were it came from.  The virus names tell you where it came from.  We know where it came from, and who developed it. 

Here you are quoting from 2020 again. 

[other one]

[one.opinion]

47 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sometimes a single Whistle Bl0wer is all you get.

That’s ALL you have for your wild speculation. One whistleblower on one continent that is completely unverifiable. Yet, you have latched onto it like a very hungry dog on a bone. Not only do you assume that everything the whistleblower says is true, you are 100% convinced that it is perfectly reasonable to extrapolate all over the rest of the world. If this speculation came from anyone else, I would call it incredibly poor reasoning, but all things considered, I have to drop the adverb.

[one.opinion]

53 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You are right, but that is a very deceptive way to put it.  The truth is that if a person naturally gets some type of virus, and lives to fully recover, their immune system will spot any re-infection and take care of it before the human host even notices a sniffle.

It is not deceptive if you read without an intent to misunderstand. Usually, and for most of us, the immune system’s prior exposure to an infection is sufficient to protect us from subsequent exposures. However, there are a large number of people with weakened immune systems, for one reason or another, that are not immune from subsequent disease from a pathogen that was previously encountered.

For some pathogens, like SARS-CoV-2, even people with fairly normal immune systems can become reinfected with a different strain of the pathogen.

[Sparks]

On 12/28/2024 at 3:40 PM, one.opinion said:

"That’s ALL you have for your wild speculation."

... said the man who refuses to look.  How would you know if you have not looked?

On 12/28/2024 at 3:40 PM, one.opinion said:

One whistleblower on one continent that is completely unverifiable.

It is entirely verifiable, but only if you take the time look at it.  Also, a Whistle Blower has special access and expertise to present.  It's not just Herman from the convenience store, it is someone who risks their career to point out lies about something, or the mishandling of something and has the good character to report it.

You can tell when the Whistle Blower is right by their evidence, and when the government itself does not deny the Whistle Blower is right, but instead tries to say the data is "misinterpreted," yet government does not volunteer the supposedly correct interpretation, and they drop the topic.

On 12/28/2024 at 3:47 PM, one.opinion said:

It is not deceptive if you read without an intent to misunderstand. Usually, and for most of us, the immune system’s prior exposure to an infection is sufficient to protect us from subsequent exposures. However, there are a large number of people with weakened immune systems, for one reason or another, that are not immune from subsequent disease from a pathogen that was previously encountered.

A "breakthrough infection" is used to describe when a vaccinated individual becomes infected with a virus despite having received the vaccine for that virus.  It means the virus "broke through" the protection that the vaccine should have provided.  

It means the vaccine failed.

[nebula]

I just listened to the speech given at the European Union in Brussels on the 3rd of May 2023 at the 3rd International Covid Summit where the speaker went through the timeline of patents on Coronovirus and SARS. It all began in 1966.

Go to YouTube and search for "David E. Martin talk in the 3rd International Covid Summit"

[Sparks]

18 hours ago, nebula said:

I just listened to the speech given at the European Union in Brussels on the 3rd of May 2023 at the 3rd International Covid Summit where the speaker went through the timeline of patents on Coronovirus and SARS. It all began in 1966.

Go to YouTube and search for "David E. Martin talk in the 3rd International Covid Summit"

It's great that you went out and researched this.  David E. Martin has a special ability with patent searches, and other research.  He is a master-class researcher!

For what it is worth, I posted the video also, here in the forums: