diy solar

diy solar

Possible increase of heart attack risk after mRNA vaccine.

Yep, I openly support groups that oppose the Communist Chinese ! What a crazy thing for a freedom-loving American to do !
You happen to be a QAnon supporter?

If you are, what you say totally makes sense.
 
You happen to be a QAnon supporter?

If you are, what you say totally makes sense.
So you come on here not to debate facts, articles and current covid news ?

Actually, now I see you have 9 posts and you enter this debate like a third grader casting insults ? Grow up.
 
Most of Gateway Pundit's articles come from other sources.
In which case, primary sources would be the more appropriate links. The use of third, fourth, fifth degree sourcing is more often then not a way to spin or sensationalize things. With each degree, more context is lost, and more opinion, loaded language, half truths, and/or spin is interjected.

You clearly have a big bone to pick with mainstream media outlets for spinning things, if that is truly and earnestly the case, you should be even more outraged by the tremendous degree to which sites like this spin and manipulate things to fit their narrative, even if it is spin that suits your politics. Don't let your distaste of 'mainstream media' push you to even less credible and less ethical and more sensationalist, fringe outlets. We should all be at least as critical/skeptical of sites that confirm our beliefs/worldview as we are with those that contradict/challenge it, and we need to hold media outlets across the spectrum (and ourselves) to a higher standard.
 
There's a reason all of you are focusing on the Gateway Pundit.
The link to the FDA being forced to release VAERS data was from the "free republic" website. I just happened to see the link on The Gateway Pundit.


Liberals #1 tactic to appear to win an argument is to change the subject. They don't want to admit there are any side effects.
The best way to change the subject ?
Discredit the messenger or source of the article.
 
Very common side effect to not getting the vaccine is getting covid. Side effects escalate from there.
 
So you come on here not to debate facts, articles and current covid news ?

Actually, now I see you have 9 posts and you enter this debate like a third grader casting insults ? Grow up.
No... I see your motive. This is all political for you. You don't like masks...you don't like having to take vaccines so you have a political bone to pick but to support your case, you pick misinformation sites to try to prove that its about science even if the sites and links you put up show that they don't support real science at all.

Why don't you just leave the science out of it since you don't really believe in science and just say what you believe...that it's all the politics for you. At least be honest with your motivations!

Again...do you believe in QAnon? It's a real simple question!
 
There's a reason all of you are focusing on the Gateway Pundit.
The link to the FDA being forced to release VAERS data was from the "free republic" website. I just happened to see the link on The Gateway Pundit.


Liberals #1 tactic to appear to win an argument is to change the subject. They don't want to admit there are any side effects.
The best way to change the subject ?
Discredit the messenger or source of the article.
Again. This was discussed in detail with Bob B above. We actually downloaded the document. I have read it four times and many participated in the discussion. Did you actually read the underlying document? Not only will we engage on actual facts, but that is also what we are asking you to do. When we do address one, you just post another. Now you are pretending this one has not been discussed.
 
Very common side effect to not getting the vaccine is getting covid. Side effects escalate from there.
True, and in America we should be free to choose.
And I know you will say "I am not free to infect others.
The vaccinated and unvaccinated can infect others.

At this point, most Americans are fed up with the pussies and crybabies and want to move on.
Life has risks. And maybe Florida is proving the mono-clonal antibody shots work pretty well ?
 
The link to the FDA being forced to release VAERS data was from the "free republic" website. I just happened to see the link on The Gateway Pundit.

Mediabiasfactcheck:
Founded in 1996 by Jim and John Robinson, Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum and chat site for self-described conservatives. The website consists of news articles posted by members, followed by comments and discussion of the articles.
If you look at their homepage their top categories include
  • "Prayer"
  • "Homosexual Agenda" and
  • "TrumpWinsAgain"
  • "TRUMP" (yes all caps)
And even a section for:
  • "Rumor"
Even if this site perfectly reflects your politics/beliefs, is this really something that you would consider as a news source? trust? or expect anyone else to trust or be persuaded by?
 
Last edited:
Mediabiasfactcheck:

If you look at their homepage their top categories include "Prayer" "Homosexual Agenda" and "TrumpWinsAgain" and even a section for "Rumor" is this really something that you would consider as a news source?
Dude, I respect your solar knowledge but in this thread, you are just another democrat talking point.
It doesn't matter who reports information as long as they aren't lying or trying to slant the story.
There was nothing untrue in that report. I even said VAERS death data can be mischaracterized.
 
True, and in America we should be free to choose.
And I know you will say "I am not free to infect others.
The vaccinated and unvaccinated can infect others.

At this point, most Americans are fed up with the pussies and crybabies and want to move on.
Life has risks. And maybe Florida is proving the mono-clonal antibody shots work pretty well ?
Mono clonal antibodies are a treatment. It is usually IV treatment or a series of shots. It requires the infection to be caught early and for people to get into a facility. Right now it is mostly targeted to those at high risk of serious disease. It is not a panacea. It is a tool we need to use. Just like the new Pfizer drug will not displace either vaccines or monoclonal antibodies. We need everything. It is just really odd to hear your praise monoclonals as you don't know how they work and they come from Big Pharma, are under EUA, are more invasive than a vaccine and as to their effectiveness you are relying on the exact same FDA approval process you say is all conspiracy. Fauci has been pushing monoclonals all year long and you think he is the anti-Christ. You make no sense. You constantly contradict yourself.
 
In my county after 1 year and 10 months we have 30,000 verified recovered cases of a 280,000 population. I would bet there are probably many many more that never got verified and recovered. The total case count is really misleading as so many people dont get tested, and recover. One thing that is easily verfied and more accurate is the death count. I'd bet there are multiples more cases than officially counted that recovered...or after almost 2 years somehow people got lucky.
 
Dude, I respect your solar knowledge but in this thread, you are just another democrat talking point.
It doesn't matter who reports information as long as they aren't lying or trying to slant the story.
There was nothing untrue in that report. I even said VAERS death data can be mischaracterized.
But you NEVER go to primary sources. You are just posting opinions from known based sources. That is not a discussion. No one does that in a discussion of batteries or solar. Why here?
 
There's a reason all of you are focusing on the Gateway Pundit.
The link to the FDA being forced to release VAERS data was from the "free republic" website. I just happened to see the link on The Gateway Pundit.
Free Republic’s users publish articles from a wide range of sources with some being on our questionable list for factual reporting, such as Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and even Rush Limbaugh who has a terrible record with fact-checkers.

 
We need everything.
Couldn't agree more, even doctors willing to risk their reputation, their own studies, and convictions on repurposed drugs that have shown effectiveness when given at the correct stage of illness.
 
Dude, I respect your solar knowledge but in this thread, you are just another democrat talking point.
As far as I recall, I haven't weighed in on anything political (or even medical apart from my personal choices) in this thread or stated my opinions, and I don't intend to. My politics are irrelevant and my medical knowledge is non-existant, so my opinion on either subject would not add any value to anything. But for what its worth you missed the mark with my political affiliation. But, again, my politics shouldn't matter, as I've made a point of not getting tangled up in that mess here.

My point of commenting here has everything to do with information literacy and the importance of knowing how to assess and vet a source on the internet. That applies to people of all political perspectives, that is something we all need proficiency in, especially in this day and age. I have my 'unofficial forum librarian' hat on right now. Online information literacy is something I care about deeply, we have proved ourselves to be very vulnerable to manipulation/misinformation/sensationalism and clickbait. Not just with politics, advertising, health elixirs, social media, medical misinformation, etc.

It doesn't matter who reports information as long as they aren't lying or trying to slant the story.
It certainly does if you want to convince anyone of anything or to have it taken seriously. You can't convince anyone of anything by citing sources they don't trust or aren't viewed as credible. Further if there is no 'slant or bias' you should not need to rely on biased sources, you will never convince anyone that doesn't already agree with you by only linking sources that reflect your own biases and conflict with the other person's, you need to find sources that are either neutral/objective or reflect the biases of the people you are trying to convince, if you want to convince people of your points.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more, even doctors willing to risk their reputation, their own studies, and convictions on repurposed drugs that have shown effectiveness when given at the correct stage of illness.
But doctors aren't even allowed to test drugs like ivermectin, even when we know it causes no harm.
Several drugs have shown promise, and they are cheap. But doctors in hospitals have been ordered to stand down.
 
True, and in America we should be free to choose.
And I know you will say "I am not free to infect others.
The vaccinated and unvaccinated can infect others.

At this point, most Americans are fed up with the pussies and crybabies and want to move on.
Life has risks. And maybe Florida is proving the mono-clonal antibody shots work pretty well ?
I want normal care to return to hospitals. Many hospitals are still filled with covid.
My daughter waited a half day for a phone consultation to discuss issues with some new immune system medication.
Dr took less than 2 minutes to diagnose back pain and prescribe some "muscle relaxant"
This is just wrong and sad. This is how people end up on fentanyl. Anyway she did not fill the prescription.

Yes I blame the unvaccinated for the reduction of medical services for the rest of us.
 
It certainly does if you want to convince anyone of anything or to have it taken seriously. You can't convince anyone of anything by citing sources they don't trust or aren't viewed as credible. Further if there is no 'slant or bias' you should not need to rely on biased sources, you will never convince anyone that doesn't already agree with you by only linking sources that reflect your biases, you need to find sources that are either objective or reflect the biases of the people you are trying to convince, if you want to convince people of your points.
You denigrated a christian website (freerepublic) for not condoning homosexuality (duh) and supporting Trump.
It's a conservative website, and it sounded like you thought that was terrible.
That's all I need to know about where you stand.
 
You denigrated a christian website (freerepublic) for not condoning homosexuality (duh) and supporting Trump.
It's a conservative website, and it sounded like you thought that was terrible.
That's all I need to know about where you stand.
Always sidestepping and redirecting. You never go to merits beyond talking points. You can't.
 
Back
Top