This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
  SW19 CPFC  Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 12.05am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
You clearly have a personal issue with me. So we shall leave it here before you make anymore discriminatory and bigotry comments. Nope. The term is not discriminatory. Or from a place of bigotry. The Equalities act isn’t relevant here - it’s a factual description. We’re also not in the workplace. Unless I missed something, it describes your position accurately, and explains your opinions. Therefore it’s more than relevant to be raised in a scientific debate. It’s like not wanting to declare vested interests as part of a research paper. Makes sense to know about the bias before engaging.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| eaglesdare 22 Sep 23 12.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Nope. The term is not discriminatory. Or from a place of bigotry. The Equalities act isn’t relevant here - it’s a factual description. We’re also not in the workplace. Unless I missed something, it describes your position accurately, and explains your opinions. Therefore it’s more than relevant to be raised in a scientific debate. It’s like not wanting to declare vested interests as part of a research paper. Makes sense to know about the bias before engaging. Like I said you seem to have a personal issue with me so before you make any more discriminatory, bigotry or offensive comments we shall leave it there.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Sep 23 9.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
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) A controversial view is one not supported by the mainstream or contains peer reviewed evidence. That people who buy in to conspiracy theories don’t regard them as controversial is neither surprising nor convincing. If the claims have evidence to justify them then they will certainly be investigated, probably as a matter of urgency because if true would be important. That though would need to be done in an uncontroversial way, so that there would be confidence in the results.
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 |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 9.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Like I said you seem to have a personal issue with me so before you make any more discriminatory, bigotry or offensive comments we shall leave it there. Nope. Not a discriminatory term. Whether or not a factual description is offensive to you is your problem. You can leave it there but I’ll continue to counter your and others misinformation where appropriate to the debate - your attempt to try and shut debate down under the guise of personal attack is surprising considering your views on ‘cancel culture’. Edited by SW19 CPFC (22 Sep 2023 9.28am)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 9.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
A controversial view is one not supported by the mainstream or contains peer reviewed evidence. That people who buy in to conspiracy theories don’t regard them as controversial is neither surprising nor convincing. If the claims have evidence to justify them then they will certainly be investigated, probably as a matter of urgency because if true would be important. That though would need to be done in an uncontroversial way, so that there would be confidence in the results. This is a non-starter There are papers covering the questions raised but for some reason that’s being ignored and means no-one is looking at it. If individuals are unable to acknowledge simple facts then I’m not sure they’re doing anything other than pushing a closed minded position.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 22 Sep 23 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Nope. Not a discriminatory term. Whether or not a factual description is offensive to you is your problem. You can leave it there but I’ll continue to counter your and others misinformation where appropriate to the debate. A factual description like "women can't have a p****" or men "can't get a period" is offensive and classed as hate speech, discrimination and bigotry these days. Alot of my posts are based on asking questions. Why can't I ask them? I see somthing and I ask the question and I am discriminated against for simply asking. You clearly silence the debate with personal character assassination and insults.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 22 Sep 23 9.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
This is a non-starter There are papers covering the questions raised but for some reason that’s being ignored and means no-one is looking at it. If individuals are unable to acknowledge simple facts then I’m not sure they’re doing anything other than pushing a closed minded position. Papers that are only published if they follow the narrative and agendas.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 9.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Papers that are only published if they follow the narrative and agendas. Totally incorrect. Feel free to prove that’s the case, though. That would require you to be objective so I have a feeling we could be waiting a while. There are some posted by others on this thread that go against what you would view as the current ‘narrative’. There are plenty that support further research into the question re cancer you are asking. There are plenty that have challenging hypotheses. If they were all following the narrative they’d firstly not be published as you say, and secondly if they were they’d say ‘no casual link, nothing to see here’. But they don’t. Your dogmatic view is yours to hold but don’t cry about it or try to hide behind accusations of personal attack when you post nonsense and are called out for it accordingly. Maybe follow your own advice and ‘leave it there’ if this is all triggering you so much?
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 22 Sep 23 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Totally incorrect. Feel free to prove that’s the case, though. That would require you to be objective so I have a feeling we could be waiting a while. There are some posted by others on this thread that go against what you would view as the current ‘narrative’. There are plenty that support further research into the question re cancer you are asking. There are plenty that have challenging hypotheses. If they were all following the narrative they’d firstly not be published as you say, and secondly if they were they’d say ‘no casual link, nothing to see here’. But they don’t. Your dogmatic view is yours to hold but don’t cry about it or try to hide behind accusations of personal attack when you post nonsense and are called out for it accordingly. Maybe follow your own advice and ‘leave it there’ if this is all triggering you so much? I did earlier in the thread.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 1.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
I did earlier in the thread. I'm afraid you didn't. You're saying that all research reports, effectively ever, are useless. That's a pretty bold claim. I'm not sure you understand what 'proof' actually means in this context.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 22 Sep 23 4.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I'm afraid you didn't. You're saying that all research reports, effectively ever, are useless. That's a pretty bold claim. I'm not sure you understand what 'proof' actually means in this context. Go back and read the thread then
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 24 Sep 23 9.55pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Dr John Campbell on excess deaths in 2023. From the start of the year to the end of July over 33 thousand excess for the year.....quite incredible that you are barely hearing about it. In the video is confirmation of significant excess deaths in 2023 for US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Netherlands, and Denmark. However, deaths are lower than expected in Poland, Hungary, and Sweden. As the WHO reported there are more excess deaths worldwide since Covid started than from Covid itself.
'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 |
|
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.