Conspiracy Theories #10

[Samantha365]

Pentagon scientists invent sensor which detects infection in the body

Pentagon scientists working inside a unit set up at the height of the Cold War have created a hydrogel sensor which has the ability to detect infection such as COVID-19.

www.dailymail.co.uk

well well well this is interesting

Yes i read about this.
Not to de-rail but there seems to be a few new ppl on here who seem determine to argue with what anyone says for the sake of it. Just seems mean to me.

No, not here (elsewhere yes) was told I had no proof here so could have been anything (something like that) I also got banned from digital spy for saying about it. banned two days before they closed GD I was banned for scaremongering. I had already asked for my account to be deleted.
I have been told that we have to expect casualties and it's for the greater good, although seems that's not allowed with covid deaths and we have to prevent them all and if you question that, you are a selfish motherfucker.

I remember when Norway first said they had major concerns about pfizer jab causing deaths and pfizers response was they werent unduly concerned and these things were expected. How shocking is that

 

[monga]

Lucky duck

 

[Oohthedrama]

Interesting article.
Who decides what the truth is
Especially with a vaccine we know nothing about.

“There’s a hot debate afoot about whether spreading anti-vaccine disinformation should be considered a crime. As someone who has often written about the dangers of false information, I’m unsure about criminalising the perpetrators here as it could do more harm than good.
But we all know the importance of getting vaccine numbers up, as high as 80% and higher if our goal is to keep the virus under control.
False information certainly boosts vaccine hesitancy whether its intent is malicious or the expression of incorrect beliefs.
Mind you we wouldn’t be the first country to make it illegal to spread fake news.
Laws against spreading fake news and health disinformation have been passed in France, Germany, Malaysia, Russia and Singapore.
As of 2018, Germany required social media platforms to remove hate speech or fake information within 24 hours, threatening maximum fines of around £44million. It’s hoped that such legislation could force social media companies to self-regulate and police content. On ethical grounds, deliberate intent to spread malicious vaccine disinformation that could result in preventable deaths should be considered criminal.
But criminalisation is not straightforward, says Professor Melinda Mills of Oxford University and Nuffield College in the BMJ. Keeping things in perspective, antivax misinformation doesn’t incite violence or lawlessness.
The freedom to debate, however, and to allow the public to raise legitimate vaccine concerns shouldn’t extend to causing malicious harm.
Freedom of speech is precious and must be defended as it’s the cornerstone of all other human rights.
And we should take care when we talk about misinformation and disinformation, as there’s a difference, says Jonas Sivela, at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare) in
Helsinki. Misinformation is defined as “incorrect or misleading information”.
Disinformation is false information deliberately spread with the purpose of influencing public opinion.
The crucial difference intention to deceive.
Most importantly, attitudes to vaccines and vaccination range from people who have no doubts and accept all vaccines at one end, like me, and those who refuse all vaccines on the other.
In between are people who can be more or less hesitant.
It’s only fair that legitimate concerns about vaccines should be voiced. I understand why vaccines and vaccination raise questions.
Failing to answer these questions would only result in a loss of trust in the Government, our scientists and our doctors.
If we want high vaccine acceptance the key is to encourage public trust in the Government, public health institutions and doctors, thereby boosting vaccine confidence.
This in turn could lead misinformation in the future. is to the less”

 

[chanandlerbong]

Pentagon scientists invent sensor which detects infection in the body

Pentagon scientists working inside a unit set up at the height of the Cold War have created a hydrogel sensor which has the ability to detect infection such as COVID-19.

www.dailymail.co.uk

well well well this is interesting

We know it's coming kids

Also

Arizona Becomes Sixth State To Ban Coronavirus Vaccine Passports — See The Full List Here

These states have moved to bar digital immunization passes.

www.forbes.com

 

[monga]

Interesting article.
Who decides what the truth is
Especially with a vaccine we know nothing about.

“There’s a hot debate afoot about whether spreading anti-vaccine disinformation should be considered a crime. As someone who has often written about the dangers of false information, I’m unsure about criminalising the perpetrators here as it could do more harm than good.
But we all know the importance of getting vaccine numbers up, as high as 80% and higher if our goal is to keep the virus under control.
False information certainly boosts vaccine hesitancy whether its intent is malicious or the expression of incorrect beliefs.
Mind you we wouldn’t be the first country to make it illegal to spread fake news.
Laws against spreading fake news and health disinformation have been passed in France, Germany, Malaysia, Russia and Singapore.
As of 2018, Germany required social media platforms to remove hate speech or fake information within 24 hours, threatening maximum fines of around £44million. It’s hoped that such legislation could force social media companies to self-regulate and police content. On ethical grounds, deliberate intent to spread malicious vaccine disinformation that could result in preventable deaths should be considered criminal.
But criminalisation is not straightforward, says Professor Melinda Mills of Oxford University and Nuffield College in the BMJ. Keeping things in perspective, antivax misinformation doesn’t incite violence or lawlessness.
The freedom to debate, however, and to allow the public to raise legitimate vaccine concerns shouldn’t extend to causing malicious harm.
Freedom of speech is precious and must be defended as it’s the cornerstone of all other human rights.
And we should take care when we talk about misinformation and disinformation, as there’s a difference, says Jonas Sivela, at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare) in
Helsinki. Misinformation is defined as “incorrect or misleading information”.
Disinformation is false information deliberately spread with the purpose of influencing public opinion.
The crucial difference intention to deceive.
Most importantly, attitudes to vaccines and vaccination range from people who have no doubts and accept all vaccines at one end, like me, and those who refuse all vaccines on the other.
In between are people who can be more or less hesitant.
It’s only fair that legitimate concerns about vaccines should be voiced. I understand why vaccines and vaccination raise questions.
Failing to answer these questions would only result in a loss of trust in the Government, our scientists and our doctors.
If we want high vaccine acceptance the key is to encourage public trust in the Government, public health institutions and doctors, thereby boosting vaccine confidence.
This in turn could lead misinformation in the future. is to the less”

How much is fake though? only the men at the top know that info ,are we to trust these companies that if they were a food premises would have a 1* rating ! and yet we’re to put our lives in their hands. How odd the
“age old “ technology that both AZ and J&J use are causing the most side effects.

 

[Oohthedrama]

How much is fake though? only the men at the top know that info ,are we to trust these companies that if they were a food premises would have a 1* rating ! and yet we’re to put our lives in their hands. How odd the
“age old “ technology that both AZ and J&J use are causing the most side effects.

thats what I said, who decides what’s fake information.

 

[monga]

Ultimately it’s the Gov have the upper hand so they’ll make that decision for us weather we like it or not.

 

[Cupcakemum]

Interesting article.
Who decides what the truth is
Especially with a vaccine we know nothing about.

“There’s a hot debate afoot about whether spreading anti-vaccine disinformation should be considered a crime. As someone who has often written about the dangers of false information, I’m unsure about criminalising the perpetrators here as it could do more harm than good.
But we all know the importance of getting vaccine numbers up, as high as 80% and higher if our goal is to keep the virus under control.
False information certainly boosts vaccine hesitancy whether its intent is malicious or the expression of incorrect beliefs.
Mind you we wouldn’t be the first country to make it illegal to spread fake news.
Laws against spreading fake news and health disinformation have been passed in France, Germany, Malaysia, Russia and Singapore.
As of 2018, Germany required social media platforms to remove hate speech or fake information within 24 hours, threatening maximum fines of around £44million. It’s hoped that such legislation could force social media companies to self-regulate and police content. On ethical grounds, deliberate intent to spread malicious vaccine disinformation that could result in preventable deaths should be considered criminal.
But criminalisation is not straightforward, says Professor Melinda Mills of Oxford University and Nuffield College in the BMJ. Keeping things in perspective, antivax misinformation doesn’t incite violence or lawlessness.
The freedom to debate, however, and to allow the public to raise legitimate vaccine concerns shouldn’t extend to causing malicious harm.
Freedom of speech is precious and must be defended as it’s the cornerstone of all other human rights.
And we should take care when we talk about misinformation and disinformation, as there’s a difference, says Jonas Sivela, at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare) in
Helsinki. Misinformation is defined as “incorrect or misleading information”.
Disinformation is false information deliberately spread with the purpose of influencing public opinion.
The crucial difference intention to deceive.
Most importantly, attitudes to vaccines and vaccination range from people who have no doubts and accept all vaccines at one end, like me, and those who refuse all vaccines on the other.
In between are people who can be more or less hesitant.
It’s only fair that legitimate concerns about vaccines should be voiced. I understand why vaccines and vaccination raise questions.
Failing to answer these questions would only result in a loss of trust in the Government, our scientists and our doctors.
If we want high vaccine acceptance the key is to encourage public trust in the Government, public health institutions and doctors, thereby boosting vaccine confidence.
This in turn could lead misinformation in the future. is to the less”

Who decides? Now that is the ultimate question!

For centuries two different doctors in the same field have had times when they never agree, and that is accepted and why two or more consultants will sit in a meeting about a patient thrashing out the best way forward based on their differing opinions. Its never ever been argued and they will always respect each other.

Enter covid

Anyone in the same field that disagrees with someone paid by any government/works in health care is sacked/struck off/called a CT /has their life long career questioned/blocked from social media.
Even though all of those professionals advocate vaccines ordinarily all that goes ignored.

Is a difference of opinion now misinformation? And if so, why isn't any difference of opinion that? And why is it only important now?

 

[What?]

Yes i read about this.
Not to de-rail but there seems to be a few new ppl on here who seem determine to argue with what anyone says for the sake of it. Just seems mean to me.


I remember when Norway first said they had major concerns about pfizer jab causing deaths and pfizers response was they werent unduly concerned and these things were expected. How shocking is that

It isn't arguing just for the sake of it.
It is having a grown up discussion.
I didn't realise if we were new members we had to agree with everything being said?

 

[Oohthedrama]

Who decides? Now that is the ultimate question!

For centuries two different doctors in the same field have had times when they never agree, and that is accepted and why two or more consultants will sit in a meeting about a patient thrashing out the best way forward based on their differing opinions. Its never ever been argued and they will always respect each other.

Enter covid

Anyone in the same field that disagrees with someone paid by any government/works in health care is sacked/struck off/called a CT /has their life long career questioned/blocked from social media.
Even though all of those professionals advocate vaccines ordinarily all that goes ignored.

Is a difference of opinion now misinformation? And if so, why isn't any difference of opinion that? And why is it only important now?

it’s such an interesting post, who decides if you’re committing a “crime” someone on Facebook? twitter? a court
would they go by social media post history, and thendecide on intent based on that, but then again what if the misinformation is actually true.

i really didn’t post it to goad the thread,
or upset anyone, I actually don’t agree with a lot of these “laws” we’re seeing slowly being “suggested“ or brought in.
This feels like that, putting the feelers out there to see public reaction.

 

[PinkFong]

Someone has complied news reports of people who have died/had complications following the vaccine. And these are just the ones we are hearing about. I know that a lot will say “where’s the proof it was the vaccine?” and part of me agrees. But for me, there are just too many of them now to be coincidences.

 

[monga]

Who decides? Now that is the ultimate question!

For centuries two different doctors in the same field have had times when they never agree, and that is accepted and why two or more consultants will sit in a meeting about a patient thrashing out the best way forward based on their differing opinions. Its never ever been argued and they will always respect each other.

Enter covid

Anyone in the same field that disagrees with someone paid by any government/works in health care is sacked/struck off/called a CT /has their life long career questioned/blocked from social media.
Even though all of those professionals advocate vaccines ordinarily all that goes ignored.

Is a difference of opinion now misinformation? And if so, why isn't any difference of opinion that? And why is it only important now?

On the flip of that you’ve got Whitty, Valance even Jenny Harries that have all made questionable decisions yet we’re to take their word as gospel and get on with it

 

[Cupcakemum]

On the flip of that you’ve got Whitty, Valance even Jenny Harries that have all made questionable decisions yet we’re to take their word as gospel and get on with it

Absolutely! And who do they work for and who are they paid by....

Anyone not on that payroll though is wrong

it’s such an interesting post, who decides if you’re committing a “crime” someone on Facebook? twitter? a court
would they go by social media post history, and thendecide on intent based on that, but then again what if the misinformation is actually true.

i really didn’t post it to goad the thread,
or upset anyone, I actually don’t agree with a lot of these “laws” we’re seeing slowly being “suggested“ or brought in.
This feels like that, putting the feelers out there to see public reaction.

I don’t take it as goading at all, it's really interesting (especially interesting that you're seeing it ) and what has been being said here for ages.

It goes back to who funds Twitter and Facebook, how the media are told what to report. Even fact checkers are funded by Google and Facbook for crying out loud and yet the try to plead they're unbiased

They're all in each others pockets, so if they all agree that anyone that disagrees with them are spreading misinformation, then they can convince whole populations that anyone seeing through that is a conspiracy theorist.

How long have you been reading posts now that have been written saying that the media are drip feeding for public reaction?

It doesn't feel like it, it's happening!
So many people now are so brainwashed after the passed year that they don't see that they're agreeing with stuff that 12mths ago they never would have

 

[Oohthedrama]

Absolutely! And who do they work for and who are they paid by....

Anyone not on that payroll though is wrong

I don’t take it as goading at all, it's really interesting (especially interesting that you're seeing it ) and what has been being said here for ages.

It goes back to who funds Twitter and Facebook, how the media are told what to report. Even fact checkers are funded by Google and Facbook for crying out loud and yet the try to plead they're unbiased

They're all in each others pockets, so if they all agree that anyone that disagrees with them are spreading misinformation, then they can convince whole populations that anyone seeing through that is a conspiracy theorist.

How long have you been reading posts now that have been written saying that the media are drip feeding for public reaction?

It doesn't feel like it, it's happening!
So many people now are so brainwashed after the passed year that they don't see that they're agreeing with stuff that 12mths ago they never would have

oh I’ve always questioned laws like this with you all on here, it’s the grey area I don’t like,
take Trump, he should have been removed from twitter, they were right to ban him, Katie Hopinks and co, deserve to be removed.

but how do you determine what breaks the law when it’s something like this, vaccine stuff, when we’re all learning in real time what is and what isn’t safe.

How long have you been reading posts now that have been written saying that the media are drip feeding for public reaction?

that’s how governments work to be fair, same happens here.

 

[Cupcakemum]

oh I’ve always questioned laws like this with you all on here, it’s the grey area I don’t like,
take Trump, he should have been removed from twitter, they were right to ban him, Katie Hopinks and co, deserve to be removed.

but how do you determine what breaks the law when it’s something like this, vaccine stuff, when we’re all learning in real time what is and what isn’t safe.



that’s how governments work to be fair, same happens here.

And yet Katie Hopkins is still on Insta and Facebook, work that one out.
I can't say I'm a huge fan of either of them, and if people are going to be inflammatory and insight violence then they should be removed - if they're speaking against the narrative in a factual way based on how things are panning out, or giving a general opinion then they should be allowed to continue, even if that goes against the Government, and even if it is Katie Hopkins saying it.
Blimey, if that wasn't allowed then there would be no Tattle!

I think the law already covers what is important from an equality and diversity point of view. If you're racist, homophobic, sexist ect with your opinion then duck off, but if you're not breaking any hate speech laws then you should be allowed a difference of opinion.
They can't make it illegal to talk about not taking a covid vaccine, when every few years or so we have the same debate about all the childhood vaccines

 

[Samantha365]

Someone has complied news reports of people who have died/had complications following the vaccine. And these are just the ones we are hearing about. I know that a lot will say “where’s the proof it was the vaccine?” and part of me agrees. But for me, there are just too many of them now to be coincidences.

Ive just skimmed through that but all those people and such a lot of them dying next day after jab. Poor people

 

[Oohthedrama]

And yet Katie Hopkins is still on Insta and Facebook, work that one out.
I can't say I'm a huge fan of either of them, and if people are going to be inflammatory and insight violence then they should be removed - if they're speaking against the narrative in a factual way based on how things are panning out, or giving a general opinion then they should be allowed to continue, even if that goes against the Government, and even if it is Katie Hopkins saying it.
Blimey, if that wasn't allowed then there would be no Tattle!

I think the law already covers what is important from an equality and diversity point of view. If you're racist, homophobic, sexist ect with your opinion then duck off, but if you're not breaking any hate speech laws then you should be allowed a difference of opinion.
They can't make it illegal to talk about not taking a covid vaccine, when every few years or so we have the same debate about all the childhood vaccines

no I agree with you, and you can see tattle don’t shut down vaccine talk, or much really so I’m hardly here saying it should be done elsewhere.

I find a move like this would be really dangerous,
almost like making it illegal to protest because it’s a nuisance to someone or considered too loud.....

oh wait horse, stable door.

Why do people not understand, that a patent for a coronavirus is not suspicious, because coronavirus has known to scientists since the 1930's

Why is it, when someone dies of Covid19, it's not Covid19, but when someone dies after using a vaccine, it's the vaccine.

i wish more people would understand this it goes ignored though.

 

[monga]

Can vaccines not be made mandatory if they’ve only got an emergency licence

 

[Unagi]

A team from Tel Aviv University and Clalit Health Services found that the prevalence of the South Africa variant among patients who received both doses of the vaccine was around eight times higher than those unvaccinated – 5.4% versus 0.7%.
So, vaccinated people are eight times more likely to contract a variant of the Covid virus than those who haven't been vaccinated?

Israel COVID-19 study finds South Africa variant able to 'break through' Pfizer vaccine

A new study from Israel indicates the South Africa variant of the coronavirus can "break through" the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to some degree.

www.foxnews.com

 

[monga]

They said that was one of the things could happen , once the virus comes up against a wall it tries to evade it and mutates in a way the vaccines are adding to this the virus will try to get round them that’s what all the genetic sequencing about.