A fake picture that we do not like and that excludes the source of the implied data is not reliable but a different meme that we like that excludes the source of the data is reliable.
Oh, and the point is that you are making this about me again, which is flattering but not necessary.
Are you seriously trying to justify posting a fake document? Or were you fooled too and now you're trying to pretend you already knew and did it strategically? Either way, dude, posting fake stuff as though it were real is low. And really dumb.You say you work in the medical industry right? In that case, I don't know which is the scarier thought, that you didn't know it was fake or that you knew and posted it anyway.
I posted a picture.
Perhaps you could point me to where I claimed it was real. I asked a question, and posted a picture. I wear these masks almost daily. I have to. What are we doing about pictures and words and messages where we do not accurately reveal the source?
Your conviction that posting a picture with words is so bad seems very high. What about a picture with words about ICUs and hospital beds? What confirmation do you have that the suggestion in that image is fully accurate? It may be. I have never once said it was not accurate, despite the daggers and insults coming my way, you will see that I am merely asking for the source of the data.
Excellent work making this conversation about me, again, and avoiding the topic at hand, again. The topic is Vaccines and Therapeutics and the question is what is the source of the statistics represented in an image about vaccine efficacy?
Are you seriously trying to justify posting a fake document? Or were you fooled too and now you're trying to pretend you already knew and did it strategically? Either way, dude, posting fake stuff as though it were real is low. And really dumb.You say you work in the medical industry right? In that case, I don't know which is the scarier thought, that you didn't know it was fake or that you knew and posted it anyway.
I posted a picture.
Perhaps you could point me to where I claimed it was real. I asked a question, and posted a picture. I wear these masks almost daily. I have to. What are we doing about pictures and words and messages where we do not accurately reveal the source?
Your conviction that posting a picture with words is so bad seems very high. What about a picture with words about ICUs and hospital beds? What confirmation do you have that the suggestion in that image is fully accurate? It may be. I have never once said it was not accurate, despite the daggers and insults coming my way, you will see that I am merely asking for the source of the data.
Excellent work making this conversation about me, again, and avoiding the topic at hand, again. The topic is Vaccines and Therapeutics and the question is what is the source of the statistics represented in an image about vaccine efficacy?
Wow, that's a whole lotta words trying to mask the fact that you posted a fake document.
The analogy to the LDS testimony is a huge straw man. The vaccines are what they are. More black and white thinking on your part -- no one believes the vaccines are "true." Are there "silos?" Sure. Are they all equally correct on the facts and conclusions? No.
There is no vaccine!! It's a xxxkin shot, like the flu shot. You and your Progressive cult butt buddies are obsessed with the shot because it helps you determine the "righteousness" of an individual.
I believe that if you believe what you just said that you must believe it in silence. You can, however, say that Res only believes in the vaccines because it helps him get more billable hours from home. You can say that, all, day, long.
Perhaps you could point me to where I claimed it was real. I asked a question, and posted a picture. I wear these masks almost daily. I have to. What are we doing about pictures and words and messages where we do not accurately reveal the source?
Your conviction that posting a picture with words is so bad seems very high. What about a picture with words about ICUs and hospital beds? What confirmation do you have that the suggestion in that image is fully accurate? It may be. I have never once said it was not accurate, despite the daggers and insults coming my way, you will see that I am merely asking for the source of the data.
Excellent work making this conversation about me, again, and avoiding the topic at hand, again. The topic is Vaccines and Therapeutics and the question is what is the source of the statistics represented in an image about vaccine efficacy?
Wow, that's a whole lotta words trying to mask the fact that you posted a fake document.
The analogy to the LDS testimony is a huge straw man. The vaccines are what they are. More black and white thinking on your part -- no one believes the vaccines are "true." Are there "silos?" Sure. Are they all equally correct on the facts and conclusions? No.
There is no vaccine!! It's a xxxkin shot, like the flu shot. You and your Progressive cult butt buddies are obsessed with the shot because it helps you determine the "righteousness" of an individual.
Making up a distinction between "vaccine" and "shot" is the dumbest antivaxxer tripe I've heard so far. "Shot" is simply a popular term for something administered with a needle. A "vaccine" administered using a needle is "shot."
Merriam Webster:
"1 : a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."
That's exactly what the various COVID "shots" are: preparations to stimulate the body's immune response against COVID-19. Likewise, flu "shots" contain three preparations (generally) used to stimulate the bodies immune response against three different flu strains.
If you have to invent your own special meaning of commonly understood words to make an argument, then odds are it's a terrible argument.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
There is no vaccine!! It's a xxxkin shot, like the flu shot. You and your Progressive cult butt buddies are obsessed with the shot because it helps you determine the "righteousness" of an individual.
I believe that if you believe what you just said that you must believe it in silence. You can, however, say that Res only believes in the vaccines because it helps him get more billable hours from home. You can say that, all, day, long.
There is no vaccine!! It's a xxxkin shot, like the flu shot. You and your Progressive cult butt buddies are obsessed with the shot because it helps you determine the "righteousness" of an individual.
Making up a distinction between "vaccine" and "shot" is the dumbest antivaxxer tripe I've heard so far. "Shot" is simply a popular term for something administered with a needle. A "vaccine" administered using a needle is "shot."
Merriam Webster:
"1 : a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."
That's exactly what the various COVID "shots" are: preparations to stimulate the body's immune response against COVID-19. Likewise, flu "shots" contain three preparations (generally) used to stimulate the bodies immune response against three different flu strains.
If you have to invent your own special meaning of commonly understood words to make an argument, then odds are it's a terrible argument.
How many shots do you need to be fully vaccinated?
Are you seriously trying to justify posting a fake document? Or were you fooled too and now you're trying to pretend you already knew and did it strategically? Either way, dude, posting fake stuff as though it were real is low. And really dumb.You say you work in the medical industry right? In that case, I don't know which is the scarier thought, that you didn't know it was fake or that you knew and posted it anyway.
I posted a picture.
Perhaps you could point me to where I claimed it was real. I asked a question, and posted a picture. I wear these masks almost daily. I have to. What are we doing about pictures and words and messages where we do not accurately reveal the source?
Your conviction that posting a picture with words is so bad seems very high. What about a picture with words about ICUs and hospital beds? What confirmation do you have that the suggestion in that image is fully accurate? It may be. I have never once said it was not accurate, despite the daggers and insults coming my way, you will see that I am merely asking for the source of the data.
Excellent work making this conversation about me, again, and avoiding the topic at hand, again. The topic is Vaccines and Therapeutics and the question is what is the source of the statistics represented in an image about vaccine efficacy?
C'mon, just admit you posted an easily checked fake CDC document without checking. No one is criticizing you for posting a picture with words. They're criticizing you for posting a clear fraud and somehow claiming that the fraud shows that hospital statistics are fraudulent.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Making up a distinction between "vaccine" and "shot" is the dumbest antivaxxer tripe I've heard so far. "Shot" is simply a popular term for something administered with a needle. A "vaccine" administered using a needle is "shot."
Merriam Webster:
"1 : a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."
That's exactly what the various COVID "shots" are: preparations to stimulate the body's immune response against COVID-19. Likewise, flu "shots" contain three preparations (generally) used to stimulate the bodies immune response against three different flu strains.
If you have to invent your own special meaning of commonly understood words to make an argument, then odds are it's a terrible argument.
How many shots do you need to be fully vaccinated?
What does that have to do with your silly distinction between "shots" and "vaccines?"
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
C'mon, just admit you posted an easily checked fake CDC document without checking. No one is criticizing you for posting a picture with words. They're criticizing you for posting a clear fraud and somehow claiming that the fraud shows that hospital statistics are fraudulent.
Res, I swear to damned god I knew it was a fake. The point was never that masks worked or do not work. I actually had to google it to find the damn picture.
I am not suggesting that the picture I post shows that hospital statistics are fraudulent. C'mon, just admit that I am not making that claim and using a picture about masks to make the claim. You are stretching your logic beyond the pale here.
You will not listen and you will not engage because it does not fit your narrative. I get it. I am used to that. I posted a picture with a question, and the picture was BS from top to bottom. You and Doc are suggesting that a picture is not BS. And all I am asking is why? How? Where is the data? How is it different than a picture of a piece of paper?
Now, what are the sources of whatever it is in the image that Doc posted? Just IHC in a single hospital? Self-reported data? What?
