watthong

Remember, bullying is one way to get yourself down. Not up. 

This forum is not for spewing hatred and discrimination. If this thread gets shut down, I'm gonna start 10  mores until we get rid of the social viruses.

Counting my eggs before they hatch, I'd like to know after getting legally married in Thailand, what the A to Z to get green card and social security benefit for the newlywed spouse? 1) to the embassy and get US marriage license then apply for green card - 2) correspondence with SSA Manila to get the SSA thing started?

Answer my marriage-related question, Jing. That's one way to keep this thread going. Ignore the goblins, otherwise they are going to bury it with their crapbola.

Let's not allow bigots to hi-jack this important thread.

DO NOT ENGAGE THEM.

And keep the topic on due course.

There are and always will be anti-gay bigots. The civilized world stays away from them so don't give them neither berth nor oxygen here. Don't let them take up space on this thread, ie don't engage with them.

Now back to the topic at hand:

Counting my eggs before they hatch, I'd like to know after getting legally married in Thailand, what the A to Z to get green card and social security benefit for the newlywed spouse? 1) to the embassy and get US marriage license then apply for green card - 2) correspondence with SSA Manila to get the SSA thing started?

4 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, it's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?

 

I post absolute truth as determined by the government
You post things from non-credible sources
He is a purveyor of dangerous misinformation

Yes, when there's no arguments left/no legs to stand on, there's always the alphabet and("those irregular verbs"). Don't forget the kitchen sink and left over spaghetti also. Try harder.

"Were you ever (or never) swoon worthy beautiful at any point in your life?"

- Yes, many many times.

   (Mostly in my dreams, but also quite often, my nightmares.)

18 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

@xylophone  - Please do me a favor and put me on IGNORE too

In the meantime, if the soreness of yesterday still persists, a slight application of Burnovagel on the impacted area will keep the swelling down and do away with any remaining redness. (Make sure you don't get it in the eye areas.) Highly recommended.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

On xylophone's ignore list, I really have hit rock bottom.

Sorry to inform, you were already there...

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

I'll tell you Brian.

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

The above all in my opinion Brian.

I'm jealous of you, Brian. 

If only I got some of those terms of endearment, Brian.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

So in order to be ethical, anyone speaking about Covid-related matters who is not a medical doctor by trade should add a disclaimer to each of their interventions, correct?

Sorry but it's kind of late at this stage - for you I mean - don't you think? I don't want to elaborate any further. For fear of being accused of "hurling insults." A no-no by forum rules.

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

It is in use currently and I see no reason why a thread like this should even exist because what the anti-vax/conspiracy theory muppets fail to realise is that the mRNA vaccination process is being used today and is here to stay.

Big thanks for your well-researched comments as well, we need as many as we can get. To answer your question: We all know why " a thread like this should even exist" don't we? (Whereas a recent solidly informative thread was gone in a blink of an eye.) But let's not go there....

55 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I think I learned this "math" in grade 5.

 

It should be very obvious that the chance of having only acceptable/benign jabs is reduced by 50% for each additional jab..... that's by definition according to the assumptions you gave.... no actual math/logic required.

Yep, that should consequently explain the "logic" of their thinking (or vice versa). Anyway, a frequent poster that we have grown to be quite fond of, purely for comic relief.

(Clarification: I meant the one you commented on, and not you @gamb00ler

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

Such a golden rule to live by, thank you. .. Therefore those in the right never utter insults!

As I said before, try not to rush to your keyboard but allow a few moments for ideas - or something akin - to germinate. Just pretend like you're making yogurt. 

On 10/26/2023 at 4:00 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Nowhere in the OP cited research does the study use the thread's headline language of "rewiring the immune system".  It's also a non-peer reviewed study, and even more telling, try finding any credible news report on its findings, if it's supposedly some kind of news-worthy research.

 

Here's the actual conclusion of the OP's cited study, which bears little to no resemblance to the OP's claims about it:

Yet it's their weapon of choice, the more beneath the radar, under the haystack, sub-terrain, peer-less study the better. Their motto is: "Never let a(n obscure) study go to waste" - along with "Don't let the covid19 'saga' be swept under the rug.") 

 We appreciate those like you who go to great length to present the whole picture. Thumbs up!

28 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Please explain your rationale.

Consider this my one compliment to you - and those others to whom the concept of "context" did not seem to register:

The individual in question has a PhD but he's not an MD. As been called out before, a PhD holder can go by the title "Doctor" anywhere. Fair enough...However, his real-life medical career consisted of nursing. Ie a nurse, not a physician. Therefore in the context that he presents himself on his youtube channel, which deals with medical matters and mostly covid-related, he should present himself as Nurce C. - not Dr. C. And if he chose the latter, it would call out to his ethics, that is if he had any, to put a disclaimer that he is NOT a medical doctor by trade. Failing to do either, he unwittingly presents himself as a fraud (and we are not talking about his channel content just yet.) 

My rationale was about his inclination to deceive, and not his medical qualifications, or lack thereof. In short it was an ethical matter and  I'm NOT surprised that many on this thread failed to see it. 
 

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The rationale in question was that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

Wrong - maybe my rationale went over your head but never mind.

And the answer to my question is, yes, deflect, deflect, deflect.

33 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

4 hours ago, watthong said:

What about Whataboutism? Deflect much - don't you?  Try to get a good grasp of my "rationale" before you hit the keyboard. Btw we need more of your links. Pile them up. They might work as arguments, some times.

Your rationale is that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

Wrong - maybe my rationale went over your head but never mind.

And the answer to my question is, yes, deflect, deflect, deflect.

16 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Based on your rationale, what is your take on Bill Gates, who is not a doctor and has no training in medicine or public health whatsoever, yet is one of the most influential forces with regard to the Covid response and vaccines, and is a massive WHO donor ($531 million in 2018-2019)?

What about Whataboutism? Deflect much - don't you?  Try to get a good grasp of my "rationale" before you hit the keyboard. Btw we need more of your links. Pile them up. They might work as arguments, some times.

3 hours ago, BenStark said:

 

So again, what are your qualifications to discredit claims made by people, who may not be a medical doctor, but obviously have much higher degrees than anyone in this thread

Again, context is absent in this kind of argument. There seems to be quite a few among this "contingent"...

Just so we know where things stand:

One

On 10/25/2023 at 10:32 AM, owl sees all said:

I think it good that the c-19 saga is not swept under the carpet.

 

Two

On 10/25/2023 at 11:00 AM, owl sees all said:

What science might that be Watthong? Much of the c-19 science is not so scientific after all.

 

Three

On 10/25/2023 at 11:21 AM, owl sees all said:

Let's say the chance of getting a toxic jab is 50%. A second jab opens the door to four possibilities; all rated at 25%.

 

1/ Both jabs are toxic

2/ The first was toxic but not the second

3/ The second was toxic but not the first

4/ Both jabs were benign.

 

However, a further (third) jab swings the odds very much into the chance that at least one jab will be toxic (87.5%). In fact the chance of having three benign jabs are just 12.5% or one in eight.

 

Four

On 10/25/2023 at 11:48 AM, owl sees all said:

Sounds like the villagers who got sick, did so because they were unlucky enough to have a toxic jab.

 

Finally, something "scientific" did emerge from all this (...and that was just the 1st page of this thread!)

Now, now, easy, boys...
(On a lighter note) This brings back fond memories of eons and eons, say half a century, ago:
1) When as a sweet young thing I followed a priest "home" for further "confessionals" after a brief chat/dance interlude at the local bar... It was in the wee hours when we came into the hallway of his dormitory (in the abbey.) An old priest came out of his room seemingly heading for the communal bathroom. He briefly glanced at the two of us. I squirmed a bit, naive as I was then, but he walked on, didn't bat an eye. This was in Palo Alto, the heart of Silicon Valley during its heyday.

2) Also in the same epoch of "as a sweet young thing," during a tour in Italy, in Rome due to our guide being my travelling companion's cousin, and also a priest "apprentice" (sorry I don't know the correct word for it,) we got a chance to go into the innards of his residence (not sure it was at the Vatican, mighta been...) In the dormitory hallway, there were signs on the wall (in English) that say something to the effect, "homosexual activities are not allowed here" - maybe not so blunt, but one got the gist.

Lesson learned: One should always observe being in the right place AND at the right time.

9 hours ago, watthong said:

Too bad, because you must have missed the one interview where he discussed covid situation in Thailand with the best local authority on the subject he could find: a Khao San type (long hair, full beard, in shorts and flipflop) ESL teacher. Who probably made a pre-nup with the "Dr." so that he could strum his guitar and sing his own composition at the end of the clip. Totally clueless as far as covid was concerned, dude just wanted to get his future top ten (thousandth) hit on line and this was the one outlet that would allow him that.

 

For the most part of the interview, it consisted of the "Dr." asking leading questions and the guest nodding his head, ahah, ahah, and so forth. Yeah, it's under control yeah, what, oh yeah, not many covid cases - though we were in the midst of rolling lock down - and so forth... and doc finally answered his own questions. Yeah, that's the kind of materials you'll get from this so-called doctor. But if that's up your alley, hey, by all means go for it. As they say, "you can fool some people some of the time..."

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

This is a non-discussion.

Dr John Campbell NEVER claimed that he is an MD (medical doctor). 

He holds a Ph. D. in nursing from the University of Bolton, and is a dr. (i.e. holding a doctorate).

That you not understand titles denoting qualification, does not make dr Campbell a fraud fooling the people.

Yeah, it's hard to engage in a discussion when for all the so-called expertise displayed here, one party refuses to understand the simple concept of the word "context."

"Deep sigh" indeed.