You use the word "scum" every time you refer to the scum. Likewise, I used the word "woke" every time I refer to anyone.
Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
You use the word "scum" every time you refer to the scum. Likewise, I used the word "woke" every time I refer to anyone.
You are wrong to believe I am running on some code by the way. Code requires information to be stored in discrete bits. You can't code a continuous spectrum of values due to it requiring infinite storage capacity. It has to be a lattice of individual points. You can code up dantes.exe on a discrete framework, that's fine, but because of the way mathematics and symmetries work, there is no way you can get that code to replicate a particular non-symmetric feature of electron spin. It would lead to code that essentially demands 1 + 1 = 3. Hence you can't recreate the real dantes.exe as code because you can't recreate my electrons and have them obey the correct laws of physics. Nor anything else in this universe. Also it rules out that the universe is an advanced simulation in the future as some philosophers like to worry about. That's fake news.
Your meds.... don’t forget to take them, please... humanity’s survival depends on it.
Make me.
Biden: hold my beer
Hahahhaaha it didn't take long for the senile paedophile to go full Marxist dictator. The thick woke fools deserve nothing less. RIP USA YNWA.
They gave a fuck about Trump, so they do give a fuck about people and feelings, which is what has cost them dearly. Virtue signalling that they don't care about Biden to gain some self-respect is transparent comedy, everyone has seen they already given their entire quota of fucks to Trump. It's too late to pretend they're anything but a bunch of woke fools.
Let's see them pretend not give a fuck about record homicide rates, inflation, border crises, afghanistan, unemployment, rising taxes, eye watering gas prices, retard clown science, forced vaccinations, forced cloths on your mouths, and education standards on a par with islamic madrasahs, speaking of which a few of them will be getting allahu akbar'd sooner rather than later.
Is it a trap...
I find it remarkable that all those that screamed he was a dictator because of his comments on twitter have nothing to say about Joe Biden's recent comments.
What did he say?
Why do we really care?
We should all be focusing on India and/or China - those are the next super powers anyways
You find partisanship remarkable? Have you thought about how your phone works? You should spend some time staring at your hands or something shiny. You must be endlessly amazed.
For Ross:
So the anti vaccine crowd, largely hardcore trumpers, don't want the vaccine because Kamala Harris and other democrats voiced concerns about trump pressuring the FDA to ignore normal procedure? Makes sense.
That is the narrative peddled by the fake news and fake scientists, in order to make you comfortable with the implementation of socialist tyranny. But as far as I'm aware they don't ask you for your ballot card or party registration when you get jabbed. The data on vaccine uptake by witnesses to the consequences points to minority groups who last I checked voted for captain dementia.
[article]
Original Investigation
Infectious Diseases
August 30, 2021
Racial/Ethnic Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Health Care Workers in 2 Large Academic Hospitals
Florence M. Momplaisir, MD, MSHP1,2; Barbara J. Kuter, PhD, MPH3; Fatemeh Ghadimi, MD, MPH1; et alSafa Browne, MPH3; Hervette Nkwihoreze, MPH1; Kristen A. Feemster, MD, MPH, MSHPR3,4; Ian Frank, MD1; Walter Faig, PhD5; Angela K. Shen, ScD, MPH3; Paul A. Offit, MD3,4; Judith Green-McKenzie, MD, MPH2,6
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2121931. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21931
COVID-19 Resource Center
Question What are the differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy by race/ethnicity among health care workers (HCWs)?
Findings This survey study of 10 871 HCWs from 2 academic hospitals found that, compared with White HCWs, vaccine hesitancy was increased nearly 5-fold among Black HCWs, 2-fold among Hispanic or Latino HCWs, and by nearly 50% among Asian HCWs and HCWs who were members of other racial/ethnic groups.
Meaning These findings suggest that interventions focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among HCWs are needed, particularly for Black and Hispanic or Latino HCWs, among whom hesitancy is highest.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783615
[/article]
We know vaccination rates per county, and the voting records of those counties. There are of course also other correlations, but you were referring to the political ones in the previous ludicrous post.
The unvaccinated people in some backwards county don't concern you. The hospitals are being filled up in urban cities and towns, because that's where most of the people are living within closest proximity. We both know the majority of them are democrats, and the vaccine hesitancy correlations which do concern you come down to race. Of course Biden can't lay down his tyrannical law at the feet of black people, that'd be racist. That's why he is pretending it's trump supporters. Like if you came into contact with more than three trump supporters in the whole of last week, I'll delete some of my own code.
What I would love to see is the spikes in the urban towns being shown to have been caused by Biden shipping in all those infected immigrants from the southern border, many patient zeros, all to shore up his mail in voter base for next year. That's probably what happened.
I’m sure you can find a graph somewhere created by some study to peddle that theory and if you could then link to BLM then case closed, come on dantes...
Ross probably has one from his list of favourite “news” sites.
Imagine the utter shitshow the US would be in now had the Big D not lost the election?
Dantes will have trouble while work through his list of Trump inspired demons, ticked off BLM, immigrants and lefty democrats already... only woke snowflakes left for a full house.
Dantes will have trouble while work through his list of Trump inspired demons, ticked off BLM, immigrants and lefty democrats already... only woke snowflakes left for a full house.
Here's a response to that ivermectin affecting sperm count story: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRukGWFA/
TLDR, is that 90% of the sample couldn't be used as they had previous sperm issues (which is suspicious in itself), so sample it very small. They also had a very rare disease and took ivermectin for 11 months, so it's not comparable to people using it for Covid, or a reason for WHO/CDC to not recommend it for what they already do
TLDR, is that 90% of the sample couldn't be used as they had previous sperm issues (which is suspicious in itself), so sample it very small. They also had a very rare disease and took ivermectin for 11 months, so it's not comparable to people using it for Covid, or a reason for WHO/CDC to not recommend it for what they already do
You’re 11 times more likely to die from Covid if not vaccinated.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w
All but one scientist who penned a letter in The Lancet dismissing the possibility that coronavirus could have come from a lab in Wuhan were linked to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or funders, a Telegraph investigation can reveal.
The influential journal published a letter on March 7 last year from 27 scientists in which they stated that they “strongly condemned conspiracy theories” surrounding Covid-19.
It effectively shut down scientific debate into whether coronavirus was manipulated or leaked from a lab in Wuhan.
On Friday, researchers who tried to investigate a link but were stonewalled and branded conspiracy theorists called it an “extreme cover-up”.
Despite declaring no conflicts of interest at the time, it has since emerged that the letter was orchestrated by British zoologist Peter Daszak, president of the US-based EcoHealth Alliance, which funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the leak was suspected.
However, The Telegraph can disclose that 26 of the 27 scientists listed in the letter had connections to the Chinese lab, through researchers and funders closely linked to Wuhan.
While Mr Daszak eventually declared his involvement in the EcoHealth Alliance, he failed to mention that five other signatories also worked for the organisation.
A further three of the signatories were from Britain’s Wellcome Trust, which has funded work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of Sage and the director of the Trust, who signed the letter, has also published work with George Gao, the head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, whom he describes as an “old friend”.
Oxford-educated Dr Gao is a former Wellcome research assistant, and Mr Daszak has previously claimed Dr Gao had supported his nomination to the National Academy of Sciences.
Dr Gao also has close connections with Shi Zhengli, the scientist known as “batwoman” who was leading research into bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, and whose team discovered a virus in 2013 in a cave in Yunnan which is the closest ever found to Sars-Cov-2.
Another signatory, Prof Linda Saif, of Ohio State University, spoke at a workshop in Wuhan in May 2017 alongside Dr Shi and Dr Gao, organised partly by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Topics discussed at the meeting included the level of security in Chinese labs. Prof Saif’s talk dealt with animal coronaviruses.
Similarly, two other signatories are in the leadership team of the Global Virome Project, of which Mr Daszak is treasurer. Dr Gao helped launch the project and EcoHealth Alliance is a partner.
The Global Virome Project’s goal is to detect and identify at least 99 per cent of potential zoonotic viral threats to human health and food security. It took over from the Predict project, which uncovered more than 1,000 unique viruses in animals and humans.
However, it has since emerged that Predict part-funded controversial work by Wuhan researchers on bat coronaviruses which were altered to see if they could infect humans. The funds came via EcoHealth Alliance.
In an email on Feb 8, released under Freedom of Information requests, Mr Daszak revealed he had composed the letter after being asked by “our collaborators” in China for a “show of support”.
The influential journal published a letter on March 7 last year from 27 scientists in which they stated that they “strongly condemned conspiracy theories” surrounding Covid-19.
It effectively shut down scientific debate into whether coronavirus was manipulated or leaked from a lab in Wuhan.
On Friday, researchers who tried to investigate a link but were stonewalled and branded conspiracy theorists called it an “extreme cover-up”.
Despite declaring no conflicts of interest at the time, it has since emerged that the letter was orchestrated by British zoologist Peter Daszak, president of the US-based EcoHealth Alliance, which funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the leak was suspected.
However, The Telegraph can disclose that 26 of the 27 scientists listed in the letter had connections to the Chinese lab, through researchers and funders closely linked to Wuhan.
While Mr Daszak eventually declared his involvement in the EcoHealth Alliance, he failed to mention that five other signatories also worked for the organisation.
A further three of the signatories were from Britain’s Wellcome Trust, which has funded work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of Sage and the director of the Trust, who signed the letter, has also published work with George Gao, the head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, whom he describes as an “old friend”.
Oxford-educated Dr Gao is a former Wellcome research assistant, and Mr Daszak has previously claimed Dr Gao had supported his nomination to the National Academy of Sciences.
Dr Gao also has close connections with Shi Zhengli, the scientist known as “batwoman” who was leading research into bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, and whose team discovered a virus in 2013 in a cave in Yunnan which is the closest ever found to Sars-Cov-2.
Another signatory, Prof Linda Saif, of Ohio State University, spoke at a workshop in Wuhan in May 2017 alongside Dr Shi and Dr Gao, organised partly by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Topics discussed at the meeting included the level of security in Chinese labs. Prof Saif’s talk dealt with animal coronaviruses.
Similarly, two other signatories are in the leadership team of the Global Virome Project, of which Mr Daszak is treasurer. Dr Gao helped launch the project and EcoHealth Alliance is a partner.
The Global Virome Project’s goal is to detect and identify at least 99 per cent of potential zoonotic viral threats to human health and food security. It took over from the Predict project, which uncovered more than 1,000 unique viruses in animals and humans.
However, it has since emerged that Predict part-funded controversial work by Wuhan researchers on bat coronaviruses which were altered to see if they could infect humans. The funds came via EcoHealth Alliance.
In an email on Feb 8, released under Freedom of Information requests, Mr Daszak revealed he had composed the letter after being asked by “our collaborators” in China for a “show of support”.
[article]
The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, combining unvaccinated and partially vaccinated persons resulted in lower IRR and VE estimates. Second, variable linkage of case surveillance, vaccination, hospitalization, and mortality data might have resulted in misclassifications that could influence IRR estimates; no substantial differences in ascertainment of outcomes by vaccination status were noted in jurisdictions that were able to assess this. Lags in reporting of deaths might have affected the second period differentially. Third, this was an ecological study in which IRRs lacked multivariable adjustments and causality could not be assessed (i.e., possible differences in testing or behaviors in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons). VE is being assessed through ongoing controlled studies. Fourth, the period when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant reached ≥50% overall prevalence was assumed to be the first week when most cases were infected with the Delta variant, but the week varied by jurisdiction. Finally, the data assessed from 13 jurisdictions accounted for 25% of the U.S. population, and therefore might not be generalizable.
[/article]
"Our research is wrong because we made these deliberate mistakes in our methodology that were caught by the peer reviewer, so we're now going to call these assumptions, and then stick to the answer we had in the first place even though it is wrong."