patrick.net

Looks like the pedo Mockingbird journalists are creating a 'Stresand Effect' for "Sound of Freedom". Jolly good.

https://t.me/gatewaypunditofficial/32408

Ceffer says

The typo kills it as a useful meme. This is quite common, sadly.

Booger says

Took me a minute. Charles Bronson portrayed Paul Kersey in the "Death Wish" movies

More AI absurdist headlining

I always presumed they were thoroughly tested by our wonderful, objective, scientific, benign, altruistic, protective government agencies. Now, I presume they aren't tested at all except by lobbyists for the financials or the democide policies.

Patrick says

Booger says

Took me a minute. Charles Bronson portrayed Paul Kersey in the "Death Wish" movies

Fixed it again:

Ceffer says

I always presumed they were thoroughly tested by our wonderful, objective, scientific, benign, altruistic, protective government agencies. Now, I presume they aren't tested at all except by lobbyists for the financials or the democide policies.

Most people think vaccines are tested, but they are not.

RFK Jr is hated by the toxxine industry for pointing this out in public:

https://patrick.net/post/1378993/2023-04-06-vaccine-truth-teller-robert-f-kennedy?start=178#comment-1966291

“I think virtually every American would agree with my stance on vaccines, which is that vaccines should be tested like other medicines. They should be safety tested. And unfortunately, vaccines are not safety tested,” he argued.

The 2024 presidential contender then pointed out that no vaccine “has ever been subject to a pre-licensing placebo-controlled trial.”

He said: “Of the 72 vaccine doses now mandated essentially mandated—they recommended, but they’re really mandated for American children—none of them, not one, has ever been subject to a pre-licensing placebo-controlled trial.”

Hey Ceffer, Do you have the link for this Ethical Skeptic?

Ceffer says

The_Deplorable says

Hey Ceffer, Do you have the link for this Ethical Skeptic?

Ceffer says

@The_Deplorable you can normally find a post by going to www.yandex.com and typing in 10 words from a post, with the same formatting and punctuation for the search.

I'd do it, but I would like people to also learn this minor skill.

You see no 6 words in the English language are ever said twice unless it's a quote or a saying.

The_Deplorable says

Hey Ceffer, Do you have the link for this Ethical Skeptic?

Twenty richwick boozy lashes for no link. However, you can search the index of the site:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/

Ceffer says

Twenty richwick boozy lashes for no link.

I find links all the time. Just search for a 10 word quote of what you are reading on a search engine. Yandex is one of the better ones.

Just try to do it? I do this all the time and I'm the only one here that does.

Problem is, they might like that.

When the splice and stitch propaganda virtue signaling jive doesn't work any more? The kleptocrat Soros split personality.

https://t.me/greatreject/52734

LOL!

Very small doses of flouride do prevent dental decay (in children only when teeth are developing). However, those small doses can be provided by pills and drops during child developmental stages only then discontinued after the age of ten. That does not justify the flooding of flourides in the public water systems, which the Soviet Union in the day purposely used to diminish the populations' capacity to think independently or resist.

The_Deplorable says

Hey Ceffer, Do you have the link for this Ethical Skeptic?

Ceffer says

@Ceffer, @The_Deplorable

So - this is how you check claims. This is my search on Yandex:

https://yandex.com/search/?text=%22Those+who+have+made+arguments+that+Remdesivir+was+deadly%22+%40EthicalSkeptic&lr=10000

Please click that so you can see I searched for 9 words out of that post, and included a search for EthicalSkeptic

It doesn't return an exact match, but I found Ethical Skeptic - here's one of his posts.

https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1328178423739674624

If you hover over his avatar, you will see this:



So, considering his background, I doubt it's true. It's misinformation to make it appear that anti-covid vaccine anything is just lies and hysteria. Eventually somebody will post that screenshot somewhere, and there will be a person (or a bot) ready to pounce on it to show "this is false!!" - I don't think the post actually exists.

This is why I am so adamant about people sourcing information, rather than just believing anything that confirms to their viewpoint is "true".

If you go to his substack page, and search for "remdesivir" you get this:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/?s=remdesivir

Nothing.

My conclusion - spook especially since he calls himself "Ethical".

richwicks says

So, considering his background, I doubt it's true.

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what Ethical Skeptic has been up to for a few years now. He's been blowing the whistle on the dangers of lockdowns, vaccines and other narrative driven bullshit by using actual data. Data that you have access to if you really want to debunk. Not only a data scientist, ES has been a foremost resource on understanding logical and scientific fallacies for years now. The fact that you called his website a "substack" means you would probably benefit from his wisdom.

I think due to the precious metal hype on Patnet circa 2007-2012, I have grown conditioned to spot a promoted post when I see them.
I have noticed at The Gateway Pundit or The Liberty Daily they try to disguise adverts as real news stories. But I have noticed I don't have to click on it, or read the byline to know it's a promoted post. Every post about Precious metals, or hedging against the collapse of the dollar. They are always promoted posts..

Did any of you guys get rich during the Gold Rush of 2008?

@richwicks

Here we can see the government spook making the government look great by pointing out the stark raise in cancer after vax launch. What is your premise again?

The_Deplorable says

Hey Ceffer, Do you have the link for this Ethical Skeptic?

Ceffer says

@The_Deplorable, @Ceffer: So - I did find it after all:

https://swisscows.com/en/web?query=%22Non-Alcohol+related+Liver+Mortality+did+not+arrive+with+Covid%22

which resolved to this:

https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1678234361236189184

And UNBELIEVABLY it showed up even under Google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Non-Alcohol+related+Liver+Mortality+did+not+arrive+with+Covid%22

I rarely can find anything useful under Google - since this is Twitter, I assume they just ban yandex from indexing the site, or it's a low priority for Yandex to search it.

Just 6-10 words can find it, IF a search engine found it. I used swisscows.com there.

Now you know how to do it - so do it, before you post.

Notice "the Ethical Skeptic" however DID NOT include source data, so you have no goddamned idea of whether what you are looking at is real although there is a link which you'll have to type in:

https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10-provisional.html

And there is indeed data where (maybe?) you can reconstruct the graph: You'll need data for K71-K76 which covers liver diseases - that's "6. Select underlying cause of death:". K70 covers alcohol related liver disease. You can select age groups, locale by state, many things. This might be useful for @Onvacation

richwicks says

Notice "the Ethical Skeptic" however DID NOT include source data

What exactly do you think the link on graph is? What is source data to you? Also, is your premise seriously "this guy is pretending the data correlates with remdesivir killing people via liver failure that disappeared after they stopped using it to treat COVID in order to make 'anti-vaxxers' look bad"? Must be political humor.

DhammaStep says

What exactly do you think the link on graph is? What is source data to you?

I didn't see any link other than a URL, I had to type in, then figure out how to use the Wonder database, click through it, and find out how it COULD be reconstructed.

When I do research, I present all my data, all my sources, and make it easy to verify because God knows, I can easily make a mistake, and unlike a lot of people, I want to know when I do - so I make it as EASY AS POSSIBLE for people to verify my conclusions.

Why doesn't everybody?

DhammaStep says

Also, is your premise seriously "this guy is pretending the data correlates with remdesivir killing people via liver failure that disappeared after they stopped using it to treat COVID in order to make 'anti-vaxxers' look bad"?

No, because a fucking link wasn't recorded, I had to spend an hour tracking down the Twitter post, because 1 second for the original poster was too much fucking effort to include. So, I had to go to yandex, then swisscows (where I did find it), then only to find FOR ONCE Google included. The procedure is to pick out 6-10 words, typed exactly was you see them, in quotes into a search engine. Then you have to go through the results to see if it's there.

It's a fucking pain in the ass that EVERYBODY has to do, instead of just the original poster.

When you write a report, you include a bunch of sources in your report so it can be validated as true. You had to get your sources anyhow, you needed to get your data ANYHOW, why did you keep it all private? Why the fuck do people INSIST on doing this? Half the shit on the Internet is bullshit, when it's not, include your fucking sources.

Our "news" media NEVER does, and people who are presenting actual data, INEXPLICABLY don't either.

I don't have blind trust in anybody.

Look through this thread, I did the work. Nobody else can be bothered.

richwicks says

Look through this thread, I did the work

You literally didn't do anything but find a link that was already on the image. People that actually analyze the data do the work.

DhammaStep says

richwicks says

Look through this thread, I did the work

You literally didn't do anything but find a link that was already on the image. People that actually analyze the data do the work.

Oh it was??

Here - at the ORIGINAL resolution of this post here's "the link that was already in the image":



In PNG format (that's lossless), so that's the best quality you can get from the original image posted here, unless you find the original twitter post which I found, but wasn't included, because.. Just post any shit and don't let anybody verify. It's FUN!

Do you have fucking super powers? Can you read that image? I can blow it up 500% and it's just a jumble of dots to me.

I'm constantly vexxed by people who are like "fuck you, if you want to know if it's true, spend an hour trying to figure it out", when 90% of the goddamned time it ISN'T true. Here's somebody going to a website, taking a FUCKING PHOTOGRAPH of it, and not bothering to tell anybody where it came from, because they are either stupid twats, or lying.

I mean, why bother to include proof the government just killed a bunch of fucking people? Let people guess, keep it in the realm of "conspiracy theory" rather than just fucking PROVING OUR GOVERNMENT JUST MURDERED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.

richwicks says

I'm constantly vexxed by people

I am vexxed by people that say "this claim is bullshit" without demonstrating it at all, all while sitting on their high horse about being able to type addresses into a URL bar.

DhammaStep says

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what Ethical Skeptic has been up to for a few years now. He's been blowing the whistle on the dangers of lockdowns, vaccines and other narrative driven bullshit by using actual data.

No, I don't. You know why? NOBODY INCLUDED A LINK to him.

I guess I ought to know everybody.

I'll just rely on CENSORED SEARCH ENGINES to find out anything about him.

Because a link is just fucking impossible to include. It took me about 10 second to write this WHY BOTHER TO INCLUDE THAT? That would make it easy, rather than having to go through 10 search engines to find it.

richwicks says

DhammaStep says

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what Ethical Skeptic has been up to for a few years now. He's been blowing the whistle on the dangers of lockdowns, vaccines and other narrative driven bullshit by using actual data.

No, I don't. You know why? NOBODY INCLUDED A LINK to him.

I guess I ought to know everybody.

I'll just rely on CENSORED SEARCH ENGINES to find out anything about him.

Because a link is just fucking impossible to include. It took me about 10 second to write this WHY BOTHER TO INCLUDE THAT? That would make it easy, rather than having to go through 10 search engines to find it.

Most of that is your own personal problem. I have no problem finding information on my own when presented with key data. I've even linked to ES myself in the past. Now, can you demonstrate why he's wrong or do I have to read another adolescent tantrum about hyperlinks that ignores my request?

richwicks says

I'm constantly vexxed by people

Me too, but I tolerate or ignore them. I haven't had to physically fight them since jr high.

richwicks says

, I had to spend an hour tracking down the Twitter post,

You should update your methodology. It shouldn't take an hour for you to find a post like that when you have: the date, time, username, and the website the post is from is kind of obvious. Shouldn't be more than two minutes tops.