An explanation of Covid

[javadog]

Show me in this thread where I endorsed the political ramifications of what’s in that article. In fact, show me where I endorsed anything whatsoever.

As I’ve explained time and time again, I thought the portion of the article that described the disease mechanism related to this virus was worth the read.

Do you happen to notice that your “review” of that article doesn’t mention anything about that?

Furthermore, evidence is piling up that some of the claims in that review are in fact dead wrong. Given my previous interactions with you, public and private, I know that one of the things that you do is look through the Internet for someone to explain what you could read for yourself. Your judgments as to whom to trust are flawed, as I’ve previously discussed with you. Not much more I’m prepared to do to help you there…

Let’s see where it goes from here. As a hint, think back on all of the things that the establishment and the media have told you, that in hindsight were bull****.

Two weeks have long passed, have we flattened the curve yet?

[javadog]

Here’s how far the mighty can fall. Some of your cherished sources, the New York Times and the Washington Post, won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting of the Trump-Russia collusion. A ****ing Pulitzer Prize. Their journalistic efforts were ranked higher than everyone in the world on that topic. It’s a shame that it was 100% bull****.

Now that it has been entirely debunked and shown to be a complete fabrication perpetrated by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democrat party, do you understand what I’ve been telling you privately?

There was a time that the New York Times could’ve been trusted. That time has long since passed.

If you think that you can trust what the government tells you, or what the mainstream media tells you, then you lump yourself in with the rest of the stupid *******s throwing **** in this thread. If I were you, I would endeavor to be a little smarter than that.

Here’s an article from six months ago, to trigger the liberals.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/03/25/flashback-remember-when-wapo-nyt-won-pulitzer-prizes-for-their-deeply-sourced-n2543726

[pavulon]

Appears to be too late for a rabies vaccine.

[Tervuren]

How long ago was that?
Not in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by javadog

There was a time that the New York Times could’ve been trusted. That time has long since passed.

[oldE]

Javadog, when you post a link to an article without any caveat, it is taken as an endorsement of the entirety of the piece. I suspect if you had cut and pasted about 40% out of the middle and presented it without the material which was either political or conspiracy fodder, it would have been better received.
However if your purpose was to stoke political fires, you should have just posted to PARF.

Best
Les

[javadog]

I think it was pretty clear from both the title of my post and the text that I put in it that it was informational. If it wasn’t clear enough at the start, I made it fairly clear shortly there after, after the first few nitwits slung their initial volleys of ****.

I don’t like to cut and paste things, I prefer to link to them in their entirety. Usually that’s out of consideration for the author, as I want to make it clear whose views are being expressed and to give them credit where credit is due. Other times, it simply because it saves bandwidth for the host, as articles like this are quite lengthy.

I didn’t intend for the discussion to revolve around the politics, that’s why I posted it here, where it would receive a wider audience. Unfortunately some of the forum infants took it upon themselves to attack both it and me, many of them didn’t even bother to read the ****ing thing.

That’s an on them, not me. I appreciate your comments, but maybe you should go back and read the thread and see who sent it sideways.

[DaveE]

Coffeeboy suckered in all the cult-likely morons in PARF already. He’s expanding his reach.

[hbueno]

Originally Posted by javadog

I think it was pretty clear from both the title of my post and the text that I put in it that it was informational. If it wasn’t clear enough at the start, I made it fairly clear shortly there after, after the first few nitwits slung their initial volleys of ****.

I don’t like to cut and paste things, I prefer to link to them in their entirety. Usually that’s out of consideration for the author, as I want to make it clear whose views are being expressed and to give them credit where credit is due. Other times, it simply because it saves bandwidth for the host, as articles like this are quite lengthy.

I didn’t intend for the discussion to revolve around the politics, that’s why I posted it here, where it would receive a wider audience. Unfortunately some of the forum infants took it upon themselves to attack both it and me, many of them didn’t even bother to read the ****ing thing.

That’s an on them, not me. I appreciate your comments, but maybe you should go back and read the thread and see who sent it sideways.

Do you believe any of the government, media, etc conspiracy theories presented by the author(s)? If yes, which ones?

The letter may actually be describing the virus and it's effects on the body correctly, but the fact that it's intertwined with looney bits instantly craters it's credibiity.

Assuming the medical and scientific infomation is accurate, what commentary were you expecting from the non-virologist, non-epidemiologist, non-medically trained denizens of this forum?

[javadog]

No, I’m not going to debate the points made in the article. That wasn’t the purpose of this thread, nor is it appropriate for this forum to get into the politics of it.

If you look back on page 1, at least one person took away a different understanding of the disease than the one they had before they read the article. Frankly, I don’t think very many people understand the disease caused by the virus. They tend to think of it through the perspective of having had the flu before.