From Newsgroup: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

In article <uqgids$283df$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Vaccinations certainly did work,

Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.

Bob.

They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.

That's a new one, where did you get that from?

Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect
you from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps
if you get infected?

Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent? mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.

You are asking an ArtStudent? question.

The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk
of infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the
answer is, shitloads.

[Snip]

It *has* stopped. Killing people. Vaccines have brought it down to
flu level - a bad week maybe in bed with painkillers, and that's
it. Not a life threatening infection with people gasping for
breath and dying.

[Snip]

Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.

I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.

The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as
it gets.

If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator
gasping for breath, like so many others have.

TNP, as time goes by and more and more truth comes out I'm sure
evidence will overwhelm your statements above, it's already starting.
Take the time to watch these two videos. The first looks at the
effects of midazolam which killed thousands but was attributed to
covid. The second looks at vaccines.. He also, as an aside remark,
points out that it was omicron which finally stopped the covid deaths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMYZg8_22y8

Infected blood took many years to come out.
I suspect you'll attack either the doctor or the research papers and
me rather than accept the truth but you never know, I might be
surprised.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

On 11/06/2024 11:41, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <uqgids$283df$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Vaccinations certainly did work,

Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.

Bob.

They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.

That's a new one, where did you get that from?

Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect
you from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps
if you get infected?

Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent? mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.

You are asking an ArtStudent? question.

The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk
of infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the
answer is, shitloads.

[Snip]

It *has* stopped. Killing people. Vaccines have brought it down to
flu level - a bad week maybe in bed with painkillers, and that's
it. Not a life threatening infection with people gasping for
breath and dying.

[Snip]

Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.

I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.

The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as
it gets.

If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator
gasping for breath, like so many others have.

TNP, as time goes by and more and more truth comes out I'm sure
evidence will overwhelm your statements above, it's already starting.
Take the time to watch these two videos. The first looks at the
effects of midazolam which killed thousands but was attributed to
covid. The second looks at vaccines.. He also, as an aside remark,
points out that it was omicron which finally stopped the covid deaths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMYZg8_22y8

YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in
multiple videos:

<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>

She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>


--- Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

In article <v49brp$urgb$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in multiple videos:

<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>

She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>

Reaction as I expected. :-)

He didn't wrte the papers or create the data.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

On 11/06/2024 13:19, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <v49brp$urgb$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in
multiple videos:

<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>

She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>

Reaction as I expected. :-)

He didn't wrte the papers or create the data.

There are many bad academic papers, Campbell picks them and
misrepresents the results to boost his YouTube subscribers. If you
watched Susan Oliver's critiques, it might become clearer to you. No one
wants to watch John Campbell repeatedly telling them the pandemic is
over, so he tells them some bollocks, about a vaccine conspiracy, and
they continue subscribing.

I did learn one new pithy idea...

Brandolini's law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an
order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
--- Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

In article <v4agua$160mo$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 11/06/2024 13:19, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <v49brp$urgb$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in
multiple videos:

<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>

She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>

Reaction as I expected. :-)

He didn't wrte the papers or create the data.

There are many bad academic papers, Campbell picks them and
misrepresents the results to boost his YouTube subscribers. If you
watched Susan Oliver's critiques, it might become clearer to you.
No one wants to watch John Campbell repeatedly telling them the
pandemic is over, so he tells them some bollocks, about a vaccine
conspiracy, and they continue subscribing.

Several things show up in your text. You refer to him as Campbell so
your opinion is biased before you start. You make no mention of peer
reviewed. You tell me one persons review is accurate and Dr. Campbell
is bollocks but that just means you like one narrative more than
another. You of course suggest that you opinion is fact but give no
evidence.

I did learn one new pithy idea...

Brandolini's law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is
an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

Oh, I quite agree with that. Strange that you don't see it applies to
narrative follows the most.

Anyway believe what you will, the truth is coming out but very, very
slowly, many arses to cover.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

On 12/06/2024 09:42, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <v4agua$160mo$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

On 11/06/2024 13:19, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <v49brp$urgb$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in
multiple videos:

<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>

She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>

Reaction as I expected. :-)

He didn't wrte the papers or create the data.

There are many bad academic papers, Campbell picks them and
misrepresents the results to boost his YouTube subscribers. If you
watched Susan Oliver's critiques, it might become clearer to you.
No one wants to watch John Campbell repeatedly telling them the
pandemic is over, so he tells them some bollocks, about a vaccine
conspiracy, and they continue subscribing.

Several things show up in your text. You refer to him as Campbell so
your opinion is biased before you start.

I have known about John Campbell for years. Yes, I had a very low
opinion of him before your post. Call that bias, if you want.

You make no mention of peer
reviewed. You tell me one persons review is accurate and Dr. Campbell
is bollocks but that just means you like one narrative more than
another. You of course suggest that you opinion is fact but give no
evidence.

I gave the evidence of the Susan Oliver videos. She points out errors in
John Campbell's arguments. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand them, from first principles.




--- Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

On 12/06/2024 09:42, Bob Latham wrote:

You tell me one persons review is accurate and Dr. Campbell
is bollocks but that just means you like one narrative more than
another.

Christ on a bike.
The ArtStudents have won. There is no objective science, only what
people want it to be
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)


--- Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113