Re: CV and mad panic behaviour
Reply #4344 –
And therefor they're safe? 77, you're putting words/interpretations into the mouth of another. The quote that Wingman MAV shared, simply quoted that there is no evidence that xyz causes cancer. Full stop. You're manufacturing an interpretation to suit you narrative. No vaccine, no medication is 100% safe. You simply cannot think in absolutes when it comes to medications and vaccines.
If you read the sheet listing potential side-effects and risks associated with the medication I take for the management of PTSD (anxiety/depression disorders), you'd be fear struck and not touch it. But the alternative is far worse - poor quality of life and the potential for worsening mental health to the point of contemplating yourself leaving planet Earth. The plusses far, far out weigh the side-effects. I need liver function tests every 12 months to monitor the potential harmful effects of the medication - so what do I do about these potential, very real side-effects, etc? I ensure my diet includes foods that aid and support my liver function. That's taking responsibility for your own health. 22 years of liver function blood tests have revealed my liver is doing great.
If you want to focus on the things which potentially harm our bodies you need look no further than alcohol, sugar and processed foods. They do far more harm than any vaccines and many medications - a diet of these things fast tracks diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, some mental illnesses and so on.
Gee, that's stellar logic. ROFL. Were you pissed when you wrote that? Putdowns never aid or strengthen your argument - ask yourself why you so need to do such things. In fact such putdowns only weaken your argument and succeed in divisiveness. This response and attitude will never strengthen or validate your opinion or supporting data.
By all means bury your brains 8 feet under and refuse to consider the' 'other' side.... again with the putdown... but what I do read into this sentence, and it is an assumption only, is someone wanting to be acknowledged for his contribution. Very reasonable. But whenever we do share any contribution pushback and questioning come with the territory... and it is often NOT personal, but you have an unfortunate tendency to get personal in response.
As Baggers so eloquently said (paraphrasing), do I really give a toss what you think? You used my comment to you totally out of context which is really quite manipulative. My comment to you was in relation to your expectations of me. To re-iterate, your expectations of me are of little to no interest to me.
As for your ad hominem allegation, BS. Not so. Sorry Cocko, but you do get personal. And you might want to acquaint yourself with the psychological fact/phenomenon of 'projection.'
I work with data professionally, I get data and I can interpret data. Okay, an important skill, but that does NOT assume nor is it evidentiary/proof that you are always right.
You lot ( a good few of you sadly) just opine without any supporting evidence....it's clear LP has long got way with his bully boy "I know more than you' mantra.....well, that's kindergarten stuff. I've never read anything from the Spotted One that stated he knew more than you... you simply interpreted his questioning of your data personally. Believe me, I know what it is like to be overly sensitive - again, an assumption only on my part (that you may be too sensitive to questioning).
I'll leave you with a few simple images.
Interpret them as you see fit.
ps Mav, I suggest you read up on what constitutes an ad hominem attack. Me saying a fact check site is carp is not an ad hominem attack on you. By definition. His ad hominem comment did not relate to your data or the interpretation thereof, it related to the manner in which you communicated your data.