• The KillerFrogs

COVID-19 Threads

Zubaz

Member
1) David Wolfe....goodness. I shouldn't be surprised in this thread, but still.
2) That quote is from 2016, long before COVID. She's talking about people who refuse to give their kids routine vaccinations because they believe the "vaccines don't work and cause autism" lunacy. Wolfe shared this because that's what he believes, btw.
3) She's discussing diversity stats in a city to determine vaccine hesitancy, not "homicidal" preferences of removing whites from the city (or country).
 

HFrog1999

Member
1) David Wolfe....goodness. I shouldn't be surprised in this thread, but still.
2) That quote is from 2016, long before COVID. She's talking about people who refuse to give their kids routine vaccinations because they believe the "vaccines don't work and cause autism" lunacy. Wolfe shared this because that's what he believes, btw.
3) She's discussing diversity stats in a city to determine vaccine hesitancy, not "homicidal" preferences of removing whites from the city (or country).

“Diversity” = Get rid of the white peoples



Cracking Up Lol GIF by Rodney Dangerfield
 

TxFrog1999

The Man Behind The Curtain
1) David Wolfe....goodness. I shouldn't be surprised in this thread, but still.
2) That quote is from 2016, long before COVID. She's talking about people who refuse to give their kids routine vaccinations because they believe the "vaccines don't work and cause autism" lunacy. Wolfe shared this because that's what he believes, btw.
3) She's discussing diversity stats in a city to determine vaccine hesitancy, not "homicidal" preferences of removing whites from the city (or country).
What context of the discussion about people refusing vaccines mandates makes her statement "we'll just get rid of all the whites" better? The fact that its from 2016 doesn't negate the lunacy of that statement, just as time hasn't soften Hitler's deranged proclamations.
 

Zubaz

Member
What context of the discussion about people refusing vaccines mandates makes her statement "we'll just get rid of all the whites" better? The fact that its from 2016 doesn't negate the lunacy of that statement, just as time hasn't soften Hitler's deranged proclamations.
She's talking about removing whites from a data set on vaccine hesitancy to get a better grasp on vaccine hesitancy in the minority community.
 

Zubaz

Member
BTW, you know how people say "flat earther" as sort of a short-hand insult towards "science deniers" or whatever, but not actually suggesting the person you're talking to really believes the Earth is flat?

David Wolfe, in addition to his countless other scams and cons, is a literal flat Earth person. He literally suggests the Earth is flat.

Do with that information what you will. If you think he's credible, I'll just say I disagree.
 
Last edited:

Zubaz

Member
I hope you realize that phrasing it as "we'll just get rid of all of the whites in the United States" is a really awful way to say what you indicate she's saying...
Agreed, just as I'm sure you realize that taking one sentence out of the context of the entire commentary is a really deceitful way for that twat to present his point.
 

Frog79

Active Member
1) David Wolfe....goodness. I shouldn't be surprised in this thread, but still.
2) That quote is from 2016, long before COVID. She's talking about people who refuse to give their kids routine vaccinations because they believe the "vaccines don't work and cause autism" lunacy. Wolfe shared this because that's what he believes, btw.
3) She's discussing diversity stats in a city to determine vaccine hesitancy, not "homicidal" preferences of removing whites from the city (or country).
Childhood vaccines, none of which have been safety tested against a true placebo despite being required to by the FDA, decrease some illnesses (chickenpox) and increase others with the net result being that unvaccinated kids are healthier, having far less asthma, ADHD, autism, ear infections, allergies, etc. than vaxed kids.


It is becoming more and more obvious that "vaccine hesitancy" is a good thing.
 

Zubaz

Member
Childhood vaccines, none of which have been safety tested against a true placebo despite being required to by the FDA, decrease some illnesses (chickenpox) and increase others with the net result being that unvaccinated kids are healthier, having far less asthma, ADHD, autism, ear infections, allergies, etc. than vaxed kids.


It is becoming more and more obvious that "vaccine hesitancy" is a good thing.
Remember when I said you seemed to be anti-vax, you denied it, and everyone said "No no he's just anti COVID vaccine"?

Just a thought.
 

Man my spidey sense was tingling on this study. I mean he took an online survey and had a reasonable conclusion, but oh, by the way, there were 278,000 deaths from the vaccine. Hmmmm.

Here's a pretty good review of the issues with that paper. So it took a legit online survey with reasonable results (that vaccinated people were more likely to know someone with severe Covid and antivaxxers more likely to know someone with an adverse event they attribute to the vaccine). And even the conclusion is reasonable (that vaccination status is influenced by personal experience wrt to covid and the vaccine). But he basically made up number of vaccine related deaths extrapolated from the survey results into the result section. But not surprisingly that number is what is spreading like fire in antivaxland:


The first part goes into the methodology and the authors "fatal" flaws (no pun intended!)

The second part reveals the big time anti-vax perspective of the author and the funder of the research.

I agree with this guys conclusion. This is a bait and switch or a trojan horse paper where the real intent- getting out his fabricated estimate of deaths from the vaccine- is different from the purported conclusion of the paper that made it through peer review.

BTW, I expect this paper to have a short life. At the bottom of the paper:

Change history​

  • 26 January 2023​

    Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues.
 
Top