This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 eaglesdare  21 Sep 23 8.23pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Ah 'Turbo Cancer'. Sure. Is your point that it won't be investigated? Because if it's a trend, rather obviously, it will be. Until then, burden of proof. Correlation, causation. My point is...why not investigate it to rule it out completely? Again if you ask for an investigation or question you are branded "far right" or "conspiracy theorist"
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| eaglesdare 21 Sep 23 8.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Everything is worth investigating. Probably not though by this guy as he is a controversial political activist as well as a Professor. He stood for UKIP and opposed lockdowns. Neither of which have much connection to cancer or HIV research Fair play to him! Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Sep 23 8.44pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
My point is...why not investigate it to rule it out completely? Again if you ask for an investigation or question you are branded "far right" or "conspiracy theorist" Because it would be career suicide for a hell of a lot of people. If any of that stuff is true then eventually you'd like to think it would eventually come out officially but I would imagine it would be resisted for years....like smoking....which took a long time from first concerns to anything concrete.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 8.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Fair play to him! Nothing wrong with that. Who said there was? That someone who has expressed controversial views on many political issues then makes controversial claims about a subject he does have expertise in, opens up doubts about the motivations. I am quite sure if those claims have any evidence to support them they will be investigated by someone totally independent.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 21 Sep 23 9.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Who said there was? That someone who has expressed controversial views on many political issues then makes controversial claims about a subject he does have expertise in, opens up doubts about the motivations. I am quite sure if those claims have any evidence to support them they will be investigated by someone totally independent. What is a controversial view these days? For me and alot of other people his views are not controversial. Is a controversial view only somthing if it does not fit a narrative? The expert has made some claims why can't we have someone to investigate or debunk these claims? What if the claims are proven true? Surely they should be debunked sooner rather than later in case a cancer patient decides not to take a booster shot after this? Edited by eaglesdare (21 Sep 2023 9.07pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 21 Sep 23 10.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
My point is...why not investigate it to rule it out completely? Again if you ask for an investigation or question you are branded "far right" or "conspiracy theorist" My point is - you haven’t looked up whether it has been or not. Which is what I’d expect from an anti-vaxxer. There are already papers on both the viral impact on cancer and also inflammation from vaccines (lymph nodes) on cancer. Take a look rather than just lazily repackaging narratives from elsewhere
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 21 Sep 23 10.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
My point is - you haven’t looked up whether it has been or not. Which is what I’d expect from an anti-vaxxer. There are already papers on both the viral impact on cancer and also inflammation from vaccines (lymph nodes) on cancer. Take a look rather than just lazily repackaging narratives from elsewhere I find the term "Anti-vaxxer" insulting and a derogatory term used by bigots and is highly discriminatory. Papers that are published these days are only published if they have agendas. They are not published if they contradict the narrative. We have already discussed this and I have already provided an example.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 21 Sep 23 11.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
I find the term "Anti-vaxxer" insulting and a derogatory term used by bigots and is highly discriminatory. Papers that are published these days are only published if they have agendas. They are not published if they contradict the narrative. We have already discussed this and I have already provided an example. Oh well…. You have never had a vaccine in your life, and were on occasions taken out of school to avoid having them. You don’t believe in them. You said so yourself. You push anti vaccine narratives. It’s the very definition. Papers are published every day that both contradict and support the ‘narrative’ - it just doesn’t suit yours to admit that to be the case. ‘An example’. You do realise that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of papers. One example to prove a rule - very scientific. In this topic you prefer nurtured belief and ideology over objectivity, logic and reason. Straight up dogma. That’s fine, but not particularly compatible with a science based debate. It also greatly reduces the value or relevance of your contributions to this thread. And reveals a lot about your likely position on a whole host of other matters. And that’s all fine, just don’t cry about it. Own it. Edited by SW19 CPFC (21 Sep 2023 11.01pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 21 Sep 23 11.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Because it would be career suicide for a hell of a lot of people. If any of that stuff is true then eventually you'd like to think it would eventually come out officially but I would imagine it would be resisted for years....like smoking....which took a long time from first concerns to anything concrete. Nah Literally papers being published on it right now. General consensus seems to be - requires more research (and more will of course follow) So it’s being looked at, as it should be. Not ignored completely as was originally suggested Surprise surprise
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 21 Sep 23 11.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Oh well…. You have never had a vaccine in your life, and were on occasions taken out of school to avoid having them. You don’t believe in them. You said so yourself. You push anti vaccine narratives. It’s the very definition. Papers are published every day that both contradict and support the ‘narrative’ - it just doesn’t suit yours to admit that to be the case. ‘An example’. You do realise that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of papers. One example to prove a rule - very scientific. In this topic you prefer nurtured belief and ideology over objectivity, logic and reason. Straight up dogma. That’s fine, but not particularly compatible with a science based debate. It also greatly reduces the value or relevance of your contributions to this thread. And reveals a lot about your likely position on a whole host of other matters. And that’s all fine, just don’t cry about it. Own it. Edited by SW19 CPFC (21 Sep 2023 11.01pm) I prefer the term Critical thinker. Edit: I also do not push vaccine narratives I ask vaccine questions and query the effectiveness of them and also the side effects from them. Science debate? Clearly there is no science debate anymore as anyone who asks a question is cancelled. Edited by eaglesdare (21 Sep 2023 11.11pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 21 Sep 23 11.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
I prefer the term Critical thinker. Edit: I also do not push vaccine narratives I ask vaccine questions and query the effectiveness of them and also the side effects from them. Science debate? Clearly there is no science debate anymore as anyone who asks a question is cancelled. Edited by eaglesdare (21 Sep 2023 11.11pm) You’re delusional. You’re an anti-vaxxer. Belief systems and critical thinking don’t mix. Critical thinkers strive to be objective and don’t start from a place of bias. You do push anti vaccine narratives. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. ‘I only ask questions’ I mean - not true, but your questions are welcome. Your opinions however are about as robust as Eeyores howse on a particularly blustery day. And cancelled? Sorry, have you been banned? Try countered. Absolute codswallop
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 21 Sep 23 11.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
You’re delusional. You’re an anti-vaxxer. Belief systems and critical thinking don’t mix. Critical thinkers strive to be objective and don’t start from a place of bias. You do push anti vaccine narratives. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. ‘I only ask questions’ I mean - not true, but your questions are welcome. Your opinions however are about as robust as Eeyores howse on a particularly blustery day. And cancelled? Sorry, have you been banned? Try countered. Absolute codswallop You clearly have a personal issue with me. So we shall leave it here before you make anymore discriminatory and bigotry comments.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.