Trump’s Transition Team Eyes Swift WHO Exit, Sparking Global Health Concerns

[candide]

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've gotta say, candide, you grade very poorly at answering direct questions or addressing inconvenient but salient points.  But to your credit you do excel at keeping the conversation on specific topics and issues for which you already have scripted answers.  It's beginning to feel like I'm on a merry-go-round with you where it's impossible to resolve any difference of opinion because nothing ever gets fully addressed.

 

You once again failed to answer direct questions.  In fact, thus far you've completely skipped over responding to my post previous to the one you are replying to now.  What gives?  Why the avoidance on your part.  I have no problem addressing your posts line by line.

 

 

Yes.  I have.  Yet again, the lists are meaningless as name and rank tell you nothing.  If you were to be captured in a war and all you gave was name and rank you'd be asking to be tortured.  It's information which illuminates very little.  I've already explained this to you.  No comment from you, though.

 

 

If there is any information about any of these people that is damning then you won't be able to "use Google."  Which is the point of doing research.  To find that information about these people that they will never tell.  Such as where their funding comes from.  Or what affiliations they have with others in the industry which could be conflicts of interest.  And so much more.

 

Pre-Covid you could find similarly glowing backgrounds of people like Michael Yeadon, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Peter McCullough, and many other respectable doctors, researchers and experts who have been attacked and vilified because they had different views on many of the issues concerning the pandemic.

 

So what does your provided information about these two individuals tell you?  Nothing.

The topic is the WHO and I keep focused on it. Sorry if I don't follow you on every digression you are addressing. And sorry if I stick to facts. I can understand it's may be kind of boring g for you. 

 

You keep making  baseless claims about the WHO, and when proven wrong you start splitting hairs. Like you just did.

 

When you make claims on this forum, it's your duty to back up these claims, and not me to waste my time disproving each and every of your claims.

 

I have provided the list of experts, and they appear to be quite qualified and experienced. If you want to challenge their qualification, prove it. It's not my job to disprove any baseless speculation you may come up with.

 

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, candide said:

The topic is the WHO and I keep focused on it.

 

Are you implying that I haven't?

 

On 12/26/2024 at 5:57 AM, Tippaporn said:

Admittedly, it looks to be a pretty chart, coloured very nicely.  Now show me in quantifiable terms the impact the WHO had on reducing the loss of life during the pandemic.

 

If what you say is true then why haven't you answered my first question to you?

 

9 hours ago, candide said:

And sorry if I stick to facts. I can understand it's may be kind of boring g for you.

 

You claim you deal in facts.  Where are the facts on this question?  The WHO didn't live up to it's billing on the Covid pandemic at all.  You tell me that's false yet can't produce any facts that show otherwise.  And contrary to your derogatory imaginings, no, I'm not bored in the least.

 

9 hours ago, candide said:

You keep making  baseless claims about the WHO, and when proven wrong you start splitting hairs. Like you just did.

 

You then have the audacity to claim that you've proved me wrong.  My claim being that the WHO was ineffectual during the pandemic.  They were late to call the pandemic - only after it was global common knowledge, they didn't arrest the spread, and neither did they offer up any solutions to reduce the death toll.  For you to prove those "baseless" claims wrong, which are indeed historical facts, then you need to provide the facts which show those claims to be false.  You haven't yet.

 

On 12/26/2024 at 5:57 AM, Tippaporn said:

Anyway, dispense with all of the pretty charts and stacks of reports produced by the culprits themselves.  Show me some quantifiable evidence of the WHO's efforts reducing fatalities.

 

I've asked you twice now for factual evidence that "proves me wrong."  Both times the question went unanswered.

 

The topic is "Trump’s Transition Team Eyes Swift WHO Exit, Sparking Global Health Concerns," is it not?  Does Trump share my mind on the ineffectual nature of the WHO, too?  Might that be the reason he doesn't want to spend $220 million a year on an organisation that doesn't fulfill it's purpose?  Why I'm dead on topic.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

In fact, I'll go further than claiming that the WHO was ineffectual.  It can be contested that they were indeed harmful.  Harmful in that they poo-pooed two potential mitigations that some doctors found success with.  And they pushed the "one solution only" mRNA gene editing therapy despite the unknown risks of a never before tried therapy.  If all of the reports of adverse events do get proven to be related to the mRNA shots, and if the reports of the deaths are also proven to be linked to it, then the WHO would be a guilty contributing partner in this travesty of a human tragedy.  As I've said before, we should soon find out what that truth is.

 

9 hours ago, candide said:

When you make claims on this forum, it's your duty to back up these claims, and not me to waste my time disproving each and every of your claims.

 

You disparagingly referred to Ivermectin as merely a horse dewormer.  Didn't I provide you with literature which dispels that falsity?  Didn't I ask you if that information helped change your view of Ivermectin as purely a horse dewormer?  Did you reply to that last question?  No, you didn't.

  

12 hours ago, candide said:

My comment on Ivermectin was about Covid-19. I did not comment about ither [sic] use.

 

You simply blew it off as not having any usefulness against Covid-19 by disparaging it with a misleading statement.  You, my friend, were merely parroting what "officialdom" and the MSM were telling you.

 

9 hours ago, candide said:

I have provided the list of experts, and they appear to be quite qualified and experienced. If you want to challenge their qualification, prove it. It's not my job to disprove any baseless speculation you may come up with.

 

I provided you with a list of experts, too.  My list is one of reputable and accomplished folks who were dragged through the mud and sullied for the crime of daring to dispute the mRNA gene editing therapy claims.  They, too, had stellar bios previous to Covid-19.  The point being that a qualifying bio may, to use your own word, only be an appearance.

 

I did not make any baseless speculation about any of the people on your lists.  My only point, and it's a valid one, is that unless you know everything there is to know about them then you cannot automatically settle on an informed opinion from their bioa alone.  You really have no earthly idea who these people truly are.  Any one of them could be another, say, Michael Yeadon.  A guy with an impressive bio.

 

Again, because I raise that quite practical aspect then the raising of it doesn't magically transform it into baseless speculation of a derogatory nature.

 

My point, again, is that providing a bunch of bios on people is, in essence, and in practical terms, worthless.  Tell me that valid point goes over your head.

 

This is looking to me to be a case where you're doing all you can to not concede on any of your beliefs and have no real interest in finding out whether your beliefs have any true worth via an open dialogue that challenges them.  And you complain when you do come up empty.  Defence, defence, defence.  That's about it, innit?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/26/2024 at 1:36 PM, Red Phoenix said:

When the manufacturers of the flu-jab are 'lucky' that by the time their product is being administered, that the flu-strain on which it is based is still dominant, then the flu-jab 'works'.  It would lead to far here to mention all the down-sides of taking it, even if you take it in a 'lucky' year when the manufacturers guessed more or less right.

Strengthening your immune-system is a far more effective and much safer way to deal with flu than taking the yearly guess-work shots, that contain also dangerous and harmful contaminants.  Only in very specific cases, e.g. where catching the flu would have grave consequences for the person whose immune system is so weak that it would not be able to overcome the infection, one could consider taking the flu-jab. 

But promoting it for everybody irrespective of their age/condition is madness and only 'healthy' for the financial balance-sheets of the vax industry.

 

I've been taking it for years and no side effects considered part of it. Also never had the flu since having it. The vax industry is welcome to any profit from it if it means I don't get flu.

I suppose you think the same about polio and smallpox.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Are you implying that I haven't?

 

 

If what you say is true then why haven't you answered my first question to you?

 

 

You claim you deal in facts.  Where are the facts on this question?  The WHO didn't live up to it's billing on the Covid pandemic at all.  You tell me that's false yet can't produce any facts that show otherwise.  And contrary to your derogatory imaginings, no, I'm not bored in the least.

 

 

You then have the audacity to claim that you've proved me wrong.  My claim being that the WHO was ineffectual during the pandemic.  They were late to call the pandemic - only after it was global common knowledge, they didn't arrest the spread, and neither did they offer up any solutions to reduce the death toll.  For you to prove those "baseless" claims wrong, which are indeed historical facts, then you need to provide the facts which show those claims to be false.  You haven't yet.

 

 

I've asked you twice now for factual evidence that "proves me wrong."  Both times the question went unanswered.

 

The topic is "Trump’s Transition Team Eyes Swift WHO Exit, Sparking Global Health Concerns," is it not?  Does Trump share my mind on the ineffectual nature of the WHO, too?  Might that be the reason he doesn't want to spend $220 million a year on an organisation that doesn't fulfill it's purpose?  Why I'm dead on topic.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

In fact, I'll go further than claiming that the WHO was ineffectual.  It can be contested that they were indeed harmful.  Harmful in that they poo-pooed two potential mitigations that some doctors found success with.  And they pushed the "one solution only" mRNA gene editing therapy despite the unknown risks of a never before tried therapy.  If all of the reports of adverse events do get proven to be related to the mRNA shots, and if the reports of the deaths are also proven to be linked to it, then the WHO would be a guilty contributing partner in this travesty of a human tragedy.  As I've said before, we should soon find out what that truth is.

 

 

You disparagingly referred to Ivermectin as merely a horse dewormer.  Didn't I provide you with literature which dispels that falsity?  Didn't I ask you if that information helped change your view of Ivermectin as purely a horse dewormer?  Did you reply to that last question?  No, you didn't.

  

 

You simply blew it off as not having any usefulness against Covid-19 by disparaging it with a misleading statement.  You, my friend, were merely parroting what "officialdom" and the MSM were telling you.

 

 

I provided you with a list of experts, too.  My list is one of reputable and accomplished folks who were dragged through the mud and sullied for the crime of daring to dispute the mRNA gene editing therapy claims.  They, too, had stellar bios previous to Covid-19.  The point being that a qualifying bio may, to use your own word, only be an appearance.

 

I did not make any baseless speculation about any of the people on your lists.  My only point, and it's a valid one, is that unless you know everything there is to know about them then you cannot automatically settle on an informed opinion from their bioa alone.  You really have no earthly idea who these people truly are.  Any one of them could be another, say, Michael Yeadon.  A guy with an impressive bio.

 

Again, because I raise that quite practical aspect then the raising of it doesn't magically transform it into baseless speculation of a derogatory nature.

 

My point, again, is that providing a bunch of bios on people is, in essence, and in practical terms, worthless.  Tell me that valid point goes over your head.

 

This is looking to me to be a case where you're doing all you can to not concede on any of your beliefs and have no real interest in finding out whether your beliefs have any true worth via an open dialogue that challenges them.  And you complain when you do come up empty.  Defence, defence, defence.  That's about it, innit?

Much to agree with. The best thing I did during covid was to NOT have a Mickey Duck rushed medication that had not gone through rigorous testing over years.

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Much to agree with. The best thing I did during covid was to NOT have a Mickey Duck rushed medication that had not gone through rigorous testing over years.

 

It's beyond me how anyone could have taken the mRNA gene editing therapy as it was never before tried on humans.  Other than some testing.  But not for Covid.  No long term studies at all.  Fortunately for myself, I've never been afraid of dying.  So I wasn't in a scared sh!tless frame of mind and could therefore think clearly.  Taking in all of the facts, which certainly included pharma's sordid history amongst many other factors, not taking the shot was a no brainer.  And here I am today, no worse for the wear.

 

I pity the people who'd rather not have taken it but were unduly coerced.  Whether it was to keep your job or travel or any other reason where one didn't really have a choice.  Those who were scared sh!tless because they feared death, well, they made their bed and must now lie in it.  Of course those who took the jabs and the entire regimen of boosters and came away unscathed will laugh at this post.  To those who laugh I hope that some of the side effects don't take years before they show themselves.  I'm not so mean spirited that I have any wish that their mean spiritedness comes home to roost some day.  I wouldn't wish adverse events on anyone.