”I believe…”

Posted on by Ark

I believe …Jimi Hendrix to be one of the best rock guitarists ever to have lived.

I believe …Liverpool Football to be one of the best soccer teams in the world.

I believe…. orange chiffon sponge cake with chocolate ganache to be the best cake ever.

I believe … the E-Type Jaguar to be the best sports car ever built.

I believe   … there is no evidence for the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth

I believe  … there is no evidence for Creationism

I believe … evolution is fact.

 

327 thoughts on “”I believe…””

          1. Truth has nothing to do with our best chance at survival. Lies will do just fine if it aligns with our best chance at survival. The Bible promotes belief, which seems to be the culprit responsible for getting us to the 20th century.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. You asked if I believe anything at all is in error.
            The bible IS in error.
            Is there going to be another of your classic semantic nonsense contributions?

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Can you indicate this sentence in the article: 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.

          …edit … s’okay, found it…

          Like

          Reply

        2. Since evolution is fact, why do so few, even the scientific community not trust it?

          and then ….

          Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.

          er ….?
          Say what?

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          2. “Believe” was the post survey word used by the researchers. The actual survey question asked:

            “Which statement comes closest to your views?”

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Indeed! But the use of the word “belief” introduces the possibility of equivocating between a word that can mean belief based on evidence and belief based on personal opinion without evidence.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth” .
            Niels Bohr

            Liked by 1 person

        3. The ‘belief’ is written by the PEW organization in this report answering the question, Do you believe humans have evolved over time? 98% of the respondents answered ‘Yes’.

          From this, Jim, you change the answer to be about evolution, which is a central pillar of studying biology itself. This is the same dishonest tactic used by apologists and deniers everywhere, substituting what YOU you think someone means rather than report what someone actually says in the context in which it is said. This is an oft repeated error in comprehension.

          Evolution is a theory. It is a fact. It is true. It is beyond reasonable doubt. It is an explanation that works for everyone everywhere all the time and produces – and continues to produce – insights into how life changes over time and by what unguided mechanisms. The explanation is used to produce applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time. All of this indicates it is simply batshit crazy and without any evidence from the real world to think evolution is doubtful.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

      1. I’m not saying it isn’t true. I am saying very few trust it to take us outside our comfort zones. If attempts to direct evolution are a part of evolution, so would any other ideology.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. “Should we use our new evolution-hacking powers to make us less susceptible to viruses? What a wonderful boon that would be! And what about preventing depression? Hmmm…Should we allow parents, if they can afford it, to enhance the height or muscles or IQ of their kids?
            The development of CRISPR and the race to create vaccines will hasten our transition to the next great innovation revolution.”
            https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Code-Breaker/Walter-Isaacson/9781982115852?fbclid=IwAR37CELeJLOnBl0aVcilaNQgEBSSiIGLeauyn3uH13uY9-o3BOpJjI0Jo40
            Is this the life I want to live, where everything is modified, molded, and plastered to perfection? Who gets to decide and who’s going to clean up?

            Like

          2. Still not sure what gene modification has to do with belief.

            But the GATACA scenario is a fascinating subject. I share your concerns, but there is an ethical/moral argument to be made for ‘cutting out’, say, the gene for alcoholism, isn’t there?

            It’s tough.

            Like

          4. Part of what makes life interesting is we just don’t know what the future holds. If we can take out all the suffering and guesswork would that be bliss?

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Based on past evidence I suggest that Jim doesn’t know what he’s trying to say either.

            ”very few? ”
            Ron Wyatt and Ken Ham?

            Liked by 1 person

    3. What do you mean? Most people in the scientific community trust evolution. Not only is evolution fact, it continues to have applications in many different fields of science. Unlike, say, Creationism or any spiritual beliefs.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. ‘It’ is not a noun, Jim. It’s a process that describes how life changes over time. There are all kinds of ways this process is affected. The process is one that changes allele frequencies, which is the proportion of an alteration of a gene inside a species. This changing proportion is compared to generations through successful reproduction (fitness).

          What you’re talking about with CRISPR is artificially altering the genetic code. This would refer to genotype frequency – the number of individuals inside a population. Only if that alteration changed the allele frequency through reproduction across generations would we talking about evolution. But – and here’s the point – it doesn’t alter the process we call evolution one iota. You have mistaken ‘natural’ with ‘intervention’ and then presume only the former is evolution, as if ‘natural’ is somehow important.

          But consider; if a sudden volcanic vent alters the allele frequency of a warm water critter in a place that once was suitable only for cold water critters and we saw this change in allele frequencies of the original cold water critters over many generations, has ‘evolution’ been somehow denied because the vent altered the environment? Not at all.

          And the same is true for CRISPR in that if enough individuals were altered and this change became proportionally dominant in the species across reproductive generations, then we’re still seeing evolution.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. By ‘trust’, I meant that based on our scientific observations and study, we believe evolution to be a real thing. Is that not what you meant 🤔? Whether or not something should be done about altering genes is a whole different thing entirely.

          We are able to alter genes because evolution is a real thing, and there are potential benefit to doing so. You’re basically asking the equivalent of asking a car enthusiast why they modify their car when they trust it to get them from A to B.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. The difference here is car enthusiasts don’t force you to add new glasspacks and nitrous ports. As we’ve seen with science it becomes the executive order.

            Like

          2. If there had been the proper understanding about the ‘Spanish’ Flu for example, would you have considered it morally and ethically acceptable if governments had passed laws insisting on vaccination or would you consider this to be an infringement of a person’s basic human rights?

            Like

          3. It would be morally and ethically acceptable (Supreme Court 1904 and 1922) and would also be an infringement on a persons basic human rights.

            Like

          6. Do you not consider someone who refused to be vaccinated during the Spanish flu epidemic (had this been available) may have been endangering the lives of others?

            Like

          7. Sure they would be endangering the lives of others assuming there is no other option but vaccination. But it is still an infringement on individual rights, which the Supreme Court has clearly stated doesn’t really exist.
            Contrary to your innuendos, I am in agreement with the law and I learn as I go from every comment posted.
            The problem is the law has been skirted which sets a precedent for future orders that may have nothing to do with the public good as deemed by any tyrannical government official, like the child welfare nazis, for instance, as well as any other “well meaning” order.

            Like

          12. Of course you ‘know’. That you ask ‘the point’ again tells me you already know the point and are now spoiling for a pointless argument.

            Like

          13. Wow. Profound. Only you could be disagreeable with what you agree with. Do you actually read for content, or simply to look for fault? This is you being pointless, not me

            Like

          14. If you know who Typhoid Mary was and can’t see the point or more likely won’t, then I might as well be having a discussion with Colorstorm.

            Like

          15. True you and colorstorm have more in common than you and me. Neither of you can see beyond your little world of beliefs

            Like

          17. Not really. Here you go again. You ask a stupid question and you imagine yourself in this supreme gotcha moment that doesn’t exist

            Like

          22. Why do you think it is necessary to have a passport? Why not simply move around from, country to country with ne’re a care in the world and no official red tape?

            Like

          23. Funny you should ask. I’ve been posing that same question (and others) for most of my adult life. Who has the moral right to tell others whence they may come and go? And by what means do they obtain such a moral right? What say ye?

            Like

          24. I asked why you think it necessary to have a passport. Are you saying you do not consider it is necessary?

            Like

          25. Already answered. No, I do not consider it necessary; and the fact that they exist or that many people “believe” it just and proper to exercise authority over others does not make it morally right.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. If you extend this argument to it’s likely conclusion you would have no regulation at all.

            The so-called freedom of the individual should not be considered paramount to the well being of everyone else.

            Like

          27. The so-called freedom of the individual should not be considered paramount to the well being of everyone else.

            Just thought I’d repeat that in case anyone missed it.

            Liked by 3 people

          30. Tis ‘an interesting conundrum.
            It might be considered foolhardy if, for example, you were in mortal danger and only the timely intervention of John, Prof, Jeff and Moi would ensure your survival even if there was a strong likelihood that one of more of us might die in this heroic endeavour.

            Logic might suggest we all stay put and you will just have to take your chances.

            But because of human nature this would also likely be regarded as selfish and/ or cowardly.

            And yet …. here we have arguments being made that ”forcing” people to vaccinate is a violation of their basic human rights, even though there is the chance , as with Typhoid Mary, that they could infect and cause the death of a considerable number of people they may come into contact with.

            Freedom ain’t what it was like in the old days, ye haw. Gunslingers, Cowboys, scalping injuns and building a homestead.

            BTW in the ‘rescue scenario’, John, Jeff and Prof all die horribly when the volcano explodes and only I survive managing to drag you to safety and afterwards am rewarded with a nice home-cooked meal and an expensive bottle of wine.
            The other three get a 5 line obituary in the local newspaper.

            Liked by 3 people

          32. I get to go to heaven as well, dying in my bed after a blissful night of sex.
            You, on the other hand were fried and cremated in a bloody volcano!

            Like

          34. Typhoid Mary? LOL

            Number deaths worldwide attributed to COVID-1984 over 20 months is ~5 million. That works out to 0.06% of the world’s 7.8 billion population. And keep in mind that that number includes people who died “with” COVID, not died “of” COVID. That is to say, the majority (~95% according to the CDC) of those who died after testing positive for COVID had three or more major health issues.

            Like

          36. That’s because you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that the will of the collective supersedes the rights of the individual. Yet the reality is that only thing that really requires regulation is immoral behaviour — i.e. actions that violate the autonomy of the individual.

            “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”― Ayn Rand

            Liked by 1 person

          41. Again: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!

            …who believe as Rand did: that those who rely on social systems are—to use her ugly term—“parasites”

            …

            Rand taught “there is no such thing as the public interest,” that programs like Social Security and Medicare steal from “creators” and illegitimately redistribute their wealth

            …

            “Reality had intruded upon her ideological pipedreams”
            …

            In the simplest terms, Rand discovered at the end of her life that she was only human and in need of help. Rather than starve or drop dead—as she would have let so many others do—she took the help on offer. .

            https://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html

            Liked by 1 person

          42. Again, there is no shame in collecting on a debt you were forced to pay into. IF you force me to pay for something against my will, then damn straight I will hold you to uphold your end of the bargain.

            Like

          44. She didn’t die on welfare. In fact, she was still collecting a large income from book royalties and speaking engagements — upon which she paid taxes.

            Liked by 1 person

          47. Yes, she collected government benefits. But you’re skirting the moral issue: there is absolutely nothing immoral about anyone taking out what they are forced to pay in.

            Liked by 1 person

          48. Ah, okay, just so I get this straight…

            When Rand claims welfare it’s good, but when anyone else claims welfare it’s wrong and they’re… [checks notes]… “parasites.”

            Have I got that right?

            Liked by 1 person

          51. Speaking of taxes … it’s against my best interests to pay taxes because it reduces my income that is needed for my personal survival so why should I be “forced” to do so just because others may suffer from the elimination of tax-supported services that benefit them?

            Liked by 1 person

          58. The only one ignoring reality is the collectivist who deigns forced taxation as a moral good.

            Like

          60. Truth be told, a significant portion of the world’s trails and footpaths were forged by individuals plodding their own path without benefit of taxation. So your argument is a moot point, anyways.

            Like

          63. Immoral? *sigh*

            Curious. Have you ever considered moving to a deserted island so you wouldn’t be faced with issues and actions that are designed to benefit others?

            Liked by 2 people

          64. Yes, it’s immoral to forcibly take what belongs to another against their will — no matter how much you desire it.

            And nothing prevents you, or anyone else, from contributing to the benefit of others of your own volition.

            Like

          66. “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Spock, The Wrath of Khan (1982)

            Like

          69. Individual rights are not absolute as soon as you have two individuals. What you have then are rights that can be equally shared with the least amount of restrictions that are also shared. That’s what equality in law is.

            Liked by 1 person

          70. The negative right to be left alone (i.e. to remain free from the undue interference of others) impinges upon no one regardless of how many individuals come into contact with one another and can therefore be deemed absolute.

            Liked by 1 person

          71. On the one hand, if negative rights are absolute, and you seem to be saying they are, then you must believe violations of lesser negative rights (and not ‘be left alone’, which is not a right but a social convenience) cannot be accepted in the course of preventing violations of greater ones.

            On the other hand, if negative rights are not absolute but on a gradient to allow for lesser infractions to protect greater rights, then this is a problem for you because it breaks your original commitment.

            For example, the negative right not to be killed seems to be absolute (the right to life), which means the corresponding obligation on others is to refrain from killing you. This sounds reasonable. But what if someone is trying to kill you? All of sudden we have at least one exception now: self-defense, which in law supersedes the right to life of the person attempting the killing! But if you are going to insist that even greater negative rights like the right to life are absolute, then you are arguing that defending your life from someone determined to take it is now immoral and should not be tolerated!

            I don’t believe you actually believe this.

            Liked by 2 people

          72. The negative right to be left alone flows from the moral principle that you do not possess the moral right to initiate force against another without cause; but it does not preclude the use of force for purposes of self defense against those who choose to initiate force against you.

            Therefore, one cannot justifiably argue that one’s rights are being violated if someone thwarts your efforts to cause them harm. That is to say, the common criminal has no moral standing to argue that his/her negative right to be left alone was violated while actively engaged in violating that same right to others.

            Like

          73. Right. That’s why none of these rights are, as you explain, absolute!

            Now that that’s out of the way, here’s the thing about vaccinations and negative rights:

            You say, “it (negative rights) does not preclude the use of force for purposes of self defense against those who choose to initiate force against you.” Now, you are implying that sticking a needle into someone against their will is ‘force’. Okay: is it justified?

            This is the heart of the matter. When someone carries an infectious disease and infects another – presumably against their will – then your argument actually aligns with mandatory vaccinations BECAUSE it is done in the name of self-defense. (But because infectious people are a- and pre-symptomatic when infecting others, they don’t know they are “initiating force” against others.) We have the right to insist that everyone shares the same burden equally to defend against those who ‘choose to initiate’ (knowingly or not) and maintain the chain of infection by refusing to get vaccinated.

            Your argument of respecting negative rights for all supports mandatory vaccinations.

            Liked by 2 people

          74. No, it’s not out of the way. I specifically wrote it was the right “to remain free from the undue interference of others” and went on to state that such a right imposes no burden upon others (save perhaps for those who wish to violate the rights of others), so it most certainly can be deemed an absolute right.

            In fact, the whole point of differentiating between negative and positive rights is that the former carries no burden of duty except to refrain from interfering with the lives and liberties of others (so long as they respond in kind), whilst the latter imposes a responsibility upon others to to fulfill those positive rights.

            In other words, the argument that you have a right to be protected against viral infections constitutes a positive right that imposes obligations upon others to avoid infecting you. Thus. forced vaccinations violate both an individual’s negative right to bodily autonomy and the negative right to remain free from the undue interference of others.

            Like

          75. Ron, in some areas I heartily agree with you. But in others? I tend to think you’re full of it. Interesting that there’s such a dichotomy in the way you view life and its circumstances.

            Like

          76. Ok. So you disagree with me on this matter. But you’ve provided no reason as to where you think I err in my thinking, which is fine, but as I once mentioned on Nate’s blog many years ago, I view these discussions as opportunities to engage in friendly conversations and exchanges of ideas rather than as structured debates or “win at all costs” word battles.

            I acknowledge that this is purely my take on the situation, so I will never demand that anyone respond to my comments or queries or flesh out why they disagree with me; but I consider it (reluctance to do so) a lost opportunity to move to a higher plain of conversation where we can learn from one another, even if we’re not entirely swayed into accepting their opinions.

            Liked by 2 people

          77. What you are failing to grasp is that it is the unvaccinated that are the “undue influence”! (Undue influence is defined as “unconscionable use by one person of power possessed by him over another.”)

            You’re arguing against yourself here.

            Like

          78. Potential threat is not the equivalent of actual threat. Men have the potential to rape women. Does that mean they should all be neutered to mitigate against the risk that women might get raped? Likewise, it is unwarranted to automatically assume that every unvaccinated human being you encounter is a walking petris dish of deadly diseases out to cause you harm.

            Nor is there any more undue interference exercised by those who remain unvaccinated for COVID than there is by those who choose to remain unvaccinated against any other transmissible airborne disease, like TB, strep and the flue (to name a few). Plus you always retain the option of mitigating your own risks by adopting a healthy lifestyle and/or implementing any combination of the following measures: becoming vaccinated, wearing masks, physical distancing, or avoiding indoor public encounters altogether.

            Like

          79. To remain unvaccinated when it is very safe to be vaccinated is still an ‘unconscionable’ threat. This is the reasoning behind all childhood vaccination programs: we have the means to reduce the threat for everyone that has far less cost to few than allowing the threat to remain unaddressed to the many. Typhoid Mary presented an unconscionable threat to others and so her civil rights could be severely curtailed. Yes, it’s an infringement on a negative right but that negative right is lower in consideration than the harm against the cumulative negative rights of others. Hence, the ranking similar to the right to defend one’s self, the right to have your negative rights infringed upon for the maximum but SAME negative rights you demand for yourself but are unwilling to grant to all. This makes your position morally untenable.

            Like

          80. I could grant merit to an argument proposing visibly ill individuals be excluded from entering public spaces until they fully recover from their illness. However, what you are proposing is forced injections for healthy individuals who exhibit no symptoms of illness along with a set of rules that discriminates between two groups of asymptomatic individuals based purely on their vaccination status while ignoring the fact that vaccinated individuals also have the potential to spread the disease to others — a double-standard that effectively violates the legal concept of equality under the law.

            As to the safety of the vaccines, I’d hesitate to use the term “very safe” given the growing list of side effects and adverse reactions being reported, or to make any other firm pronouncements until all the trials are fully completed in 2023 and we have at least a few years of data under our belt.

            Like

          81. ” what you are proposing is forced injections for healthy individuals who exhibit no symptoms of illness….”

            Yes. That’s what a vaccination program is. That’s how we basically eliminated all kinds of nasty what-were-common preventable illnesses. Is not facing smallpox or polio a Very Bad Thing in your mind? Seriously?

            Like

          82. The issue isn’t about whether or not facing smallpox or polio is a “Very Bad Thing” — it’s about the immorality of subjecting someone to medical treatments they do not want or need.

            Like

          83. The argument is stronger, I think, that not getting vaccinated by choice is what’s immoral because it’s a greater threat to all than the risk to the individual. This is why we have childhood vaccination programs and the intended results stand on their own merit: no smallpox, no polio, and a massive reduction in all kinds of preventable and serious illnesses.

            Remember, Ron, you’re trying to isolate Covid and the vaccination response to it as if it were a stand alone issue, that curtailing civil rights based on whether or not someone is vaccinated is a moral issue. It’s not: childhood vaccination programs work to achieve massive reduction in harm and Covid is no different. It’s a straight up equivalent public health issue and not a civil rights issue with a smattering of morality to cover the anti-vax motivation that directly threatens the health of the body politic from the known cure.

            Liked by 1 person

          84. The crux of the matter is that healthy people with natural immunity pose no greater threat to others than those who took the vaccines. Moreover, several studies now reveal that those who had COVID and recovered (which is the majority of the population) are left with a more robust immune response to the variants than those who received just the spike proteins.

            And finally, there is always the moral question of animal testing. But who cares about the torture of a few monkeys or beagles if it serves the greater good — right?

            Like

          85. How does one identify natural immunity?
            And how does one deal with people who turn out to be asymptomatic?

            Like

          86. Well, I’m no doctor, but I’d venture to guess that the person who is coughing and sneezing is probably not asymptomatic. 🙂

            Like

          87. The point I was trying to make is an asymptomatic person can spread the virus.
            Can you see the potential danger here?

            Like

          88. Here’s what America’s leading “expert” on infectious disease had to say about asymptomatic transmission:

            But even if we grant that asymptomatic carriers can spread the virus, why would it make a difference if those asymptomatic spreaders were poked or not?

            Like

          92. “The crux of the matter is that healthy people with natural immunity pose no greater threat to others than those who took the vaccines.”

            This is the pool of people who allows the R factor to be greater than one and keeps infectious disease spreading. Vaccinated people are the pool of people who keep the R factor below one and interferes with infectious disease spreading. This is how vaccines work, Ron. Your belief to the contrary is not supported by reality. This is why vaccination programs should be viewed not as a personal choice for personal protection but a civic duty to help stop the pandemic for everyone.

            Liked by 2 people

          93. Decades worth of medical literature informs us that an immune response can be stimulated in one of two ways: by direct exposure to the live virus, or by exposure to an imitation (vaccines). To discount the efficacy of the former while focussing solely on the efficacy of latter is bad science. As is ignoring the primary drivers attendant to leading to death by illnesses (like COVID) and most (if not all) types of late-life degenerative disease: poor diet, poor sleep habits, chronic stress, substance abuse and sedentary lifestyles.

            Like

          94. “To discount the efficacy of the former (natural immunity)…”

            I have yet to encounter any infectious disease expert who does this. Ever. But notice this natural immunity – and it varies in efficacy – occurs AFTER infection. Vaccination programs work because it intervenes PRIOR to infection. You seem to think this essential point is irrelevant. You then keep on claiming that those who suffer complex symptoms from infection are the ones at fault for not producing sufficient natural immunity. That’s just straight up bullshit. And it’s very dangerous bullshit to those who are immunocompromised. Isn’t 750,000 dead citizens enough for you to want to intervene with a program that works PRIOR to infection? Not doing so for these other ‘reasons’ you think matter seems to me to be beyond uncaring callousness and quite deadly but incredibly irresponsible and unbelievably stupid. But hey, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

            Liked by 3 people

          95. Yes and no. In a way, I kind of envy those who leave religion now because they have a wealth of information and guidance at their disposal. Even the word “atheist” was a foreign concept to me at the time because I’d always been told there were only two kinds of people in the world: those who chose to obey God (us Christians) and those who don’t (the rest of the world).

            “. . . but examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good,” 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NASB)

            That verse has served me well, both then and now. Soon after abandoning religion, I eventually began to examine all of the other “faith-based” institutions I had reflexively subscribed to (government, education, news media, medical and scientific) and found them wanting, as well.

            Yes, obviously your immune system must first encounter a foreign invader before it can begin mounting a defenses against it, much in the same way that a security monotring system must first detect an intruder prior to sending out an alert to dispatch a response for a breach in security.

            So the question is really about whether or not your immune system is up to snuff prior to the invasion, and the statistical data reveals that ~95% of those 750k who died after testing positive for COVID had severely compromised immune systems. Moreover, several studies have now linked that poor immune response to obesity, which is driven by an unhealthy diet and a sedentary lifestye. These are incontrovertable facts, whether you choose to accept them or not.

            And to date, not a single public health official has promoted adopting a healthier lifestyle to mitigate against the risk of getting severe illnesses. Instead the focus has been entirely on tyrannical lockdowns, mask mandates, physical distancing and now, vaccine mandates.

            Like

          96. Just to clarify, we’re talking about 750,000 Americans who were ALIVE but most living with morbidities prior to Covid… so it’s okay they died a preventable death because, you know, masks and lockdowns and even vaccinations are REALLY bad.

            Seriously, Ron? You think this is good reasoning? What constitutes ‘really bad’ in your language if preventable and premature death doesn’t even rank?

            Liked by 1 person

          97. No. We are talking about 750k x 0.95 people in their 80s and older with three or more major morbidities who died mainly because of those illnesses but tested positive for COVID and were thus listed as COVID cases due to CDC reporting directives. In some cases, C19 may have hastened their demise, but it was really just a matter of time before they died due to the flu or pneumonia. Moreover, as I pointed out in the studies I linked to from Israel and England in my comments to you over on Jim’s blog post, the vaccines did diddly squat for the most vulnerable groups, and in fact they actually did worse than the unpoked members within their demagraphic.

            As for preventability, the evidence from multiple health studies confirms that with rare exception the majority of all major end-of-life illnesses (Type 2 diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, heart attacks, kidney and liver disease, cancers, etc.) are entirely attributable to lifestyle factors.

            So yes, masks, lockdowns and other tyrannical measures like forced vaccinations are bad — not only because they violate civil liberties but because they don’t follow sound medical advice.

            Like

          98. ” the vaccines did diddly squat for the most vulnerable groups, and in fact they actually did worse than the unpoked members within their demagraphic.”

            Yeah, reducing complex symptoms and the resulting hospitalizations by 95% compared to the unvaccinated control is doing diddly squat. Right. Because, you know, morbidities and not an infectious disease is the real culprit (in spite of evidence to the contrary in every fricken medical unit around the globe).

            Well, unlike the medical consensus on the importance of vaccinations and masking and lockdowns to control the wildfire spread of Covid, in spite of every infectious disease expert in the world who obviously missed the the ‘real’ studies that are the only ‘sound’ medical advice you’ve discovered through the Googles, you just so happen to know better. Right. Sounds very reasonable, Ron. People who died from Covid, who are now suffering from long Covid, it’s all because of morbidities and not the virus. Riiigght.

            Your position is denialism of reality at its most dangerous. ‘Oh look, don’t get poked and you’ll be SAFER!’

            Good grief.

            Liked by 1 person

          99. Here’s that link to the numbers report by Public Health England again:

            Click to access Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf

            From Table 5. “Attendance to emergency care and deaths of sequenced and genotyped Delta cases in England by vaccination status (1 February 2021 to 12 September 2021), which can be found on pages 19 – 20 of the report, we see that the doubled-vaccinated, 50+ age group faired the worst in all categories:

            – total cases ~75%
            – total emergency care ~65%
            – total overnight inpatient admissions ~69% and 63% (exclusion and inclusion)
            – total deaths within 28 days ~68%

            So right out of the gate we know the 95% reduction rate is pure bunkum.

            And yes, the weakened immune system due to multiple morbidities did them in. For most, COVID was at best a bit player that pushed them over the edge. Unless of course you believe that a 70-year-old with terminal cancer or a 90-year-old grandmother with heart ailments could have live another 20 years if it hadn’t been for those damn selfish unmasked people walking there dogs in the park five miles away.

            Like

          100. No, unlike real experts, you’re miss-reading it.

            Imagine everyone got vaccinated. What percentage of Covid cases would then belong to the ‘vaccinated’ category? Yup, 100%.

            So the metric that’s important is the total number of cases compared to non vaccinated. And this is where you see massive reductions and a reduction in all the harm caused by the various to everyone and everything. That’s kind of the point of how to drive away a pandemic by vaccinations by reducing the R factor, just like the medical experts continue to say to the point of exasperation.

            You, on the other hand, think culling people is much, much better than getting vaccinated and keeping the R factor above 1, keeping the pandemic going, keeping the risk as high as possible for everyone. That’s why you’re not an expert, Ron, and the ‘studies’ you present as if they backed your anti-vax position when they don’t is such a tedious and misinformed approach that it’s a dangerous tactic. You prove over and over and over again why your conclusion to doubt what really is sound medical advice from these experts that you consistently reject as unsound is misinformation of the worst kind because it’s a lie wrapped up in thee guise of science and such advice as you offer does produce real harm in real life to real people if they act as if you are informed. You’re not. You’re just some git on the internet.

            Liked by 2 people

          101. You mean like in Gibraltar, the most immunized country in the world, where the public health director is now posting new public health guidance measures to counteract “a steady increase in active cases” of COVID-19 and hinting stricter measures be be needed (“We want to avoid having to provide for any lock down in the coming weeks and months”) if things don’t improve?

            https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-releases/public-health-guidance-for-festive-period-2021-8602021-7450

            This grants a clear indication that the vaccines have failed to do the very thing they were intended to do: grant immunity against COVID-19.

            Like

          102. As vaccine efficacy wanes, numbers go up (hence the need for boosters). This surprises no one… except Expert Ron who reads this to mean “This grants a clear indication that the vaccines have failed to do the very thing they were intended to do: grant immunity against COVID-19.”

            As I said Ron, YOU don’t know how to interpret data (hence the reason why you are classified as an antivax git).

            Liked by 1 person

          103. LOL

            Direct from the CDC website:

            Definition of Terms

            Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

            Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

            Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

            Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

            And from the same source:

            Active Immunity

            Active immunity results when exposure to a disease organism triggers the immune system to produce antibodies to that disease.
            Exposure to the disease organism can occur through infection with the actual disease (resulting in natural immunity), or introduction of a killed or weakened form of the disease organism through vaccination (vaccine-induced immunity). Either way, if an immune person comes into contact with that disease in the future, their immune system will recognize it and immediately produce the antibodies needed to fight it.

            Active immunity is long-lasting, and sometimes life-long.

            No mention of waning efficacy or the need for booster shots, and it’s highly doubtful that “long-lasting” was intended to mean “less than eight months”.

            Like

          105. Point being: per their own definition vaccines offer long-lasting protection. If the double- and triple-poked are still getting severely ill and dying, the vaccine is a failure.

            Like

          111. Your data is taken from February. Here is the current trend:

            https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

            Cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all up, and the season has just begun. So it doesn’t look like the vaccines were that effective. But we already know that because they are now calling for third doses — just like Israel did.

            Like

          112. Hmmmm, when did Delta kick in?
            FFS, look at the three easy-to-read graphs, Ron.

            And I don’t think you actually read your link, Ron

            Cases up/Hospitalisations down/Deaths down.

            Oh my!

            Like

          113. Who cares when Delta kicked in? And the graphs show all the numbers went up since Feb 2021. Point is the vaccines don’t provide long-lasting immunity against COVID-19. PERIOD.

            Like

          114. Dickhead —

            Cases UP

            Hospitalisations DOWN

            Deaths DOWN

            Hmmmm… whatever could be causing these numbers??

            Try READING the links before you send them… and you might avoid future embarrassment.

            Liked by 1 person

          115. I did read the information and the trend since February is clearly up. Perhaps you need corrective lenses or help interpreting the graphs.

            Like

          118. Oh wow.. Look at the Delta surge!! My oh my, it lines up perfectly!!!

            Now, show me the split between vaccinated and not-vaccinated for cases/hospitalisations/deaths…

            Liked by 1 person

          119. Not sure how this is helping your case. Point remains, the vaccine did not grant immunity to the Delta variant, and most likely won’t help with future variants. So you are basically going to have to roll up your sleeve every six to eight months for a booster shot, while those of us who have bolstered our immunity by engaging in healthy lifestyles walk about worry-free.

            Like

          121. If you want the info so badly, put in a request to the NHS. I’m under no obligation to do your research for you.

            Like

          123. Well, apparently you haven’t read it because I already posted a link to those very breakdowns two days ago within this comment section.

            Like

          124. One googly search… 3 seconds:

            Zoe COVID Symptom Study

            In an email to Insider, Spector said: “Our research showed fewer, milder symptoms were reported in vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated adults who had contracted the virus.”
            This aligns with other data suggesting that two doses provide the best protection from the Delta variant, and the one dose gives significantly less, but is better than nothing.
            According to figures from Public Health England (PHE), one dose of AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of catching mild symptoms of COVID-19 by 35%.
            However, even one dose of vaccine protects against the more severe risk of COVID-19, reducing the risk of hospitalization by 80%.
            Two doses of vaccine were much more protective, reducing the risk of having mild symptoms of the disease by about 80%, and the risk of hospitalization by 96%, the PHE data said.

            Liked by 2 people

          125. “Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.”

            https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

            Like

          131. Expert Ron states, “Point is the vaccines don’t provide long-lasting immunity against COVID-19. PERIOD.”

            This is straight up bullshit.

            Immunity in vaccination terminology means PROTECTION against a disease, such as in ‘herd immunity’. It does not mean that a vaccination offers 100% protection but an increased protection compare to those without the vaccination. This is why we hear the term ‘immunization’, which is widely understood in medical terminology – except by medical experts like our esteemed Ron – to be a process by which a person becomes better PROTECTED against a disease through vaccination. But, like the term ‘believe’ means different things depending on the religious sense or the confidence sense of the context in which it is used, so too is ‘immunization’ used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation in medical terminology.

            Of course, Expert Ron sees an opportunity here to cast doubt about immunization in EXACTLY the same way religiots misuse the term ‘belief’ to create a false equivalency between faith-based and evidence-based confidence. It is deeply dishonest and intentionally so. It’s a tactic of deception.

            How do we measure this increased protection? By various ways such as antibodies and T cell counts. The mRNA vaccine is quickly metabolized (2-3 weeks) and yet we find antibodies lasting as long as has now been measured, even against variants. But the response grows weaker over time. It still offers protection, however. There is nothing but evidence that the immune response is greater and far more efficient in vaccinated people against all VOCs than is demonstrated by unvaccinated people. Across the board. Real world evidence collected by literally millions upon millions upon millions of cases (not that Expert Ron cares about what’s true in reality). And this immune response remains true (now recorded) for over a year in the original test cases. The caveat here is the level of response does decline, which is now well documented to decline over time. It hasn’t disappeared; it’s just less than. Ron tells us this isn’t true, that it’s either 100% protection or useless. So stupid. So dangerous to believe. Hence the booster program that elevates this response back to and in many cases greater than the efficacy after the first 2 shots (above 95% effective PROTECTING people from not just getting the virus but, if a breakthrough does occur, is far, Far, FAR less severe in likelihood of accompanying complex symptoms compared to unvaccinated infections). Funny how ‘95% efficacy’ has been telling Expert Ron all along that the vaccination is not 100%, which he now raises as if a meaningful point when it actually demonstrates comprehension difficulties by our renowned Expert Ron right from the start.

            So for an expert like Ron to suggest vaccinations do not provide long-lasting immunity in the medical sense of the term demonstrates once again either a chasm of ignorance or a willingness and deep desire to deceive. Let us hope the readers maintain at least 95% ‘immunity’ from this bullshit.

            Liked by 2 people

          132. For the hard of reading, I will repeat the definition given by the CDC:

            “Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

            The experimental drugs failed to do that — ergo they are useless, no matter how you would like to spin it.

            Like

          133. Saw this yesterday. Seems to work here:

            When you’re dead, you don’t know you’re dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you’re stupid.

            Liked by 3 people

          135. Expert Ron, have you noticed how many cases of infection from the original virus are showing up? Yeah, me neither. Curious, that.

            Expert Ron, do you understand that the original sequenced virus was the blueprint against which all of the major vaccines were ‘designed’ to counter, and the one against which all the test studies were designed to follow? Can play a little steel-man here and think of why this might matter in how real world data is reviewed from where variants are dominate?

            Expert Ron, do you understand what 95% efficacy means? Yeah, you’ve made it abundantly clear you think that means immunity. Well, it doesn’t.

            Expert Ron, have you ever heard of variants of concern (VOCs)? Using your expert knowledge, can you explain how variants should affect vaccination efficacy? Can you then – using your tremendous expertise which as we know is greater than global medical consensus – explain why the real world numbers from these various VOCS aren’t higher… (I apologize if this notion – why aren’t the numbers for vaccinated people worse than they are considering the virulence from variant Delta alone – causes your brain to explode)?

            Expert Ron, word games do not alter reality. Vaccinations against Covid is one layer of what many of these REAL experts call the Swiss Cheese approach: with enough layers in various ways that interfere with viral transmission, fewer holes remain for the virus to infect others. In infectious disease parlance, this means the R factor can be brought under 1 (each positive case produces fewer than one other new infection). That’s the goal to control and suppress a pandemic and vaccinations in sufficient percentages of populations play a key role in achieving this in spite of what your dedicated anti-vax misinformation and contrary opinion pieces tries to sell to the gullible and the stupid.

            Liked by 1 person

          136. Ah, so now they were only intended to prevent the first strain. So then what was the point? Because the recovery rate before the introduction of the experimental drugs was already >99%; so their touted 95% efficacy rate is actually a 4% step down from natural immunity.

            But keep pounding that table of yours.

            Like

          137. No, Expert Ron – who insists stating facts and respecting reality is a form of ‘table pounding’ – again and without fail does not comprehend what these statistics represent.

            The 1% you refer to is the average death rate only. This does NOT mean 99% recovery rate. In fact there is some alarming evidence that different variants are producing different long term effects… NONE of which are good, ALL of which are harmful. And that data is coming FULLY from the ‘recovered’ population that you stupidly assume is equivalent to ‘natural’ immunity.

            Seriously, Expert Ron, you have no clue what you’re talking about and so your opinions here reflect that vast pool of ignorance and poor reading comprehension. You also demonstrate a remarkable degree of dedicated attachment to keeping it that way.

            Liked by 1 person

          138. Yes, the 99% is an average. Those over 70 with multiple comorbidities fare much worse, while those under 50 with no serious underlying health issues escape with minor ailments, if any.

            Like

          140. Congrats. You found the exception that proves the rule (and that’s operating under the assumption he was actually in perfect health, given his admission that he doesn’t often get sick). Give yourself a pat on the back.

            Like

          141. No, not the exception. Many, many otherwise very healthy and not old individuals have likewise become sick enough to require ICU intervention. By the hundreds locally. This lie that it affects almost only the old and sick is just that: a lie. Seven of the eight ICU beds currently being occupied in the one hospital I mentioned earlier are by people under 40 without any (known to me, anyway) comorbidities. They are, however, ALL unvaccinated and come from the same church group from the same town. Some are related.

            Liked by 2 people

          143. Again, Expert Ron, you’re only looking at mortality. Did you notice the Olympian didn’t die? Yet in your esteemed opinion, this makes him fully recovered and have nothing to worry about so shouldn’t need to get vaccinated (in spite of him wishing he could have gotten vaccinated and in spite of him telling everyone to get vaccinated to try thier best to avoid what he went through). Well, he’s not dead. And yes, Expert Rob, you really can have hundreds and hundreds of young people in a single health unit (HU)with complex symptoms needing hospitalization, especially when the HU has a large university population (~60,000) and various colleges (~30,000).

            So, no, the Canadian government does not disagree with ‘me’ (substituting as you do what’s true in reality with the term ‘you’). Again and again, your links do not support what you think they say. This is a clue, Expert Ron…

            The common element in all the mistakes you are making is… wait for it… Expert Ron. It’s the common thread any idiot should clearly see… except, maybe, Expert Ron.

            Liked by 1 person

          144. Dead is about as unrecovered as it gets. In case you’ve forgotten, I wrote, “Those over 70 with multiple comorbidities fare much worse, while those under 50 with no serious underlying health issues escape with minor ailments, if any.” — which is precisely what’s stated in the notes contained within the link I posted.

            So now you want to change the goal posts by arguing that it’s all about ICU admissions. Ok, fine. Figure 7 of the following link provides the age and gender distribution of all three categories (hospitalized, ICU and deceased):

            https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

            The results are still the same — namely, that the older you get the more likely you are to be affected in all three categories. For hospitalizations, the under 40s represent ~14%; for ICU admissions, it’s just above 11%; and for deceased, it’s only slightly over 1%.

            Like

          145. The bullshit you’re spreading is “those under 50 with no serious underlying health issues escape with minor ailments, if any.”

            No scientific study supports this claim. None. And that’s because REALITY doesn’t support Expert Ron’s bullshit claim. You’re imputing your belief and claiming you have deduced them. That is simply not true and certainly not what ANY link to any reputable medical data suggests.

            Like

          148. Oh look, another series of graphs about death that you think demonstrates your point about getting infected and running the risk of getting complex symptoms. This does not say what you THINK it says about not getting vaccinated because YOU think the risk is low unless you’re old or have comorbidities. YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG.

            Liked by 1 person

          150. No, Expert Ron, none of these graphs say what you believe they say. And obviously nothing anyone anywhere of any expertise greater than your own in any of these issues has any chance whatsoever of altering the certainty you hold regarding your own beliefs. This is no different than what creationists and religious apologists and conspiracy fruitcakes do to keep their beliefs protected from knowledge. The only (mis- and dis) information you will accept as legitimate is not reality nor any data from it nor any expert interpretation that doesn’t FIRST align seamlessly with your anti-vax bullshit. That’s a clue, Expert Ron, that the method of thinking you are using is broken because it is severed from reality’s arbitration of it.

            Liked by 2 people

          152. It’s reality pounding the table, Expert Ron.

            Here’s the latest study involving over ten thousand people of all ages. This is to find if Boosters have any meaningful significance for those 55 years of age and under… the very cohort you insist has nothing to fear from Covid and even less concern if healthy and no comorbidities.

            Now, here’s thing regarding vaccinations. Even if no healthy person under the age of 55 suffered any complex symptoms whatsoever, why get vaccinated?

            Two main reasons:

            The first is to reduce the human pool from which Covid spreads. (The 18-24 cohort has maintained about double the rate of any other vaccinated cohort, although the under 12 cohort is now about a third of all cases and that is growing as vaccination rates rise.) And I say ‘human’ pool because Covid also has natural reservoirs in cats an dogs and now deer! Who studies this stuff?)

            The second reason is help individuals reduce their personal susceptibility. Vaccination alone for the under 55 crowd reduces the absolute risk about 100 – 200 times on average compared to the same average of the unvaccinated.

            So the question of boosters and who should get them needs better data. Is it worth while? Does it really matter?

            Here’s the latest the data. Vaccines work to reduce the risk of actually contracting Covid but wane over time. Do boosters address this decline for those under the age of 55?

            The answer is yes. And significantly so.

            Like

          153. LOL. A tweet to an op-ed != data. It’s the equivalent posting a link to a religious apologist. But then again, it comes as no surprise given that you have joined the cult of the Branch Covidians and worship at the alter of Big Pharma.

            Like

          154. Oh… and because I know Expert Ron won’t grasp this little tidbit regarding booster, the ~90% increased efficacy of boosters to those 55 and under is ON TOP OF whatever efficacy the first 2 shots currently provide. In other words, the boosters aren’t like topping up the same tank (as in a volume that has declined and now has more added to it to bring it to previous levels) but adding an additional nearly-full tank to one that has a lower volume. This is why you might here of mixing vaccination kinds because early data suggests the mixtures of vaccination kinds produce an elevated response of antibody AND T cell AND B cell immune responses.

            In other words, we have good data that boosters are a really good idea for everyone, especially when the 5th wave is rising fast and delta 2.0 is gaining traction (variant AY.4.2 which is PARTICULARLY more virulent to younger people than older).

            Liked by 1 person

          155. Twist it how you like, but the need for continuous series of booster shots reveals these experimental injections for that they are: a complete and utter failure.

            Like

          156. My province is around 86% vaxed. Yet 91% of Covid cases come from the 14% unvaccinated. Breakthrough cases total 3.8% of the total. The remainder are 1 dose or unknown.

            Expert Ron, the data clearly shows you continue to be a reality denier. What you think, therefore, can be and is of no use because you don’t share a fundamental respect for reality.

            Like

          159. It’s doubtful the forced injections had anything to do with it, because a quick glance at any COVID graph reveals the spikes and valleys follow a regular rollercoaster pattern — just like the seasonal flu.

            The underlying constant throughout all of this is that those with underlying health conditions are more susceptible to suffering from respiratory ailments and should work on improving their overall health in addition to taking extra safety precautions when out in public.

            Like

          160. Ron, re: your last paragraph — I would agree. However, I would add that those who DO have underlying health conditions (such that their system would be unable to fight off the serious effects of COVID) would probably benefit from taking all the precautions — including vaccines.

            Obviously, you yourself are healthy and hearty … but not everyone is so fortunate. I live with one of these individuals and he most certainly has taken advantage of every offered precaution to ensure his continued enjoyment of life. If, based on your opinions related to vaccines, he contracts the virus, I’m sure he will tell me to notify you that you were right all along!

            Like

          161. I see your irony meter is broken: use the graphs when they seem to align with your beliefs but disregard and discount them when they don’t.

            Like

          163. Another important thing is that the booster’s very high effectiveness rate for everyone 16 years of age and up (not just the more vulnerable) seems to be much longer in duration, too. That’s why today’s article in the Washington Post by two of the biggest names in infectious disease expertise calls for all adults to get the booster (6 months after the second dose seems to be where effectiveness skyrockets). The CDC seems to be very slow aligning its public health advice with good data and is being justifiably criticized for this slow and overly cautious bureaucratic approach.

            Liked by 1 person

          166. It’s from Science.org, Ron. You’re confusing the vehicle (Twitter) with the passengers (an article at Science).

            Like

          168. The two authors, suffering from a lack of medical expertise like Expert Ron, are Paul A. Offit, who is the director of the Vaccine Education Center in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA and a professor in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA, and J.S.Gerber is site principal investigator for the Moderna–National Institutes of Health KidCOVE trial at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

            Claiming this is just an op-ed piece is just another intentional and lazy lie from our very own Expert Ron.

            Liked by 1 person

          169. Yes and he’s also the sitting chairman of a Merck funded endowment; but I suppose you’re going to tell us that there’s absolutely no conflict of interests there, eh?

            Like

          170. Ah, a professional bias… for an efficacious antiviral drug but talking about vaccination. Unlike you, Expert Ron, who has no bias professional or otherwise… or… knowledge… or respect for medical expertise… or reality.

            Riigght.

            Liked by 1 person

          171. Money talks. When your paycheck is dependent on producing favorable outcomes for the products peddled by your employer, you are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds you.

            Like

          172. Again (because you missed the sarcasm the first time), you presume the professional connection with an antiviral drug that has some efficacy with reducing Covid symptoms somehow makes the same person biased when professionally explaining the efficacy of vaccines. What color is the sky in your world, Expert Ron?

            Liked by 1 person

          175. Are you suggesting the vaccines don’t work, and there is a global conspiracy in play that involves not only researchers at every private institution across the planet, but also every public research institution, every hospital in the world, every university, encompassing every doctor and nurse and politician who’s somehow somewhere connected with public health?

            And ALL THESE PEOPLE (hundreds of thousands of them across every country on earth) are happily going along with the sham just so a handful of (aging) American specialists can make some money on the side?

            Liked by 2 people

          176. Expert Ron recognizes bullshit, he assures us. Even standing with other rabid anti-vaxers and conspiracy theorists, he sees where the real bullshit is: the entire medical and scientific research community. Yup, Expert Ron recognizes what sound medical knowledge looks like when it comes to infectious diseases, not like all those people who have actually gone to medical schools. I say thank goodness for the Expert Rons of this world because imagine the problems if we actually tackled things like pandemics and climate change. Terrible.

            Liked by 2 people

          177. I like the way students and nurses and professors and doctors and politicians around the world have rallied behind this little scam put together by those few American “board members.” Their ability to keep a secret is quite astonishing, too. Amazed also how well China has fallen in line with what has been required.

            Liked by 1 person

          178. China’s 3 week lockdown was for 970 million people with those breaking the lockdown shot. All to help out ‘Big Pharma’ that was, at the time, a lab of exactly 2 doctors in Germany. Makes PERFECT sense… for those clever enough to ‘see’ The Truth (TM) like our very own Expert Ron.

            Liked by 2 people

          179. I’m not suggesting the “vaccines” don’t work — I’m stating it outright. And I don’t need to concoct an elaborate global conspiracy theory in order to explain the machinations of men when a simple observation of basic human behavior will suffice. Appeals to the contrary notwithstanding, we are driven to look after our own self interests, and nothing propels us faster in that direction than an opportunity for easy gains; or conversely, a fear of enormous loss. The pharmaceutical companies stand to reap huge profits from injecting billions of people with their “vaccines” every few months, as do the “health care” professionals (who practice “illness care” rather than health care), as do the politicians who take bribes from the corporate lobbyists, as do the MSM presstitutes who gain advertising revenues from the pharmaceutical industry.

            Meanwhile, the rest of the population goes along with it to gain back their freedoms. I’ve yet to meet anyone IRL who has taken these experimental drugs to protect the health of others. Every single one has told me they did it in order to keep their job and regain permission to access public venues that now bar entry to those without a “vaccine passport”.

            Liked by 2 people

          180. Wow! So you really do believe in a global conspiracy involving millions of people, across a bevy of private and public institutions, including the national media in over 100 countries… INCLUDING CHINA!

            B’wahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

            Liked by 1 person

          181. I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote; but whatever floats your boat, so be it. I have no desire to engage with someone who continually argues in bad faith so I will put you on my ignore list moving forward.

            Like

          182. Ooooh, don’t go and hide, Ron. There’s still a tiny bit of room there to still love you, despite you’re simply ENORMOUS (yet fantastically hilarious) fantasy.

            Liked by 1 person

          184. Where did I do that? I wrote: “Op-ed !=peer-reviewed study.” because there is no data backing up their claims — or at least they didn’t bother to link to it, if there is.

            Like

          185. Because Ron – like deniers everywhere, need something to divert them from recognizing content expertise to find something irrelevant to focus their google searches on.

            Liked by 1 person

          188. Nah, I just recognize bullshit when I see it. All your so-called “experts” have their hands deep inside the Big Pharma cookie jar.

            Like

          189. Also for Expert Ron, the collection of damage to be looked for by MDs that relates to a Covid infection other than nose, throat, and lungs:

            Stomach (distal and proximal), Duodenum (enterocytes, crypt cells, Brunner), colon, rectum, appendix, kidney (tubules, glomeruli) gallbladder, liver-bile duct cells, testis, epididymis, placenta (decidua, villi, EVT), fallopian (epithelium, endo/pericytes), thyroid gland, adrenal, pancreas (ducts, endo/pericytes), eye (cornea, conjuctiva), and heart (cardiomyocytes, endo/pericytes).

            And these areas of damage are from those who have “fully” recovered in Expert Ron’s esteemed opinion because, hey, they’re not dead.

            Liked by 3 people

          191. As an uneducated dog I can only go with what I feel in my bones … so I duz the best I can wiv wot I’ve got, Chief — and am otherwise a fatalist. As an atheist I thank God from whom all (R) ALL blessings flow, She knows what She is doing. (Bitch.)

            I say bitch because from even before The Creation the Creator knew what She was doing but dun it anyway. Clever. Somewhat sadistic too, but nobody ever seems to notice that point. Certainly the religiosi tend to gloss over it; and none seem prepared to debate God’s omniscience and omnipotence versus claims made for His love and mercy.

            And sheesh, they call ME dum! (Just because I can’t spell dumb doesn’t mean I are one, so there.)

            Liked by 1 person

          192. The tale of 2 hospitals locally. One serves the catchment area of about 40,000 people, the other well over 450,000 (along with several other hospitals). The first catchment has a vaccination rate around 50%, the second just under 90%. The first has 10 ICU beds all of which are filled by complex covid cases requiring induced coma, 3 requiring blood washing (the machines circulate your blood for you with very large tubes inserted to draw and return the cycling blood). The second has many more ICU beds where only 1 has a complex covid case and the rest are used for other life saving procedures and surgeries.

            Tens times the people produces one tenth the cases IF vaccination rates are high enough. The tale here is that low vaccination rates produces more cases AND a higher rate of complex symptoms. And that comes from real world data that isn’t open to debate: it’s a fact.

            Liked by 3 people

          196. Sorry, ignore the first three paragraphs. They were accidentally copy-pasted over from a response composed in notepad to another comment on Jim’s blog.

            Like

          197. Wasn’t there some sort of outcry a while back about innoculating kids against measles and shortly after in some quarters there were measles outbreaks? I stand under correction here.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. orange chiffon sponge cake with chocolate ganache to be the best cake ever.

    The great and fabulously creamy armies of Cheese Cake (lead by me, naturally) are on their way to your door…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You have obviously been indoctrinated by some errant translation of the Gospel Cookbook.
      While Cheese Cake is certainly delicious it would be heretical to suggest it surpasses Orange Chiffon with chocolate ganache
      And it’s written. I have the recipe.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. As you have had you head down in the cheesecake trough you are obviously unaware of recent edicts pertaining to Orange Chiffon with Chocolate Ganache.
          1. Anyone caught promoting the doctrine of creamy cheesecake as the primary doctrine of confection will have all their crumbed biscuits bases confiscated and be pelted with mascarpone cheese.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. Hope you choke on it … you you ….
            I am not able to provide a suitable adjective at this time. I’ll get back to you.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. Let’s focus on the Jag/

    It is a well known FACT, that according to auto mechanics who work on such cars incl MGB’s, Austin’s,’ the Brits fall way short as to engineering, reliability, repair- while they may appeal to the eye, and have a sense of adventure, they have a miserable track record- and most owners curse the day they bought one-

    As a former professional in this trade, I say this as a matter of fact. So while we each have opinions, there are other things which mock our ignorance, such as DAYLIGHT.

    Evolution is clueless and outright embarrassing when it comes to daylight. Just keep waiting for the day when apes are invited BACK to your dining table.

    Like

    Reply

        1. In actual fact, as you so often struggle with irony and multi-syllable words I thought you might appreciate a picture of a mythical person to match your beliefs

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Ha! Mr. Webster the wordsmith was quite the inspiration. Love his definition of ‘chastisement.’ The new dictionaries miss the mark.

            Anyway, agree with the ‘orange’ delight. And your statue could also be interpreted perhaps as a very disappointed Solomon thinking how so few are wise, yet pretend to know.

            Like

      2. Apparently it’s out there, all ya gotta to get there is die. (If so, we’ll all end up there anyway … so there has to be a catch …)

        I was told it’s not on this Earth (tell that to any young man alone with his first real woman) but millions have no problem finding it, apparently in church (church, nothing—follow the young men, they know the way).

        My advice to anyone considering dying, don’t do it without a good map. But be wary, if you get cremated you’ll need the asbestos edition (I can let you have one cheap).

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

      3. Oh ye of little faith!

        Himmel (Heaven) is located in Stoddard County, MO and in Lower Austria. Hell is located in Livingston County, Michigan, in Trøndelag county, Norway and in Grand Cayman of the Cayman Islands. 😈

        Like

        Reply

          1. Well, they call Missouri the “Show Me State” — so it’s all good (unless, of course, you were referring to the other place — in which case I’m prompted to ask: “Haven’t Michigan and Austria already suffered enough?”)

            Like

          1. Well, according to film director Don Bluth, all dogs go to heaven. But if you’d rather remain in Limbo, then you’re in luck because according to this website there are twelve such places altogether: two each in the Philippines, Mexico and Indonesia, and one each in Sweden, Sudan, Guinea, Ecuador, Cameroon and the Central African Republic.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. I am astounded that people are blah blah blah about religion but it was pleasing to see at least one cake and car comment. I see that no one has commented on the fact that Jimi Hendrix was/is the greatest guitarist as that is something that is irrefutable.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. On self-proclaimed “greatness #1,” Jimi Hendrix… I toss in Stevie Ray Vaughn.

    Self-proclaimed “greatness #2,” Liverpool FC… I ask what era, what season exactly? Because I know of a phenomenal club in Barcelona during the Guardiola years, and then again during the Messi, Neymar, and Suárez, with the likes too of Xavi, Iniesta, Villa, Dani Alves, and Valdés in his prime… were perhaps another Tier higher than Liverpool’s Best 11 Ever. But Ark, I do love some or the Red’s All-time Best teams too. 😉

    Self-proclaimed “greatness #3,” your Orange Chiffon sponge cake with chocolate ganache… I’ll have to give you this one, no argument. 😛

    Self-proclaimed “greatness #4,” E-type Jag… I see your fondness there, but sorry my favorite footballing buddy, I am SO very partial & fond of Merc-Benz S-classes with my Toyota Camry EX 6-cyl a distant 2nd. 😉 😁

    As for the rest of your fine list—the ones at the very bottom appropriately PLACED at the bottom, in gutter and/or sewage lines… I won’t argue in the least. All your proclamations at the end about Christendom and theology is best left for the rats, moles, vultures, and microbiological waste dumps—i.e. a whopping huge stinking compost pile. Yes?

    Like

    Reply

  9. I agree with almost everything you just said.
    Except for Liverpool. Not a clue.
    And except for Hendrix. No offence. I have my money on Clapton… 😉
    Ah! And the jaguar E. Not a doubt in anybody’s mind, I hope?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. I know, I know. I’ll get therapy… Wait, wait, wasn’t that the birthplace of a “rock band”? Got their names on the tip of my tongue… Hold on a sec… The Rolling Stones? 😀

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      1. Why would you think so? I know belief is generally used to in reference to religious conviction but in philosophy that is not necessarily the case

        Like

        Reply

        1. There is a degree of ambiguity surrounding the word believe, hence the reason for me writing the post.
          Does Philosophy rely on evidence?
          I don’t know that much about it to express an answer one way or another.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. I understand the word Philosophy to mean ‘love of wisdom’.
            All well and good until we have to define wisdom … and then the house falls down around our ears. Too often wisdom depends on who got there first (and with what crap or otherwise). Mine Father, who art in Heaven if there be any justice for devout atheistic humanists used to quote the Jesuit boast about being given a boy until the age of seven (I think?) and then he is theirs for life.

            A general in the unCivil War in America famously said that “Battles are won by whoever gets there firstest with the mostest” … which certainly applies with indoctrinating young innocents, no? It took me a few years to have the guts to apply the Law to the crap I was being fed by the kiwi ‘system’. (The Law of Contradiction, Gods dammit …) Once the young/anybody starts applying it many many many beliefs topple) (SFX: “Candle in the Wind” here please, gently fade out …

            And ol’ Dad was severely indoctrinated into Catholicism. Took him an inbuilt intelligence, The Law Of Contradiction, and three years in Burma during WW2 to become a practising atheist. (He also disliked Japs immensely afterwards … )

            Liked by 2 people

    2. Awwww, c’mon Mak! Everything created has to have had a Creator, no? So look at the terminology … ‘Creation’ (noun). So the evidence is all around. And—

      —seeing that ‘all around’ refers to a pretty big place, I guess that The Creator was a pretty big guy. (But wait, whom created He?) (And before Him, who created that one?)

      As I’ve posted before, and nobody took me to task, the Creator God (Yahweh? Jehovah? Wossisname?) must’ve had a Creator himself, too. And that Creator god was created by a godier god, who in turn was created by a more godier God etc etc backwards for ever. (Frankly I prefer the Big Bang theory, that one at least is an event with a name science can recognise.)

      Myself, I love Zen stuff (Zen gives it a name, at least) and one of the little conundrums against which devotees are meant to bash their minds until black is white and vice-versa goes a little like this:

      Absolute silence
      Absolute emptiness,
      Yet therein something moves
      Following its own course.

      Not quite as poetic as a spirit moving on the face of the waters (What bloody pre-creation waters, dammit?) but both images serve the same purpose.

      Like

      Reply

      1. The theist is generally involved in wordplay. All around us we never see things being created except for human artefacts that involves moulding and manipulating things that already exist. There is no evidence for creation anywhere.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          2. Well, excuuuuse Moi!! (Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact you don’t want to answer the question.)

            In any event, I’m sure Argus will be able to give you a well-considered reply.

            Liked by 3 people

        2. I’ve been told (quite smugly, too) that “Everything that exists was created somewhere somehow …so there has to be a Creator, and God is His holey name etc etc” followed by an even more smugger “QED!”

          So fair enough. God too, if He She They exist/s, likewise. You know, the old “Sauce for the goose” syndrome.

          No?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        3. Obviously if the Universe was created (because everything qua everything has to have been created?) then it had a creator.
          So if everything has to have a creator (and here’s where the religious always shriek “Foul, Ref!”) then THAT Creator was likewise … … … created. No?

          Sciences track it all back to (I love saying this) a sort of Primordial Atom so small it didn’t exist (mainly ‘cos there was nothing/nowhere for it to exist in anyway) that in its personal non-existent universe it suddenly exploded, and after a long period all the bits settled down into the universe/s as we know them (sort of) today.

          I think God created Himself out of the detritus of the Big Bang but was first to put in a claim on primacy (foul, Ref!). Frankly my own claim is based on a variation: existo, ergo sum … and I’m surprised that Big G didn’t think of it.

          Like

          Reply

          2. Dammit, I don’t have enough time to do much more than snipe at just some of the glaring inconsistencies. This is best done by acknowledging the self-evident ages old and too often ignored Law of Contradiction.
            So let’s cut to the chase here: the Law states that there can be no contradictions, just false premises. (In essence, find an apparent contradiction, look at what it is based on and you’ll find an error. Or more.) (By error I mean a ‘false’.)

            I’ll help you out: A loving compassionate merciful Omnipotent Omnipresent ‘God’?
            Sorrrreeee … doesn’t compute. The whole sentence is one (rather sick, quite pathetic) contradiction.

            Sadly I can think, rationally, for myself. And:

            whenever I get into discussion with the religious they always fall back on the ‘authority’ of (their own brand of) Good Book. They all seem to lack any ability to see the world as it is, for what it is … they merely parrot propaganda as if it held meaning. Robots.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. True, which is why I hold back when I feel like going for the jugular. There’s an old definition for stress:

            “Stress is when the brain overrides the mind’s natural instinct to choke the living poop out of someone who really deserves it.”

            Sometimes blogging can be stressful …

            Liked by 2 people

      3. Ah, the Uncaused Cause Conundrum!
        Infinite regression and all that stuff.
        We Don’t Know… Therefore, Do not pass Go and Do not collect 200 pounds or….
        Insert God Here.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Always hilarious when the theist grants an exemption to the (*apparently*) unbreakable rules of causation to fit their god in, but won’t grant the same exemption to the universe itself.

          Whenever such colossal twits surface, reply thus:

          The universe is aseitic.

          There was never nothing.

          You are confusing a change of state with a beginning.

          And watch what happens…

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          2. It still makes my brain start fizzing smoke whenever I try to picture the ‘pre creation’ empty Nothing.

            Likewise when I try to picture an uncreated Creator who always and ever was before anything ever was.

            Oogle phleep and quirffle awwwk … (beam me up, Scottie, if you’re still around).

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Now you’re running into the problem/s of an aseitic creator. The theist needs it to be aseitic, but an aseitic being CANNOT create anything outside itself. In fact, it can’t even be “creative” because it is already the sum total of everything, which leaves no room for a new idea, let alone a smashing new tea pot.

            Liked by 2 people

    3. I believe that some folks might pounce on the point that you/we are here, no? (Here, to them, means we were created. Somehow …)

      For myself I believe that this moot point might evolve into a long drawn out war of wishful thinkings. You know how it goes: “The fact that you’re here means you were created etc, ‘cos nothing can Evolve from Nothing!” (SFX: add a smug but meaningless “So there!”)

      Which is countered very very simply by asking ’em back: “True. So who created your Creator, hmmmm?”

      Which can only be answered by their God having been created by a Godier God than He, who in turn was created by a more Godier God etc etc ad infinitem. It gets boring after a while, arguing with the irrational. I prefer watching grass grow (but I suppose that too is an ‘act of God’ … every damn’ blade of it).

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  11. I agree, I love Jaguar…beautiful cars. I believe in the last three though, I guess we agree to disagree.

    Like

    Reply

      2. Read the book of Romans in the New Testament, verse by verse, write each verse down, analyze each, write down what you think of each one. This is the book of the Bible I am studying in early morning devotions now. Why don’t you do this with me? I just started a few weeks ago and I am still in Chapter I. The words are so rich I can’t hurry through them.

        Like

        Reply

        1. As much as I disagree with and dislike many of the motivations behind your “good Book” … I freely admit that there’s some brilliant writing there; especially in the use of language. But (there’s always a ‘but’, have you noticed?) condoning the writings doesn’t as literature doesn’t mean acceptance as fact. The way it is presented and has been indoctrinated into the unwary doesn’t mean it is Truth. Actually it raises far more questions than it answers.

          You are studying it in your early morning devotions … which could earn you merit points with your priesthoods but will do little for your powers of discernment. It may serve you better to ask questions, not of the purveyors thereof but in this instance of the opposition — try to get both sides, you may be surprised.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. I think God doesn’t like me … She keeps scrambling my replies. But She/it intended that from before Time began, no? (Query: can God, who can do anything (qua anything) change His mind?)

          Like

          Reply

        3. I have read it. Admittedly it was a while back, but we can work through it step by step if you like? First, though, let’s sort out my question, shall we?

          Do you consider the character, Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the bible to be a genuine historical figure?
          I’ll add: and if ‘Yes’, (which now seems likely) can you provide me with any evidence?
          Thanks.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. No, but I believe in George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson too, and other than what I’ve read in history books, have no evidence they truly lived. I am also watching along with a California pastor called Jack Hibbs who is preaching in depth on Romans. Easy to find on YouTube.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Under the rubric of ‘I believe’ … I believe the JC of N figure (as portrayed in The Holey Literatures) to be a compilation of different characters (real, imaginary, fanciful, and/or desperately craved*); and therefore to answer your question: yes.

            And no.

            As for evidence, all you need do is dig out that manky old black book you use as a paperweight/source of reference sometimes and actually read the damn’ thing. Just read it, and the Word of The Lord will jump out and bite your butt. You too will be converted (I’m told) — and you won’t get no more convincing proof than that!
            Hallelujah, bro, and pass the collection bucket … I guess in my case I either read the wrong bits or didn’t read enough. Yeuch … And now, for a gold star, your quiz:

            Q: Why do the indoctrinated and morally bereft always believe that simply reading their book will turn the awakened into like-minded zombies?
            A: Look up the word ‘axiomatic’ …

            * I guess that makes ’em craven. I’ll go along with that.

            Like

          4. I also appreciate the challenge in your question. I will ask God to point me to the perfect answer. It might take some time…His time is not always my time. Thanks for your really nice response. I appreciate your cordial tone.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. If you have no evidence to hand, then what was it that originally convinced you of the veracity of the bible tale, if I may use that term – and the historicity of the character Jesus of Nazareth?
            Also, please bear in mind I am not at this point questioning that someone called Yeshua ben Josef existed, as noted by such people as Josephus and Tacitus etc, but only the supposed divine character Jesus of Nazareth as described in the bible.

            Like

          6. Oh, will have to think on that a bit too, I thought you meant evidence of him being a historical person.

            Like

          7. God, being omnipotent and omnipresent, has all the time to spare. Not a problem for Him. (Perhaps you underestimate Him?)

            Like

          8. Oh Ark … you poor deluded person … you don’t need evidence, you need faith!

            Sheesh, how many times do we have to tell you blasted heathens? And while you’re having the requisite lobotomy, I may as well join you—discussing with those the hand of God has touched is a bit like trying to get the bubbles back into the gum, using only your feet.

            Liked by 1 person

  12. I would be more inclined to ask timeless lady if she has read the ENTIRE bible … and made notes. The “loving” god (except in certain parts, of course) presented in the NT is far, far different from the one the Hebrew people wrote about.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Hi Nan, I have read the entire Bible, many chapters, and many verses over and over and over again. I have not made notes on every verse though. Thanks for the question.

      Like

      Reply

    2. Different books, by different authors at different times, collected by different folks into various different tomes … sheesh, already I’m knackered … but moving on:

      I assume the bible in question is the Holy Christian Good Holy Book, rather than goodly books of other (heathen, hoooick-SPIT!) religions?

      But has anyone ever done comparative studies and analyses of the multitudinous “sole word” of “The (unique) multitudinous sole Deity/iess”?

      If I had to have a religion I think I’d choose either Buddhism, Zen, or Hinduism—the latter because with all those oodles of gods I’d stand a better chance of lucking it right. (Okay, the ol’ candle bill would be much much higher, true; but greatly increased chances; sheesh—genuine no-brainer.) Actually … put me in for Zen …)

      Like

      Reply

  14. Wow~! If ever I got this many comments I’d question my own writings … but here’s a snippet from somebody’s comment further upstream—

    “. . . but examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good,” 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NASB)

    —and as advice I cannot fault it. Well said, that Thessalonian! (Wotever one of them is) (no, don’t tell me … it’s often better to travel hopefully than to arrive) (been there, done that).

    Like

    Reply

  16. And after ALL the discussion/argument related to vaccines, there’s this:

    Review of studies reinforces the effectiveness of face coverings, handwashing and social distancing

    Mask wearing is one of the most effective public health measures for preventing covid-19, reducing incidence of the disease by 53 per cent, according to a review of published research.

    Stella Talic at Monash University in Australia and her colleagues carried out a meta-analysis using data from 72 studies to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions – measures that don’t involve drugs – at containing the virus.

    Handwashing was also estimated to reduce covid-19 incidence by 53 per cent, but this result was not statistically significant because only a small number of studies on it were included. Physical distancing was found to reduce incidence by 25 per cent.

    “It is likely that further control of the covid-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” Talic and her colleagues write in the British Medical Journal.

    From New Scientist.com:

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    2. I keep asking this question, or variations of it:

      Wasn’t it good ol’ God who created the bloody virus? (Bible Bangers, please think carefully before answering that one.) Even before He created the Creation?
      (And that’s a lot of creating. He was a busy little god, beavering away all alone in the dark before it occurred to Him to utter those immortal words “Let there be light”.)

      And I’ve also asked before: unto whom the hell was He uttering those immortal words, when He uttered?
      (I was told as a pup that talking to oneself was the first sign of lunacy.)

      Sarcasm aside, not enough cynics pay attention to the fact that omniscience and omnipresence and omnipotence carry with them omni-responsibility. (Ain’t no way the captain of a ship can delegate responsibility; authority, yes … responsibility, no. Can’t be done.)

      (God, care to answer that one, please?
      Or you may delegate to one of your many mouthpieces, if they’d like to accept on your behalf.)
      (BUT: if anyone does, please do not refer to God’s Holy Book as authority—I want first-hand reason, not regurgitated propaganda.)

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          1. I liked him not as a pup but as an adult. He was the pup at the time … as for settling in, I’m rediscovering many things—these Poms are quite, quite different; hence the rediscovering.
            Given my druthers, I druther have not done it; but just as the Ancient Mariner had his albatross we duz what the gods ordain, sometimes. A costly way to show someone, but I too have a sense of humour; (and made my peace with the Universe years ago). I can be happy anywhere with a working photographic capability and access to the wwweb. (Okayyyy, happy-ish.)

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment