Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Encourages Kernel Developers & Everyone To Get Vaccinated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gps4life
    replied
    I let this Lawyer speak on my behalf:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXCG3tXwj4

    Me waits for the comments claiming this lawyer is a conspiracy nut.

    I will be happy if this wakes up at least a few people here.

    Leave a comment:


  • lowflyer
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    I know it's hard to have your beliefs challenged, but the name-calling is really unjustified. I do hope you've got more than that, otherwise it sounds like you're done.
    What do you know about my beliefs and where did you challenge them? I did not name-call you and I'm not done. You are.

    To call you a f****g stupid i***t would have been rude and would represent name-calling. I did not do that. All I did was to attribute some properties to you as a descriptive factual statement.
    • You, ignoring the difference between name-calling and factual statement => ignoramus.
    • You, ignoring all of my statements but two that support your narrative => ignoramus & manipulator.
    • You, conclude that I dismiss science while I didn't => manipulator
    • You, claiming to trust science while completely dismissing scientists that work in the field => hypocrite
    I am absolutely capable of defending every point I wrote. But, as I stated before, I do not reply to prevaricators. ... Unless you change your attitude.
    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    (I have no love for politicians. And I personally think lockdowns wouldn't be necessary if people were more behaved. )
    Oh, I though children almost couldn't die from COVID, according to you, after all it is only 0.004%, now they need filters? Nah, better find some better use of the money, what about some money for the roads, after all car crashes are more important right?
    Just kidding, you know what, I give you this one, because good filters would also help with air pollution, which is a big problem in the cities we live in, and children deserve it.
    Again you compare always the numbers before vaccination with other stuff, I did never say nobody should vaccinate, the high death rates of covid was true without the vaccine but then all or most old people were vaccinated your math does not work with the population that has a lower risk.

    Yes covid without vaccination was still not extremely horrible like stuff we had in the middle ages but yes clearly worse than the flu, but again with the vaccine and most risk groups getting it it became a way less dangerous sickness because of the population have a higher immunity. Heck even the flu killed many native americans because they had no immunity, so assuming we had no immunity for the flu it might be the more dangerous sickness.

    Your arguments / numbers are correct if I would advocate for people should not vaccinate and saying that covid was as harmless as the flu, which I did not... try to be a bit more nuanced.

    About the children, no they were not (always hardest and first locked down) because their personal health risk, we ruined big parts of their youth what they never will get back because we forced them to suffer for the benefit of parents and grandparents. Which the science mostly was on the side that they seldom infect their parents. But doing more and was always applauded because if people fear they want more action no matter if it makes sense or not.

    Am I selfish, yes and no, as example till very recent there were less vaccines in germany than people that wanted a dosis, because of my overweight I could have been priotised, so me not cutting in line, gave somebody that maybe in fact was more in danger because they have more social contacts than me and is maybe psychologically more neurotic and would get sick from fear gave them a opportunity to get the vaccine faster.

    I find it funny that the shaming of people that were reserved for the vaccine started before there were even enough of it for the whole population.

    And yes you can think of my decision what you want, but they want now vaccinate small children even their risk from covid sickness is really extremely bad and if the vaccine even has slightly negative long term effects they have that for 60-70 years and have to live with that consequences.

    Also I dislike the math we calculate 1. we only look at death numbers, we have no math factor how we meassure suffering of others and years. So let's say 1 child dies from the vaccine (all vaccines kill small amounts of people) and he would have lived 60 more years that is 30 old people that are allowed to live 2 years longer from the vaccine.

    So 1 child = 30 old people... that's how we have to calculate, if we have to measure this 1 old person dies = the same a young person dies math is fuckin stupid, the amount of live span saved or ruined is what mattered not if a person that is in his last breath somehow lives 2 years longer.

    But we did never any math, at least not publicly, how much lives of how old people does scheme X rescue, and how much suffering does scheme X cause and depending on which side causes more suffering we do the other. No just ohh let's do anything that has any positive influence in reducing the numbers.

    That's not scientific, that's a ideology. Of course the politicians know that the children have no vote... so fuck em... so for me it's easy that I will eventually probably have a vaccine, but for a 20 year old healthy person or younger children... or even young women which their risk is even smaller... why should they risk their well being for a still long live for saving very old people 2 more years... it's very old people centric we value nearly dead live more than fresh young live... that is egoistic, and it's giving something back when old people do now the majority of the vaccination when the young people selfless suffered to just save the old people and yes >93% of the victims that died were >55 and 98% were older than 45 and only 0.2% under 25 died. So we did all the lockdown of all the young and middle aged people only for the old people, nobody complained and said something negative about this old people we hurt this young people very strongly even the lockdown hurt them clearly more than their relative low risk, especially children that the lockdown hurt extremely hard like a 2 year long war situation situation traumatised them for the rest of their live when they had never a real risk for them the way to their school was more dangerous than them die from the virus.

    But now when younger people refuse to vaccinate they are the one that are egoistic... no sorry we can't destroy young peoples live just to save old people from dying 2-3 years later and then hate on this people that gave up lot's of their live to save the old people.

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreDoomed
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    But even it's not my job here we go:
    https://www.livescience.com/climate-...al-spread.html
    And yet you didn't read the actual paper, but a resume of it.
    The actual paper is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87692-z
    If you look at the graph provided it is highly debatable (just look at the spread). To be clear I am not saying that is a bad study, but it is clear from their data that it is only a vague hint in the direction, not a serious proof (I mean, 1 point of data per country, not even per area? no critical analysis over the data from poor countries? the graph is meaningless if you can't trust the number of cases of so many countries). But this study was serving your point, so you decided to trust it.

    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    There is no study that implies or proofs that the vaccine changed the numbers of infected in germany. So I have 1 study vs 0 studies, by scientific standards the thesis with more and or better studies is the one we have to assume to be true for the moment... so scientifically the weather thesis is more plausible.
    The link you provided is not related to Germany, and it really isn't a study you can blindly trust with all your soul. I have done research (in a lab, engineering related), and my teachers would have laughed at me for using (only) such sources (and I wouldn't have graduated).
    So it is more 0 vs 0 at the moment. And that's normal, it takes times to produce quality analysis. And no, the number of studies has nothing to do with the truth (or we would just have a flood a bad studies to prove points). As a general rule, peers reviews and cross reviews are the norms, specialists need time to establish consensus.

    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    Even if that is true, so what summer is what matters, why the summer helps if it's temperature or because people go out more does not matter something about summer outside of vaccines causes reduction of the virus... of course for other question it matters which part does it but for me saying that linus makes just stupid truth claims that the vaccines probably caused the reduction it does not matter which part of summer did it.
    I agree, but Linus said more than that:
    Largely means if my dict don't translates it wrong, that the main reason for going down is the vaccine, and in my view that is unlikely but even if you don't agree to that, it's at least not proven. If he would at least added a "imho" or "probably" or something... but making such absolute truth claims and at the same time attacking somebody for making bad statements is hypocritical and irresponsible in his position imho.
    Well, Linus was not the one to bring the subject of vaccination to the conversation, and as a leader he has the right (or more like the privilege) to close the parenthesis and ask kindly but firmly that everyone to go back to work. The manner can certainly be discussed, but he is who he is.

    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    Yes but 10 times 0 is still 0 it's nearly impossible as 20 year old to die from the flu, so 10 times vs 1 case per country is still 10 which is a joke. (don't take the numbers literally you know what I want to say), also again this numbers come from the assumption that nobody is vaccinated I don't advocate for people should not vaccinate, so that does not matter, I just say that each person has to make his own risk / benefit analysis or should at least have the right for it, some people don't like to think for themself and prefer sheep like behavior, that's their right, too. And some might only wait a little because sommer time is save and let other people pla the genie pig for them a bit longer.
    That's selfish but I get your point.

    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    I bring up the car accidents because we must compare dangerous to see if it's nessesary to react in which way, because it's objectively dangerous to drive a car, we can't not just stop using cars becuase of that at least most people don't so risks to some degree are acceptable and then we have to look on risk / benefit analysis which of course we don't get perfect but we have to try, and depending on that we have to priotise which risks we fight and with what risks we live.
    Cars accidents kill approximately 1 to 1,5 million people per year, so 3 to 6 less than COVID on one year. There have been and there still are signifiant investments every years to make the roads and the cars safer. So at a global scale you have less chance to die in a car accident than from COVID. And that's true even in ... Germany, yet you still drive, and you don't take the vaccine?

    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    And there must also be some room for individual decisions in that, that's why the majority don't agree to vaccine law. If you think it's so outrages morally wrong to not vaccine you should fight for a law that forces people to vaccine not shame people that want to decide that for themself.
    Quite the contrary. I won't force you. I won't fight for a law that forces you. Believe it or not, I respect the right for people to dispose of themself, but choices should have consequences (for example, I firmly think the people that are accepting the vaccine should take precedence over the ones who refused it in hospitals). You want to smoke? no problem, to drink? that's your body mate. You need an implant? Sorry, mate, you are at the bottom of the list. Actions and consequences, nothing more.
    But yeah, seeing people misusing data or studies for justifying their behaviours is something I can't help but to point out.

    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    But if I get the shot I wait till autumn and then we know more do we need a 3rd shot for the mutants or a new shot, which one of the vaccines works best, did herd immunity reduce the risk of infection so strongly that the risk to get infected is so small that I don't need it... I have the luxury to stall it a bit and I use it.
    That's really selfish but I get your point.

    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    And yes there was a alternative to lockdown, lockdown save maybe some people from dying from the lockdown but it causes other people to die and to suffer and to become overweight for the rest of their lives (because most people that get fad stay that for the rest of their live), so many of the lockdown and the length and strictness caused more harm that it saved lives... we based all that on unproven shit, we based on wild estimates to partially suspend our constitutional rights... that is not correct, we overreacted, was some reaction some lockdown ok, sure... but we overdid it, and we failed at buying air filters for school because of bureaucracy even we know it was necessary and had a year to do it, we failed to produce better studies, instead some politicians did some crime to enrich themself. This politicians that only listen to some scientists and ignore others cherry pick "their" scientists of course the biggest hard liners because in polls that sold good to the public, murdered children by not buying this filters for schools and instead put them on lockdown. I wait till we talk about that...
    (I have no love for politicians. And I personally think lockdowns wouldn't be necessary if people were more behaved. )
    Oh, I though children almost couldn't die from COVID, according to you, after all it is only 0.004%, now they need filters? Nah, better find some better use of the money, what about some money for the roads, after all car crashes are more important right?
    Just kidding, you know what, I give you this one, because good filters would also help with air pollution, which is a big problem in the cities we live in, and children deserve it.
    Last edited by WeAreDoomed; 05 July 2021, 06:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    1)...
    You questioned my proof about the weather, yet I gave strong evidence, yes showing strong correlation is not perfect proof but evidence don't have to be perfect, science is always not settled, while I hear nonstop strong truth claims including the one from linus in this case, and then it's ok when the German faucci or the media in general tells us that the scientific condenses is something that is based on 1 bad study from another country that is because of different population density not applicable 1:1 to Germany. Yes it's the best study we have, on that subject (have to remember what the claim was), but it's still horrible bad proof, yet he sells that if that's proven... so we have here double standards the fauccies can make strong claims with close to zero evidence even lie in parts (faucci and the German faucci both lied), but I have to have 20 peer reviewed studies to proof that the weather matters a lot when there is such strong correlation and I heard many doctors say that... so I can even point to authorities... and I have to bring that because I did not even primary had a positive statement but just refused the statement of linus that it must be the vaccine, he has to proof his shit, I just give a plausible alternative explanation that to common sense makes more sense... it's not my job to proof my alternative thesis when you have a truth claim and I critisize you...

    But even it's not my job here we go:
    https://www.livescience.com/climate-...al-spread.html

    There is no study that implies or proofs that the vaccine changed the numbers of infected in germany. So I have 1 study vs 0 studies, by scientific standards the thesis with more and or better studies is the one we have to assume to be true for the moment... so scientifically the weather thesis is more plausible.

    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    2)"So there is literally no other variable than the weather."
    No, there are thousands of others variables, studies on the influence of weather are notoriously difficult to do (too much variability). But you are in luck, there are indeed studies about the impact of the weather on the flu and there are connections to some degrees.
    But there is more to winter/summer that just a decrease/increase of humidity/temperature. There are (in no particular order) seasonal vacations, indoor/outdoor times, ventilation of homes / public spaces, etc.
    Even if that is true, so what summer is what matters, why the summer helps if it's temperature or because people go out more does not matter something about summer outside of vaccines causes reduction of the virus... of course for other question it matters which part does it but for me saying that linus makes just stupid truth claims that the vaccines probably caused the reduction it does not matter which part of summer did it.

    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    3)Fair enough. You can note that I didn't say weather was not a cause too. We lack studies (and data(*)) on that. I just said that vaccination was 100% a cause.
    I agree, but Linus said more than that:

    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    I think you are in Germany, and COVID-19 numbers are going down. It's spreading a lot less these days, largely because people around you have started getting the vaccine
    Largely means if my dict don't translates it wrong, that the main reason for going down is the vaccine, and in my view that is unlikely but even if you don't agree to that, it's at least not proven. If he would at least added a "imho" or "probably" or something... but making such absolute truth claims and at the same time attacking somebody for making bad statements is hypocritical and irresponsible in his position imho.

    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    4) No. The mortality is approximately 10 times worse, for all groups, at risk and not at risk, and all the data show it. This is not similar. Saying covid19 is similar to the flu is a lie, plain and simple. And note that I am not judging you in particular, maybe you think that way in good faith, but this is simply not true.
    Yes but 10 times 0 is still 0 it's nearly impossible as 20 year old to die from the flu, so 10 times vs 1 case per country is still 10 which is a joke. (don't take the numbers literally you know what I want to say), also again this numbers come from the assumption that nobody is vaccinated I don't advocate for people should not vaccinate, so that does not matter, I just say that each person has to make his own risk / benefit analysis or should at least have the right for it, some people don't like to think for themself and prefer sheep like behavior, that's their right, too. And some might only wait a little because sommer time is save and let other people pla the genie pig for them a bit longer.

    I bring up the car accidents because we must compare dangerous to see if it's nessesary to react in which way, because it's objectively dangerous to drive a car, we can't not just stop using cars becuase of that at least most people don't so risks to some degree are acceptable and then we have to look on risk / benefit analysis which of course we don't get perfect but we have to try, and depending on that we have to priotise which risks we fight and with what risks we live.

    And there must also be some room for individual decisions in that, that's why the majority don't agree to vaccine law. If you think it's so outrages morally wrong to not vaccine you should fight for a law that forces people to vaccine not shame people that want to decide that for themself.

    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    5) Not trying to argue too much on this one, but you understand that vaccinating : anyone with age >40, anyone with IMC >25, anyone with asthma, anyone with cardio vascular problem, etc, is basically vaccinating 80% of the population (especially in the USA)?
    There are other factors that determine your risk if you fly around a lot or even see lot's of people your risk goes up, but if you go 1-2 time a week for 10 minute to the supermarket and have 2 3 people that you meet that are vaccinated already, even if you have some risk factor your risk is not thtat high. So I trust in people to make the decisions and I rather die because of a bad decision I did that a wrong decision from a politician that wanted to be seen the strong man or wanted to get voted again.


    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    And you forget the herd immunity
    No I don't that's the point because many people like the vaccine my risk goes down, so my incentive to vaccinate goes down, too.

    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    I fail to understand why you are so defensive against vaccination. I can understand having doubts about lockdowns, being afraid of the shot maybe?, not wanting to test mRNA vaccine (there are other vaccines available, not an excuse), being afraid of the secondary effects (learn statistics, chose carefully your vaccine and inject it correctly by someone who knows what he is doing, the ratio gains/risks is just good, there is no going around that). You said you don't want lockdowns, vaccination is the primary solution, if not the only solution.
    Which alternatives do we have? Doing nothing? Waiting for herd immunity? (For the record an IFR of 0,5% with an incidence of 80% (herd immunity) is 32 millions deaths, 64 millions for an IFR of 1%)
    I don't say "people don't get the vaccine" or the opposite, it's a personal risk/benefit analysis, at the moment here is summer, the people I meet are all vaccinated most I think 2 times I don't have a job no friends... so why would I vaccine now... I probably will vaccinate in autumn if the numbers go up again... if not I probably take my chances without, depending on some variables... if the chance to get the sickness is very low because of low amount of infected and I am not to old you have to calculate that into the risk.

    You only compare if you get the sickness how are your chances to die... But if the number of incidences is very low then your chance to get sick from it is lower then you have 2 different risk numbers you have to multiply, so if you say that it's 10 times more likely to die from covid if you get it, but it's only 1/10 as likely to get covid you end with the same risk of the virus to you.

    But if I get the shot I wait till autumn and then we know more do we need a 3rd shot for the mutants or a new shot, which one of the vaccines works best, did herd immunity reduce the risk of infection so strongly that the risk to get infected is so small that I don't need it... I have the luxury to stall it a bit and I use it. But again that is me, I don't tell people to or not to vaccine, and I would prefer that Linus did the same, or at least insert fake news when he states his opinion on this.

    And yes there was a alternative to lockdown, lockdown save maybe some people from dying from the lockdown but it causes other people to die and to suffer and to become overweight for the rest of their lives (because most people that get fad stay that for the rest of their live), so many of the lockdown and the length and strictness caused more harm that it saved lives... we based all that on unproven shit, we based on wild estimates to partially suspend our constitutional rights... that is not correct, we overreacted, was some reaction some lockdown ok, sure... but we overdid it, and we failed at buying air filters for school because of bureaucracy even we know it was necessary and had a year to do it, we failed to produce better studies, instead some politicians did some crime to enrich themself. This politicians that only listen to some scientists and ignore others cherry pick "their" scientists of course the biggest hard liners because in polls that sold good to the public, murdered children by not buying this filters for schools and instead put them on lockdown. I wait till we talk about that...

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreDoomed
    replied
    1)You know, I try really hard not to go ad hominem and to respond rationally and respectfully to your comments (albeit with some sarcasms sometimes), so it is somewhat depressing when you don't take time to read it.
    You see, I never defended lockdowns, because I am not sure if it was really the best solution. But yeah, I am 100% for vaccine, because it works, and it is the primary solution to reduce cases and mortality, especially if it can prevent another lockdown.

    2)"So there is literally no other variable than the weather."
    No, there are thousands of others variables, studies on the influence of weather are notoriously difficult to do (too much variability). But you are in luck, there are indeed studies about the impact of the weather on the flu and there are connections to some degrees.
    But there is more to winter/summer that just a decrease/increase of humidity/temperature. There are (in no particular order) seasonal vacations, indoor/outdoor times, ventilation of homes / public spaces, etc.

    3)Fair enough. You can note that I didn't say weather was not a cause too. We lack studies (and data(*)) on that. I just said that vaccination was 100% a cause. But, eh, there are so many studies on vaccines that this one was a given.
    (*)We have "bad" data on that, in the sense that we can see correlation, but causality is hard to prove. You would need specific studies in controlled conditions for that.

    4) No. The mortality is approximately 10 times worse, for all groups, at risk and not at risk, and all the data show it. This is not similar. Saying covid19 is similar to the flu is a lie, plain and simple. And note that I am not judging you in particular, maybe you think that way in good faith, but this is simply not true.

    "And if something is harmless on young people it can still be harmless even if it's more harmful than something else. You can't just compare this 2 sicknesses in a vacuum, we have to compare it to car deaths and other steps and what are we willing to do to stop that."

    So when you compare the flu and covid you see no problem but when I compare both I should look at the deaths by car or whatever? You see no contradiction in that?

    5) Not trying to argue too much on this one, but you understand that vaccinating : anyone with age >40, anyone with IMC >25, anyone with asthma, anyone with cardio vascular problem, etc, is basically vaccinating 80% of the population (especially in the USA)? And you forget the herd immunity, vaccinating is a way to protect the ones that can't vaccinate (immune-depressive people, transplant receivers for example).

    I fail to understand why you are so defensive against vaccination. I can understand having doubts about lockdowns, being afraid of the shot maybe?, not wanting to test mRNA vaccine (there are other vaccines available, not an excuse), being afraid of the secondary effects (learn statistics, chose carefully your vaccine and inject it correctly by someone who knows what he is doing, the ratio gains/risks is just good, there is no going around that). You said you don't want lockdowns, vaccination is the primary solution, if not the only solution.
    Which alternatives do we have? Doing nothing? Waiting for herd immunity? (For the record an IFR of 0,5% with an incidence of 80% (herd immunity) is 32 millions deaths, 64 millions for an IFR of 1%)
    Last edited by WeAreDoomed; 05 July 2021, 02:19 PM. Reason: typo

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
    I don't even know where to begin...
    1. you say always we don't know that, yet science don't finally knows all the things that but that is true for nearly everything, yet we did close down schools even we did not know much. So for you it's ok to send people into suicide make them depressed put them back in their development make them fat, create domenstic abuse, divorces, unemployment etc... all this stuff on stuff we don't really "know that" because we have not perfect evidence.

    But when I can make a good case why the weather is important that is 99% sure true but not 100% then it's not good enough.

    2. I could even be wrong, and we don't know if it's the weather for sure, yet you claimed I have no evidence not only did I mention that it was seasonal last year in germany without vaccines but we also had sweden where there was no lockdown yet when the weather got better the numbers gone down hard. So there is literally no other variable than the weather. But you can ideologically motivated dismiss my strong evidence if that makes you feel better, that makes not his fact statement that it was the vaccines or even "likely" true. I don't have to proof that it was the weather to point that he put out fake news based on now existing science that proof his point.

    3. Now you can do your whataboutism (even I dislike that term, but I am sure you would use it) about me doing the same, but I have way less responsibility with power comes responsibility and the words of Linus get read by way more people than my internet rant here. And I only said that it's in my view more likely that it's the weather. At least I think in my original statement I did not say "it absolutely sure was the weather" I tend to use qualifiers for that.

    4. I said if the most critical people are vaccinated then it's as harmless as the flew, I meant for all people I did not say "for the same age groups", with the flu we have way less old people vaccinated and the flu vaccines are probably less effective than with the covid virus. Therefor the total risk over all age groups is then similar.

    And if something is harmless on young people it can still be harmless even if it's more harmful than something else. You can't just compare this 2 sicknesses in a vacuum, we have to compare it to car deaths and other steps and what are we willing to do to stop that.

    5. I did not say that you only have to vaccine old people but also risk groups, so your age numbers only work if we assume not vaccinated people if the fat people in this age groups and the ones with astma or other sicknesses that increase their risk are vaccinated, too then this numbers would change a lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gps4life
    replied
    Interview with an American / German lawyer, who is working with other lawyers, to stop the lies, and hopefully sue some people.

    Swine flue a rehearsal ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXCG3tXwj4&t=1369s

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post

    Perhaps I missed that, but it's also possible you are talking about the interview where he discussed different "rates of return" on foundation investments in different ateas, and how investing $10B in vaccines could provide $200B in returns, more than what would be seen by investing in other areas.

    A lot of people jumped on that and started splashing headlines like "Gates to make $200B from vaccines" but the returns Gates was talking about were not returns to the foundation but "benefits to society" in the sense of poor countries being able to be more productive and successful. Is that what you were referencing, or did I simply miss a quote ?
    So if the foundation does more stuff including hiring more people pay more paycheck gain more influence then it's not to the benefit of the foundation? If they pay the bills of 10% of the people of a country instead of 5% they have not more influence and dictate with that more on money what politics this countries can do? We pay 99% of your medical spending's and we dictate the countries 99% of medical policies, that is democratical and there is no problem? If he spoke so bad that everybody had to misunderstand him, isn't that his problem? If he does not benefit from the foundation in any way, why does he even talk about them?

    I think you focus me to much on a technicality I brought 10-20 reasons why he and his foundation is evil, and now we discuss a minor factor that is not important to my verdict that he is at least very likely very evil and with the evidence I brought proven to some degree evil. And if a evil organizations that invests in private prisons people get suspicious that they profit in some way from vaccines and then this computer engineer that is totally disqualified to talk about vaccines at least as authority that everybody has to listen to, is nonstop cited and seen up to as big voice on that topic.

    And you say they did not profit, influence is also a payment, I am sorry people seem to assume that you can only measure profit or corruption by a direct fiat money transfer... influence and media time is all worth money, they cover him here in Germany when he comes to visit the state head talks to him and the press praises him, if you want as normal person the national press talk positive about you make PR for you how much money does that cost? And in this poorer countries it goes further he attacks there democracies makes policy demands in exchange for money...

    Our state media has laws that they are not allowed to make advertisement at the prime time and otherwise only very limited yet they show some stats and below in the corner "microsoft software xy", they can make the german state police forgo laws.

    https://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Linux-V..._gegen_den_NDR

    They bribe and brake laws left and right... but they are the good people... give me a break, when somebody goes to prison for theft, and he get's hired later their boss will not trust them and not let them near the money. If we have a strong patern of extremely evil behaviour of MS and Bill Gates as his founder I of course assume guilt till proven otherwise. And if in his new job (new foundation) he steels again (finanzing private prisons) yes well then I assume the worst and if I would be really their boss I would fire them, because I can't them shaming them for their evilness is the only thing I can do, and it stinks that somebody so proven evil is now seen as a extraordanary great person by the public... really disgusting. That is my point not some random irrelevant detail in which way they profitited from vaccines.

    That he get's asked and listened to about vaccines is wrong independent from any money (btw it's known he spoke with vaucci) which makes him biased and corrupt by itself... but even that aside, he is no scientist and nobody voted for him... therefor there is no reason to listen to him on the topic and take his suggestions serious and implement it based on what he says we live in a clown world when this person that did nothnig but becoming rich by a moral unjust business something like a mafiosy is looked up to for consulting on topics of live and death.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    I don't have to proof something when he bragged about it, the default is to believe Bill Gates, if you have proof that he lied... go ahead bring it on.
    Perhaps I missed that, but it's also possible you are talking about the interview where he discussed different "rates of return" on foundation investments in different ateas, and how investing $10B in vaccines could provide $200B in returns, more than what would be seen by investing in other areas.

    A lot of people jumped on that and started splashing headlines like "Gates to make $200B from vaccines" but the returns Gates was talking about were not returns to the foundation but "benefits to society" in the sense of poor countries being able to be more productive and successful. Is that what you were referencing, or did I simply miss a quote ?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X