U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Free Speech Suppression

[Vref]

And if all of this was true, why doesn’t IVM work much better?

And from the article that you’re quoting the authors have this beautiful example of how you can really mix up correlation and causation 😂

All countries being hit by the pandemic can present a chart like that, but without IVM involved. That just the nature of virus - they come in waves.

We’ll DARPA who knew about covid before anyone else did seemed to think it did, as did many who used it

Fact is surprising alternate methods of defending against a virus, even one with such a small death rate, should be allowed in free societies, however pharma and gov sponsored by pharma disagreed

 

[BaldiMac]

They are not really falling under 230

Under 230 as it’s written they need to allow anyone to say anything, no speech is compelled, gov can spout their BS and others can point out all the flaws in it just the same

That's simply not true. It's specifically allows them to moderate any material they find objectionable. (Section 230(c)(2))

 

[Analog Kid]

And for reminding me about not making friends with anti-vaxx people because friends of anti-vaxx people always dies from vaccines.

That certainly fits my experience as illustrated below.

 

[PrecisionGem]

OMG. I don’t think I want to bother giving you a basic math lesson as well.

You got one point for the fact that healthy children have basically zero risk of dying from Covid.

And for reminding me about not making friends with anti-vaxx people because friends of anti-vaxx people always dies from vaccines.

The chart presented by the IVM selling doctors actually proves that social distancing works. Let’s see if you can spot it.

You really like to twist what people say. Like I said, I'm glad you love the vaccine and hope you keep taking more of it.

Here's the numbers from my state of Maryland. As you can see the vaccine is working wonders!.

 

[Vref]

That certainly fits my experience as illustrated below.


View attachment 2196228

It’s funny how many pilots I know who have their yellow fever cards and even anthrax shots, but are all of a sudden anti vax because they didn’t want anything to do with this covid pharma stuff

 

[Vref]

That's simply not true. It's specifically allows them to moderate any material they find objectionable. (Section 230(c)(2))

Outside of this site and a few shooting and flying ones, I don’t do social media, so I haven’t looked into it too much…very interesting

So as all things it started off as I said, and it was noble

“Section 230(c)(2) of the U.S. Copyright Act was enacted in response to a 1995 court ruling declaring that platforms who policed any user generated content on their sites should be considered publishers of — and therefore legally liable for — all of the user-generated content posted to their site”

The big gov did big gov stuff and wanted censorship, gotta tow the part line and all that


“Congress believed this ruling would make platforms unwilling to police their sites for socially harmful content, so it passed 230(c)(2) to encourage them to do so”


Gotta love when government wants to encourage censorship

🤮

 

[sorgo †]

People still trying to shill for the fake vaccine in 2023 😂😂 YOU made your bed, now lie in it. stop trying to wield corrupt, spun “science” to lower those of us smart/strong enough to resist to your level.

better luck next pandemic! 🙂

 

[BaldiMac]

You really like to twist what people say. Like I said, I'm glad you love the vaccine and hope you keep taking more of it.

Here's the numbers from my state of Maryland. As you can see the vaccine is working wonders!.

View attachment 2196229

For reference, 80% of people in Maryland are fully vaccinated.

Here's an explanation for why the data doesn't mean what you are trying to imply.

From the vault: Why are there so many vaccinated people in hospital?

It may be confronting to hear there are more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people in hospital - but it's actually a good thing.

cosmosmagazine.com

"If you look at the people now in hospital as a result of car accidents, you’ll find that most were wearing a seat belt.

Of course, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother with a seat belt, because if you do end up in a car accident, you’re more still 10 times more likely to die if you’re not wearing a seatbelt than if you are.

The same goes with vaccines. The data is still clear: vaccines dramatically lower your risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19."

More clearly, unvaccinated people are dying from COVID at 5 times the rate of vaccinated people.

 

[BaldiMac]

Outside of this site and a few shooting and flying ones, I don’t do social media, so I haven’t looked into it too much…very interesting

So as all things it started off as I said, and it was noble

“Section 230(c)(2) of the U.S. Copyright Act was enacted in response to a 1995 court ruling declaring that platforms who policed any user generated content on their sites should be considered publishers of — and therefore legally liable for — all of the user-generated content posted to their site”

The big gov did big gov stuff and wanted censorship, gotta tow the part line and all that


“Congress believed this ruling would make platforms unwilling to police their sites for socially harmful content, so it passed 230(c)(2) to encourage them to do so”


Gotta love when government wants to encourage censorship

🤮

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what you highlighted here? The bold stuff means exactly the opposite of what you are claiming it means. Section 230 reduced censorship by limiting liability for user-generated content. There is no YouTube as we know it without Section 230. It made YouTube possible by not requiring Google to police every piece of user-generated content before it was posted.

 

[PrecisionGem]

For reference, 80% of people in Maryland are fully vaccinated.

Here's an explanation for why the data doesn't mean what you are trying to imply.

From the vault: Why are there so many vaccinated people in hospital?

It may be confronting to hear there are more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people in hospital - but it's actually a good thing.

cosmosmagazine.com

"If you look at the people now in hospital as a result of car accidents, you’ll find that most were wearing a seat belt.

Of course, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother with a seat belt, because if you do end up in a car accident, you’re more still 10 times more likely to die if you’re not wearing a seatbelt than if you are.

The same goes with vaccines. The data is still clear: vaccines dramatically lower your risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19."

More clearly, unvaccinated people are dying from COVID at 5 times the rate of vaccinated people.

Ok, so if 80% of the people in Maryland are fully vaccinated, and 80% of the people in the hospital with covid are vaccinated, then the vaccine isn't very effective. It really shouldn't be called a vaccine, and actually couldn't be called one until the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine last year.

I wonder if you are one of those people I see outdoors walking their dog alone, with 4 jabs, and wearing a face mask. Then screaming to "follow the science" when the run across the street when someone approaches from the other direction with out a mask.

 

[Vref]

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what you highlighted here? The bold stuff means exactly the opposite of what you are claiming it means. Section 230 reduced censorship by limiting liability for user-generated content. There is no YouTube as we know it without Section 230. It made YouTube possible by not requiring Google to police every piece of user-generated content before it was posted.

No I hadn’t seen when after changed it to promote censorship

Section 230 is now a joke

 

[BaldiMac]

Ok, so if 80% of the people in Maryland are fully vaccinated, and 80% of the people in the hospital with covid are vaccinated, then the vaccine isn't very effective.

I see you couldn’t be bothered to read. Again, unvaccinated are currently five times more likely to die.

It really shouldn't be called a vaccine, and actually couldn't be called one until the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine last year.

This is one of those conspiracy theories. They didn’t change the definition. They simply reworded it made it more clear when people like you misunderstood the meaning of immunity. For example, a flu vaccine was still called a vaccine under the old wording.

I wonder if you are one of those people I see outdoors walking their dog alone, with 4 jabs, and wearing a face mask. Then screaming to "follow the science" when the run across the street when someone approaches from the other direction with out a mask.

Nope. Why do you feel the need to make up a strawman?

 

[BaldiMac]

No I hadn’t seen when after changed it to promote censorship

Section 230 is now a joke

They didn’t change it to promote censorship. You simply misunderstood what you posted.

 

[Vref]

They didn’t change it to promote censorship. You simply misunderstood what you posted.

How so?

 

[BaldiMac]

How so?

Because the stuff in bold in the third paragraph refers to the 1995 court ruling, not section 230 which was passed a year later including 230(c)(2). Your claim that 230(c)(2) was passed later to allow censorship is simply wrong. It was part of the original section 230.

In the fifth paragraph where you quote that section 230 "encourage them to do so," the quote referred to encouraging companies to create sites with user-generated content. Not, as you claim, to encourage them to censor content.

Again, your quotes meant exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

 

[Vref]

Because the stuff in bold in the third paragraph refers to the 1995 court ruling, not section 230 which was passed a year later including 230(c)(2). Your claim that 230(c)(2) was passed later to allow censorship is simply wrong. It was part of the original section 230.

In the fifth paragraph where you quote that section 230 "encourage them to do so," the quote referred to encouraging companies to create sites with user-generated content. Not, as you claim, to encourage them to censor content.

Again, your quotes meant exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

That’s not how it reads, originally it didn’t now allow censorship, later congress changed it to allow

 

[BaldiMac]

That’s not how it reads, originally it didn’t now allow censorship, later congress changed it to allow

Again, that's not true. As I said, 230(c)(2) was part of the original 1996 CDA.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PrecisionGem]

I see you couldn’t be bothered to read. Again, unvaccinated are currently five times more likely to die.


This is one of those conspiracy theories. They didn’t change the definition. They simply reworded it made it more clear when people like you misunderstood the meaning of immunity. For example, a flu vaccine was still called a vaccine under the old wording.


Nope. Why do you feel the need to make up a strawman?

I did read the article, and feel is't a bad attempt of trying to spin things to align with the narrative desired.

Look at it this way. Say you have 100 light bulbs. 80 of them are a new long life bulb that is advertised to last 3 times as long as the standard bulb. The other 20 bulbs you have are standard.

You run the bulbs for one year, and after that year, there are 10 bulbs that are burned out.

How many should be the standard bulb, and how many the new long life bulbs?

A logical consumer would think, that all the burnt out bulbs should be the standard bulbs, or maybe 1 of the long life bulbs as it could have been defective. Now you look at the 10 burnt out bulbs, and 8 are long life and 2 are standard. What conclusion could would draw? I would conclude that it's B.S. that these long life bulbs are much better than the standard bulb.

I have always heard the flu shot called a "flu shot" not a vaccine.

 

[ninecows]

I did read the article, and feel is't a bad attempt of trying to spin things to align with the narrative desired.

Look at it this way. Say you have 100 light bulbs. 80 of them are a new long life bulb that is advertised to last 3 times as long as the standard bulb. The other 20 bulbs you have are standard.

You run the bulbs for one year, and after that year, there are 10 bulbs that are burned out.

How many should be the standard bulb, and how many the new long life bulbs?

A logical consumer would think, that all the burnt out bulbs should be the standard bulbs, or maybe 1 of the long life bulbs as it could have been defective. Now you look at the 10 burnt out bulbs, and 8 are long life and 2 are standard. What conclusion could would draw? I would conclude that it's B.S. that these long life bulbs are much better than the standard bulb.

I have always heard the flu shot called a "flu shot" not a vaccine.

Getting the denominator right is apparently one of the most difficult things in math and you’re not the first one getting it wrong. This explains it better than I possibly can and I suggest you read it:

Israeli data: How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated?

A surge involving the rapidly-transmitting Delta variant in heavily vaccinated countries has led to much hand-wringing that the vaccines are not effective against Delta, or vaccine effectivenss wanes after 4-6 months. This has fueled anti-vaccine sentiment suggesting the vaccines are not...

www.covid-datascience.com

Second:
Vaccines were developed to match the first variant. They still protect extremely well against death and serious illness of any variant. They protect less against being infected if recent variants. The recent variants are targeting the upper respiratory system and don’t go deep into the body. Just like the common cold. That makes them more contagious and far less severe. That doesn’t mean the original vaccine was a bad choice when the first variants were around.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Getting the denominator right is apparently one of the most difficult things in math and you’re not the first one getting it wrong. This explains it better than I possibly can and I suggest you read it:

Israeli data: How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated?

A surge involving the rapidly-transmitting Delta variant in heavily vaccinated countries has led to much hand-wringing that the vaccines are not effective against Delta, or vaccine effectivenss wanes after 4-6 months. This has fueled anti-vaccine sentiment suggesting the vaccines are not...

www.covid-datascience.com

Second:
Vaccines were developed to match the first variant. They still protect extremely well against death and serious illness of any variant. They protect less against being infected if recent variants. The recent variants are targeting the upper respiratory system and don’t go deep into the body. Just like the common cold. That makes them more contagious and far less severe. That doesn’t mean the original vaccine was a bad choice when the first variants were around.

I don't think I'm getting anything wrong here.

For almost any healthy person, the benefit of this shot doesn't offset risk. Most people have figured this out and an no longer lining up for boosters. And the silly same line we hear.... "I got covid, but thanks to the vaccine my symptoms were not too bad." Well the same is said by people who didn't take the shot and got covid. I am 65 years old, didn't take the shot, got covid, and had I not been tested I would have thought I had a mild cold for 2 days. The same is true for a few other friends I have that are a few years older, no shot, and mild symptoms. We are all glad we didn't take the shot. Aside from the dead friend from the shot, another who took 3 shots ended up in the hospital for 2 weeks and almost died from clots. They put a filter near his heart to collect blood clots. He has several clots in his legs still and is dealing with issues from them.
It makes no sense for most people, especially young healthy people to take this shot. I know 4 doctors very well, and only one took it, and only because his office is in a hospital and was forced to take it or leave the practice.

 

[ninecows]

I don't think I'm getting anything wrong here.

For almost any healthy person, the benefit of this shot doesn't offset risk. Most people have figured this out and an no longer lining up for boosters. And the silly same line we hear.... "I got covid, but thanks to the vaccine my symptoms were not too bad." Well the same is said by people who didn't take the shot and got covid. I am 65 years old, didn't take the shot, got covid, and had I not been tested I would have thought I had a mild cold for 2 days. The same is true for a few other friends I have that are a few years older, no shot, and mild symptoms. We are all glad we didn't take the shot. Aside from the dead friend from the shot, another who took 3 shots ended up in the hospital for 2 weeks and almost died from clots. They put a filter near his heart to collect blood clots. He has several clots in his legs still and is dealing with issues from them.
It makes no sense for most people, especially young healthy people to take this shot. I know 4 doctors very well, and only one took it, and only because his office is in a hospital and was forced to take it or leave the practice.

Sorry, but that’s mostly anecdotal.

For some reason you have decided that the vaccine doesn’t do anything good and that IVM is awesome. Seems like facts cannot change that.

I suggest we return to the original topic

 

[PrecisionGem]

Sorry, but that’s mostly anecdotal.

For some reason you have decided that the vaccine doesn’t do anything good and that IVM is awesome. Seems like facts cannot change that.

I suggest we return to the original topic

I suggest you do a little more research on the vaccine, and side effects, deaths etc. But clearly your mind is made up as is mine. Just one question, I see you list you have 2 kids. Did you get them vaccinated?

 

[BaldiMac]

I suggest you do a little more research on the vaccine, and side effects, deaths etc.

Sure. Here you go.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

9 deaths causally associated with COVID-19 vaccination (all J&J/Janssen)

Risk of side effects are exceedingly rare. (1-5 per million for significant adverse affects)

 

[PrecisionGem]

Sure. Here you go.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

9 deaths causally associated with COVID-19 vaccination (all J&J/Janssen)

Risk of side effects are exceedingly rare. (1-5 per million for significant adverse affects)

So in my small circle of friends, I know of 1 of those 9 deaths, and several of sever side effects. Strange.

Anyway, as you know Australia has very high vaccination rates, and their data of deaths not so good. If this is successful, I would hate to see failure. So did you get your kids jabbed?

 

[BaldiMac]

So in my small circle of friends, I know of 1 of those 9 deaths, and several of sever side effects. Strange.

Anyway, as you know Australia has very high vaccination rates, and their data of deaths not so good. If this is successful, I would hate to see failure. So did you get your kids jabbed?

View attachment 2196681

So... I did the research and now you're just going to change the topic? By posting a chart that shows that a heavily vaccinated country doesn't have many COVID deaths? A country with a far lower COVID death rate than the US? Oooookayyyy...