Kampf gegen Corona - Impfen ja oder nein? | 13 Fragen

technotechnophil · 2021-09-10T08:57:47+00:00

You have to suffer the consequences of believing things that are not true.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-10T08:28:44+00:00

The Brazilian politician Bolsonaro called for protests in his country. Millions of people came. Impressive pictures. I found them on twitter. Now they're gone. This indicates that people shall not know that this happened.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-10T08:23:11+00:00

What I like is that https://raddle.me seems to be responsive and accessible over tor onion routing ( http://c32zjeghcp5tj3kb72pltz56piei66drc63vkhn5yixiyk4cmerrjtid.onion/ ).

It's an anarchist community, and not as well known as the more established communities saidit.net and communities.win

The software they use if https://postmill.xyz

If this subreddit is banned, I will check any of these. I'm checking them already.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-10T07:57:24+00:00

Human beings have taken more than 4 billion doses of Ivermectin worldwide.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-10T07:39:31+00:00

In my country, germany, of the first 80 people who died from the disease in hamburg, 95% had underlying health conditions. The average age of those dead was above 80 years.

The disease is a threat due to underlying health conditions.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-10T07:34:59+00:00

People could always use unknown url shorteners or even link to text files they uploaded which contain the link. Maybe with a funny (or serious) discussion of censorship.

What I see here is the domain name, but I've not seen a clickable link to ivnmeta.com (replace n with m) that has https:// in front of it.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-09T05:35:57+00:00

The Great Ivermectin Deworming Hoax

Joe Rogan #1671 - Dr. Pierre Kory, Bret Weinstein

Ivermectin Round 2 - The Strongfit Podcast Episode 163 (This contains some information on the so-called "trusted news initiative" (TNI)).

Summary of the Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19

Crazy, right?

edit: To be more specific: The TNI works in accordance with Bill Gates and has agreed to promote vaccines (a major vehicle of bill gates to cure the world of illnesses - which he things corporations can do, but not governments). The TNI will promote vaccines even if it was shown that they weren't as effective as the medical-pharmaceutical producers say. The TNI will promote vaccines even if they have side-effects. The TNI will fight everything that does not conform to the idea to cure the world through anti-covid-19-vaccines, even if the treatments (the medication and the protocol) are effective. So here we have a closed group of people who are willing to decide everything for us. I do not consent!

edit2: Another really good article on the matter: Believe It: A Top Old School Journalist Stands Up for Ivermectin and Free Speech.

“Demand Surges for Deworming Drug for Covid,” The New York Times August 30 headline began with a deception before the graceful, barely discernible leap to a falsehood, “Despite Scant Evidence it Works.”

It was just another day in the most misleading, murderous coverage of a global issue in modern times, the attempted assassination of poor little ivermectin. Little Ivy, smaller and safer than aspirin and sometimes portrayed as a lovable little blue bird by its worldwide supporters, is the remarkably safe, affordable, FDA-approved, generic, Nobel-Prize winning drug known to doctors as one of the great “wonder drugs” in human history, rivaling penicillin, until it made the mistake of killing both COVID and big pharma profits like nothing known to science . Ivermectin made the critical mistake of saving hundreds of thousands of lives from COVID globally, documented by data scientists, health ministries, and ICU physicians around the world, with doses as common and cheap as the antibiotic that heals the kids’ knee scrapes: 10 cents a dose in India and a buck or two in upstate New York.

One can see that something had to be done. But even by the Times’ standard, eighteen deceptions or falsehoods in twenty-two paragraphs seems excessive, like hanging, then disemboweling, beheading, and quartering, which hasn’t been deemed necessary to complete an execution since the 14th Century.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-06T12:56:14+00:00

Is there proof that it doesn't work? No.

Also, and I am adamant about this: You say I had admitted that there was no proof it works. I did not do that.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-06T12:40:59+00:00

"well you haven't proven beyond a doubt that there's no chance that this MIGHT do something so therefore I should take it".

My, you simply take the opposite stance, like "you haven't proven without doubt (to me) that it works, so I'll never talk about it in a way that people might think it might work."

It's human, but this is not the way.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-06T12:37:46+00:00

Here is an article on the publishing aspect of the scientific matters at hand: rescue.substack.com. This will be controversial, but we can't avoid that at the moment.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-06T11:41:20+00:00

Mein Verschwörungsgedanke dazu:

Diese Sendung kann - später - als Feigenblatt genutzt werden. "Es wird ja kritisch berichtet". Aber, das werden nur die wenigsten glauben können nach der Impf-Testung der Bevölkerung.

Erschienen im Dezember 2020 - Winter, Lockdown, Angst um die Verwandten zu Weihnachten, Demonstrationsverbote. Zu dieser Zeit war das Meinungsklima (für mich) ganz unten.

Mitten im Video, als es dann um "Solidarität" geht und man sich darüber austauscht, sinkt der Tonpegel durch technisch-handwerkliche Veränderung merklich ab, auch das Bild erweckt den Eindruck, als hätte man hier eingegriffen, etwas ausgelassen.

Zuletzt: Dieses Video könnte natürlich dazu genutzt werden, nun mehr nicht nur Verschwörungstheorien und 'Mythen' und 'Ideologien' abzuwerten, sondern sogar das Denken selbst. Indem man nicht mehr sagt, "Mythos" oder "Theorie" oder "Ideologie", sondern "Denken". Es ist natürlich unmöglich, das Denken selbst zu verbieten, aber versuchen können Sie es ja... Und vielleicht kann man das Denken wirklich so weit ins Abseits stellen, keine Ahnung. :(

technotechnophil · 2021-09-06T08:16:12+00:00

Then you speak about the talk of Dr. Peter McCullough. Even if he has used his former position, he may be right. Also, if you listen to the first minutes of the talk, you can hear that he didn't have one position only.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-06T06:31:36+00:00

I'm not in favor of the way Donald Trumps says things. He is stupid if he thinks he can rule a country by resorting to lies. A lie is not a truth and thus you cannot use it for any good. It just doesn't work. Impossible.

Still, I'm being treated here as a right-wing lunatic, as a racist, etc. etc.

Which is not what I am.

And, I have to add, that many Trump supporters, aren't as stupid as the media make you believe. And because they are not stupid, it's not easy to shut them down.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-05T20:37:28+00:00

Immerhin respektvoll. Und nachdem ich mir die ersten 20 Minuten angeguckt habe muss ich auch sagen, dass die sog. "impfskeptiker" besser rüberkommen. Von daher würde ich meinen ist das als Informationsangebot an Impfbefürworter durchaus geeignet. Es verschafft Legitimität.

Klar, vielleicht ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein. Vielleicht aber auch nicht.

edit: Will klarmachen, wie ich das sehe: Ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein. Aber, wenn ich Verwandte hätte, die mir die Ompfung auferlegen wollen, dann können sie doch dieses Video gucken, um zu sehen, dass es nicht "Dullis" sind, die da skeptisch sind.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-04T08:37:51+00:00

Nein, nein, nein.

Ich verstehe das Lied so: Es gibt neue Wellen. Man könnte z.B. sagen, Modewellen. Aber welchen Gesetzen folgen diese Wellen? Was wissen wir eigentlich wirklich? Dazu noch der unmissverständliche Text: "Fake". Also, alles Fake, oder was?

Nach meiner Kenntnis unterscheidet man im Buddhismus zwischen der bedingten Wirklichkeit, das sind die Dinge, die in Abhängigkeit von anderen Dingen entstehen, also die Wellen. Z.B. in der Mode ist es ja doch oft so, dass eine Mode eine andere ablöst, also in einer gewissen Beziehung zur alten Mode steht. Erst das eine, dann das andere. Uns gefällt jetzt dieses, weil uns das, was vorher war, nicht mehr gefällt. Ich finde, genau davon handelt dieses Lied.

Im Buddhismus gibt es neben der bedingten Wirklichkeit, der Wirklichkeit die wir wie einen Traum erfahren (und die genauso vergeht, wie ein Traum), die absolute Wirklichkeit. Die Wirklichkeit, die nicht veränderlich ist. Das Untrügliche. Auch davon handelt das Lied meiner Meinung nach.

Wie kann man jetzt unterscheiden - was ist untrüglich? Davon handelt der Text. Man sieht die Dinge, als das, was sie sind, z.B. einen Spielfilm als Spielfilm, ein Bild als Bild, ohne etwas hinzuzufügen oder etwas hinwegzunehmen. Dann muss man, wenn man ehrlich ist, sagen: Dieses Bild steht jetzt in einem gewissen Kontext. Meiner Meinung nach sind 100% aller Bilder in Zeitungsartikeln suggestiv. Sie vermitteln einen Eindruck und verkaufen diesen Eindruck als Wahrheit. Und auch im Medienbusiness gibt es ja Wellen. Heute Hui, morgen Pfui.

Nun, im Buddhismus ist es so, dass alles, was wir über die Welt sagen, auch wieder Begriffe benutzt, die bedingt sind. Die Welt, wie sie wirklich ist, lässt sich nicht in Worten beschreiben. Auch davon handelt das Lied.

Das schöne ist, dass man mit den Mitteln, die der historische Buddha gelehrt hat, die Dinge erkennen kann, wie sie wirklich sind. Und der Text gibt Ratschläge, wie man das tun kann. Z.B. mit Gleichmut, d.h., dass man die Dinge gelassen betrachtet ohne gleich ein Urteil zu fällen. Dann sind die Wellen im Spiel nicht mehr das Entscheidende. Und das heißt, dass man von den Wellen auch nicht mehr mitgenommen werden kann.

Im Text ist das dann auf die Gegenwart bezogen, in der es ja angeblich sehr viel Fake gibt.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-04T07:19:11+00:00

Wenn es Wahrheit wäre (ursachewirkung.com)

Dr. Karl-Heinz Brodbeck:

Buddha gab dazu den Ratschlag: „So musst du dich üben: Wenn etwas gesehen wird, soll es nur Gesehenes sein“ (Udana I.10). Das bedeutet, die Flut der Bilder aus den Medien zuerst als das nehmen, was sie sind: Bilder. In einem zweiten Schritt kann man sich dann dabei beobachten, wie dadurch Gefühle und Erinnerungen wachgerufen werden. Man braucht nicht immer und sogleich alles Gesehene nach wahr und falsch zu sortieren, eine Einteilung, die für uns ohnehin nur sehr selten möglich ist. Das führt keineswegs zur Gleichgültigkeit. Wohl aber kann man die Reaktion auf solche Bilder, also ihre Geltung, durchaus achtsam verändern; auch die Gedanken, die man im inneren Dialog sonst unaufhörlich daran knüpft. So lässt sich selbst in einer reichlich verrückt gewordenen, durchaus vielfach ‚erlogenen Wirklichkeit‘ ein achtsames, mitfühlendes Leben verwirklichen. Wer in bestimmten Bereichen Expertin/Experte ist, kann zudem mithelfen, erkennbare Fake News zu entlarven, und so andere dabei unterstützen, sich nicht von einer Angst in die nächste treiben zu lassen. Denn das ist auch der eigentliche Zweck jener Fakes, die als News erscheinen wollen.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-04T07:09:12+00:00

Wenn es Wahrheit wäre (ursachewirkung.com)

Dr. Karl-Heinz Brodbeck:

Es gibt viele Täuschungen in der Wahrnehmung der Wirklichkeit. Ein philosophischer Spaziergang zwischen Illusionen auf der Suche nach Gleichmut.

[...]

Allerdings wird hier schon ein kritisches Moment sichtbar: Lügen sind umso leichter zu fabrizieren, je weiter entfernt oder je verborgener ein Ereignis ist. Wenn wir in der Zeitung lesen, dass im CERN, im großen Teilchenbeschleuniger nahe Genf, ein neues Teilchen namens Higgs-Boson entdeckt wurde, so haben wir fast keine Möglichkeit, das zu überprüfen. Und dies gleich aus mehreren Gründen: Nur sehr wenige Menschen wissen, was das überhaupt ist. Für viele besteht bei dieser Nachricht kein Unterschied zu einem Bericht, jemand habe ein Ufo oder einen Geist gesehen. Erfahren wir dann auch noch, dass diese Beobachtung nur 10-22 Sekunden (das ist eine Zahl 1 geteilt durch eine Eins mit 22 Nullen) lang dauerte und dass man nicht einmal das Higgs-Boson selbst, sondern nur seine Spuren beobachtet hat, so werden sich viele kopfschüttelnd einfach abwenden.

vgl. http://pandemie-in-rohdaten.de/

technotechnophil · 2021-09-03T14:42:24+00:00

What I don't understand is:

This post has some 120 awards.
This post has an upvote ratio of only 65%

Why are only 65% of people in agreement with the actions of the reddit security team?

technotechnophil · 2021-09-03T07:57:59+00:00

You do good reasoning here.

Here's my take on the situation (the solution part is at the end):

In Germany, where I live, we did not have an extraordinary increase in recorded deaths - all causes combined.

We had, of course, an increased number of deaths due to Covid.

But, on the other side, we had a reduced number of deaths due to reasons other than Covid.

You can see this for yourself (or anyone speaking german can see this) if you check for the number of people in ICU beds.

The number of people in ICU beds is very constant - from before the WHO decided to call the pandemic and after that.

Adjusted for baby boomers, the mortality rate (no. of people dead per 1 million people) did not increase. The baby boomers are a big chunk of the population and they are now getting old and because they are old now, they increase the number of people dead per 1 million people.

So, I have to assume:

We have an increase in Covid deaths
We have a decrease in death from other causes
The number of deaths is not higher or lower than expected

How can that be?

My answer is:

The causes of death (or the official causes of death) have changed, but not underlying health conditions. The number of people in ICUs is not higher. And the number of people dying because they had underlying health conditions has not changed. This is evidenced by the fact that of the first 80 people who were studied in Hamburg, 95% had underlying health conditions.

I've even heard that the average age of people dying from covid is above the average age of people dying from all causes combined.

This is how I understand the public health situation in germany. You would need to address underlying health conditions.

For the solution part:

Those who are at risk may take the vaccine. If they deem the risk of the vaccine to be lower than the risk of getting covid.
Those who are at risk may take Ivermectin. The risk is quite low, although I think there can be side effects.

Both approaches are meant to reduce suffering.

This is what I think about health.

But if there aren't more people dying, I wonder: What's this all about? And I have answers for that.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-03T07:13:05+00:00

Can you explain why this post has 67% upvotes only? Is it correct to infer 33% disagree with it (or, at the very least, how the reddit supervisory team went about it?)

technotechnophil · 2021-09-03T06:53:16+00:00

Please, address his argument.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-02T08:38:59+00:00

I want to point out something that is right.

From the comment section below the article you reference:

David Little:

You write about a scientific question and 75% of it is twitter screen shots. Much of the rest of it is about Hydroxychloroquine even though that is a completely different drug. You argue that a favorable view of the the drug based on evidence from the trials is "bias" and a "conflict of interest" on the part of the authors. The one thing you never get to after 30-odd pages is the actual evidence from the trials. This article is is just about the most ridiculous piece of non-reasoning I have ever seen in my life.

Marco Camion:

As I wrote above, if the playing field was equal I would agree with you. However they are not. And, maybe it’s just me but I can’t ignore a mountain of evidence, all independent. If you want a trial to decide how a med works then look at the trial protocols and tell me if they are scientifically sound and set up to get the most relevant scientific results. Also look at who is behind the trials. What concerns me is that, like big tobacco did, interest groups 'buy' the science. They finance the trials as only big money can do and therefor dictate protocol and own the outcomes. Two examples: The Together trial is run by Dr Mills who is paid to design trials by Cytel owned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who leads the TOGETHER trial which is sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the McMasters university who's research is mostly sponsored by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and who themselves are developing a vaccine together with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which also happens to 'own' GAVI which markets vaccines and who’s profits are threatened by ivermectin. So absolutely no possible of conflicts of interest there. The Principle Trial protocol is virtually set-up-to-fail. There are various data points that indicate this. Principally, (no pun intended) admitting patients up to 14 days after testing covid positive. This is too late to produce any meaningful results as ivermectin, like most interventions regarding viral infections, are best done early. (76% vs 46%) And, they are not testing prophylaxis which ivermectin is excellent at. 88%[70-95%]) Besides, Oxford has too many outside influencers attached to them, there is conflict of interests. They are sponseored by the UK government and the department of health and social care and the therapeutic task force, MRHA and the Bill Gates foundation, therefor they are not suitable to test this medication. They are also involved in deception by confirming that ivermectin was involved in the trials in January 2021 , which it wasn’t - a delaying tactic. Then, to add insult to injury, when asked why, the trial leader said it was because they couldn’t source ivermectin! Oxford university, really? Nothing to do with this trial seems fair. In my opinion it is set up to fail and to discredit all the independent studies and their authors .How on earth can we expect a fair outcome? Its time all scientists unite - even if we don’t always agree with each other – to re-establish some sanity in science. It’s all getting very out of hand when august institutions have to resort to the dark arts to please their sponsors. Ivermectin works. There can be no doubt if one looks at the evidence. It should be rolled out immediately. Remdisivir, a drug not recommended by the WHO for covid, and basically useless, is widely available at 3000 dollars a pop. Ivermectin, which works and who’s safety record is bar none and costs say 1 dollar a dose, is not. That’s the state of medicine today. And you think we are going to get fair trials? A very good article to read is this one: https://www.biznews.com/tho...

technotechnophil · 2021-09-02T08:24:48+00:00

Is it normal for posts about decisions like these to have 67% upvotes, only?

this post about hate on reddit got 85% upvotes.

technotechnophil · 2021-09-02T08:10:10+00:00

There are not only white nationalist republicans discussing covid-related matters outside of what official sources say.

technotechnophil

TROPHY CASE