Evidence for God from Science

Someone sent me this video, so I thought I’d share it here. DBowling listens to experts, and this doctor is an expert. You all can see for yourself, and decide if you want to believe what she says.
About the halfway point she talks about Antibody Dependent Enhancement. If what she says happens with the mRNA Covid vaccines, we're going to see a lot of severe reactions sometime after vaccines have been given. And of course this won’t be attributed to the vaccine.

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:05 am Someone sent me this video, so I thought I’d share it here. DBowling listens to experts, and this doctor is an expert.

As I have pointed out previously, the criteria I use to try to separate truth from misinformation is a "consensus position of multiple subject matter experts".

The reason I start with a consensus of multiple experts is I can go out on the internet and find an alleged 'expert' to support just about any position on any subject.
This is why so many people have embraced so much misinformation regarding covid over the last year. And in the case of covid, the consequences of this misinformation has been tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of preventable human deaths in our country to date.

And again, I ask you to point out where she’s wrong, instead of making an argument from authority.

I asked you to point out where Robert Kennedy was wrong, and you didn’t. You just said that he’s an antivaxxer and experts say he’s wrong.

Show me what is wrong with what Dr. Merrit says, instead of just relying on what your experts say.

Or don’t. The people who can see through this charade that’s been perpetrated on us will see it. Others will just be sheep and get the vaccine for something that over 99% of people recover from.

Rick: The people who can see through this charade that’s been perpetrated on us will see it.

And you can't possibly know that to be the truth, even if some qualified experts think it is - and certainly as most don't think so.

Rick: Others will just be sheep and get the vaccine for something that over 99% of people recover from.

First place, you don't know if you or your family could be in that one percent. Every week, I talk to people around the country, and I keep encountering people who've had deaths to loved ones due to Covid (or has been a nightmare for them) - and that's whether the Covid was on top of something else or not, because people don't necessarily have to die (if a vaccine had been given).

So people - just like all of us that have to decide which experts to believe - are sheep just because they are listening to the majority of qualified experts who think the vaccine can protect them and they are highly concerned about their loved ones. As for those that do NOT recover - how many deaths are you willing to concede might have been prevented via the vaccine? And I don't give a rip if those that died also had underlying conditions, because they well might not have died if they'd had the vaccine. All you've done is cherrypicked a MUCH smaller minority of naysayer experts about the vaccine and are gambling that you and they are correct. The long history of success with vaccines on millions suggests that they are largely safe and effective for most people. So don't demonize and belittle people who are only concerned with protecting their families. Those morgues with refrigerator trucks of stacked bodies aren't paranoia - those were real people who left behind grieving families!

philip wrote:
First place, you don't know if you or your family could be in that one percent.

First place, I do know that I am not in that one percent, because as I told you, I had the antibodies, and I HAD NO SYMPTOMS. My son was in close contact with at least 2 people that tested positive, and guess what? He’s fine. And my wife has been exposed to the virus for a year, working in healthcare. And guess what? She’s fine.

because people don't necessarily have to die (if a vaccine had been given).

Now that we’ve heard that those who have been vaccinated, and then get the virus, may be far worse off than if they were exposed to the virus, without getting the vaccine, then your point may very well be extremely dangerous!!!

And I don't give a rip if those that died also had underlying conditions, because they well might not have died if they'd had the vaccine.

Maybe if we were healthier as a nation, we wouldn’t have these underlying conditions that make us susceptible to dying from a virus.

And since you don’t “give a rip” about underlying conditions, do you not give a rip about the families of elderly who have died from the vaccine, because they had underlying conditions? How many vaccine deaths are you willing to concede might have been avoided, if they didn’t get the vaccine? You are demonizing those who want to protect their families from unproven vaccines!!!

The long history of success with vaccines on millions suggests that they are largely safe and effective for most people.

There is no long history of success with these mRNA vaccines. Even if these vaccines are safe for “most” people, is “most” more than 99%?

If not, would you still recommend the vaccines?

All you've done is cherrypicked a MUCH smaller minority of naysayer experts about the vaccine and are gambling that you and they are correct.

You keep saying things about if what I say is correct? What exactly am I saying philip? That I don’t know the long term effects of these vaccines? We’re starting to get a clearer picture of the short term effects, and it’s troubling.

My wife’s friend in Massachusetts has a friend who is a nurse, that went into cardiac arrest, and has been put into a medically induced coma, after her 2nd dose of the vaccine. You going to tell her family that the vaccine is safe and effective?

I understand people are scared from Covid. But what do we do when the supposed cure, turns out to be worse than the virus?

DBowling wrote:
And in the case of covid, the consequences of this misinformation has been tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of preventable human deaths in our country to date.

Care to tell me what specific misinformation has lead to possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths that otherwise would’ve been preventable?

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:17 pm

DBowling wrote:
And in the case of covid, the consequences of this misinformation has been tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of preventable human deaths in our country to date.

Care to tell me what specific misinformation has lead to possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths that otherwise would’ve been preventable?

There were two big politically motivated lies that were initiated by political entities and then were propagated by people, internet, and media outlets that supported those political entities.
1. The first lie was Covid-19 was not really that big a deal, and it really wasn't any more deadly than the flu.
2. The second lie involved the effectiveness of masks. The lie that masks were an ineffective intrusion on personal rights or were somehow harmful to wear.

Due to the political polarization in our country during an election year, a significant portion of the American population embraced these politically motivated lies and failed to take the precautions recommended by medical professionals to combat covid-19.

A significant portion of the American population failed to take Covid-19 seriously and failed to take steps to combat the spread of Covid-19. This resulted in a greater increase in covid cases and a subsequent increase in human deaths.

I really wanted to find some agreement with your post, but I’m having a hard time with what you said. There have been studies showing the harm that masks can to to those of us who have to wear them for long hours at work. Here’s one such study:
https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/ji ... p?jid=jide

I guess where I can find some agreement with you is when someone like Fauci said that the general population shouldn’t be wearing masks. As the supposed government authority on this, he really blew it on this one. Not only did he jump the gun by telling people not to wear masks, he also made it difficult to trust him on anything else he said.

Someone in his position should not have said something so irresponsible.

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:05 am Someone sent me this video, so I thought I’d share it here. DBowling listens to experts, and this doctor is an expert. You all can see for yourself, and decide if you want to believe what she says.
About the halfway point she talks about Antibody Dependent Enhancement. If what she says happens with the mRNA Covid vaccines, we're going to see a lot of severe reactions sometime after vaccines have been given. And of course this won’t be attributed to the vaccine.

Wow, I'm about halfway through this video and man is she a tome of knowledge and a breath of fresh air.

To those that decided against watching it I suggest you watch it. Yes it's 30 min long but the time flies when watching because all the info she dishes out is so interesting.

One of the effective tools for spreading misinformation is taking statements out of context, and you have provided two excellent examples...

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:18 pm I really wanted to find some agreement with your post, but I’m having a hard time with what you said. There have been studies showing the harm that masks can to to those of us who have to wear them for long hours at work. Here’s one such study:
https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/ji ... p?jid=jide

The title and conclusion clearly define the context and scope of the study you reference
Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19
Conclusion
"Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed. As a second wave of COVID-19 is expected, and in preparation for future pandemics, it is imperative to identify solutions to manage these adverse effects. Frequent breaks, improved hydration and rest, skin care, and potentially newly designed comfortable masks are recommendations for future management of adverse effects related to prolonged mask use."

The scope of this study involves the use of specific masks (surgical and N95) in a specific environment (prolonged hours by healthcare professionals during a pandemic).

This study in no way contradicts the many studies referenced earlier that document the effectiveness of masks as a tool to combat the spread of covid and save human lives.

I guess where I can find some agreement with you is when someone like Fauci said that the general population shouldn’t be wearing masks. As the supposed government authority on this, he reall CDC y blew it on this one. Not only did he jump the gun by telling people not to wear masks, he also made it difficult to trust him on anything else he said.

Fauci did make a statement early in the pandemic on March 8, 2020 during a 60 Minutes interview
"there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask"

Again, context is key to understanding Fauci's statement
"At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, masks were not recommended for the general public, as authorities were trying to prevent a mask shortage for health workers and the extent of asymptomatic spread was unknown."

As more information about covid-19 became available, Fauci embraced the truth and incorporated that new information into his recommendations.

On April 3, 2020, the CDC updated its previous advice and recommended people wear cloth face coverings “in public settings when around people outside their household, especially when social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.”

Fauci's desire to "follow the science" and promote practices to combat covid and save human lives, is a stark contrast to those in the media who (for political purposes) attempted to smear Fauci by taking an outdated quote out of context.

When people with integrity (like Fauci) discover they are mistaken, they acknowledge the mistake and make efforts to correct the mistake.
However those who lied about covid for political purposes, doubled and tripled down on the lie even after their lies became readily apparent.

DBowling wrote:
The second lie involved the effectiveness of masks. The lie that masks were an ineffective intrusion on personal rights or were somehow harmful to wear.

You said it was a lie that masks were harmful to wear, and that lie cost thousands of lives.
I showed you a study that shows that masks can be harmful to wear, and you brush it aside?

Fauci integrity-lol.

More like hypocrite.

After changing his mind on masks, he was seen not wearing a mask in public, going against his “recommendation.”


So, are you going to withdraw at least the part about the “lie” that masks are harmful, in light of a study that shows masks are harmful?

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:01 am

DBowling wrote:
The second lie involved the effectiveness of masks. The lie that masks were an ineffective intrusion on personal rights or were somehow harmful to wear.

You said it was a lie that masks were harmful to wear, and that lie cost thousands of lives.
I showed you a study that shows that masks can be harmful to wear, and you brush it aside?

No... I actually referenced your study to demonstrate that the scope and context of the study did not support your assertion.
Again... quoting from the conclusion.

"Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed. As a second wave of COVID-19 is expected, and in preparation for future pandemics, it is imperative to identify solutions to manage these adverse effects. Frequent breaks, improved hydration and rest, skin care, and potentially newly designed comfortable masks are recommendations for future management of adverse effects related to prolonged mask use."

The conclusion does not state that masks are not effective against covid.
The conclusion does not recommend that healthcare professionals stop using surgical and N95 masks.
The study does not address the use of masks in general by the public.

The study did specifically address "prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals" during a pandemic.
I didn't brush anything aside.
That assertion is simply untrue.

I pointed out the explicitly stated context and scope of the study as stated by the study itself.

DBowling wrote:
The conclusion does not state that masks are not effective against covid.
The conclusion does not recommend that healthcare professionals stop using surgical and N95 masks.
The study does not address the use of masks in general by the public.

Your assertion was that it was a lie that masks were harmful, and that lie caused thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives.

I showed a study that shows that masks are harmful, and it wasn’t a lie.

Are you changing what you meant? Did you mean that the lie was about the public wearing masks, specifically?

Because if you meant the public specifically, you can lay blame on your integrity guy Fauci, for misleading the public, and sowing distrust.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:54 am

DBowling wrote:
The conclusion does not state that masks are not effective against covid.
The conclusion does not recommend that healthcare professionals stop using surgical and N95 masks.
The study does not address the use of masks in general by the public.

Your assertion was that it was a lie that masks were harmful, and that lie caused thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives.

That is a true statement

I showed a study that shows that masks are harmful

That is a false statement

Are you changing what you meant?

No... there is no need for me to change anything I said, because I was telling the truth.

Did you mean that the lie was about the public wearing masks, specifically?

No I meant exactly what said...
It is a lie to claim that masks are "harmful"

Just look at your study again...
If masks are inherently 'harmful', why didn't the study recommend that healthcare professionals stop wearing N95 and surgical masks altogether?
The answer is obvious.
Because N95 and surgical masks protect the health and lives of the healthcare professionals and patients.

DBowling wrote:
No I meant exactly what said...
It is a lie to claim that masks are "harmful"

DBowling wrote:
If masks are inherently 'harmful', why didn't the study recommend that healthcare professionals stop wearing N95 and surgical masks altogether?
The answer is obvious.
Because N95 and surgical masks protect the health and lives of the healthcare professionals and patients.

From the article:

Conclusion
Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed. As a second wave of COVID-19 is expected, and in preparation for future pandemics, it is imperative to identify solutions to manage these adverse effects. Frequent breaks, improved hydration and rest, skin care, and potentially newly designed comfortable masks are recommendations for future management of adverse effects related to prolonged mask use.

The link shows how masks are harmful, and even offers some recommendations. Yet you deny they’re harmful, and want them to recommend something completely unreasonable.

I’m starting to see your logic. It’s the same “logic” that you use when you claim without any proof, that Covid vaccines are safe and effective.