CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Morgan Peterson › Posts

Posts by Morgan Peterson

92 posts shown.

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
briskowl24 said:Right, and I guess the accuracy of those studies was "proven" by all the nursing homes over in our neighboring states, where tons of residents who were already vaccinated still got hit hard.
I think I'll trust my own eyes over some funded study any day.
Maybe you're just choosing to believe the studies because it suits your interests, or maybe you're just being misled.

But anyway, let's set that aside—does looking at this poll bum you out?

I have been keeping a close eye on this vaccination poll since the very first discussions regarding the virus surfaced, and honestly, the numbers haven't budged much; it looked almost identical back then, with nearly 70 percent opposed and a timid 30 percent in favor.

Now, considering that the rollout is already well underway—with over 500,233 people having received at least one dose—why would we expect a sudden shift in sentiment here? It might move at a glacial pace, certainly, but eventually, we will reach that targeted 70% threshold, if not surpass it.
After all, people are watching the vaccinated and seeing that nothing catastrophic is happening, which proves that life can actually return to a semblance of normalcy.

In the end, we will be left with only a handful of stubborn, fringe anti-vaxxers, who, frankly, represent nothing more than an insignificant and loud minority.
Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
Keith Wilson said:Maybe because of this...
In evaluable Phase 2/3 participants at selected dose level in each age group, Average antibody levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titers with no serological or virological evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection [ Time Frame: At baseline, and at 1, 6, 12(participants who originally received BNT162b2) and 24 months(participants who originally received BNT162b2) after dose 2 ]
As measured at the central laboratory

It isn't quite that straightforward, is it? That 24-month figure represents the total duration of the study for any single participant—essentially marking the final follow-up when antibody levels are once again measured. All the other measurements occur much sooner: at the 1, 6, and 12-month marks. In some perfect, theoretical world, every single individual enrolled would remain in the study until the very end, but we all know that in practice, people drop out.

Consequently, if the researchers have determined that the primary outcome is measured at, say, 6 or 12 months, then those milestones become the core focus of the study, rather than the full 24-month span.

The exact same logic was applied during the clinical trials for the Pfizer vaccine for adults. We haven't even reached the 24-month mark for the very first group of people vaccinated, yet the data considered most relevant were gathered around the 6-month point. Of course, they will continue to monitor both efficacy and safety for everyone possible through to that final 24-month follow-up.
Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
Keith Wilson said:Looking at the details for NCT04816643 Recruitment status... It’s an interventional study, specifically a Study Type : Interventional ( Clinical Trial. The focus seems to be on the Primary Outcome Measures regarding how people respond to the vaccine. The setup is an Allocation : Non-Randomized Intervention model : Parallel Assignment Masking : None ( open Label ) Primary Purpose : Prevention official Title. They're looking at an Estimated Enrollment that's quite significant. Regarding the timeline, the Estimated Primary Completion date is March 4, with the Estimated Study Completion date set for September 1. Most clinical Studies have One primary outcome measure, though you have to watch for those specific cases for clinical Studies with more Than One primary outcome measure with different completion dates... just standard procedure. Everything is tracked under the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier. Just keeping an eye on the progress...
This link is actually great.

Just learned that a clinical study actually uses Primary Outcome Measures and Secondary Outcome Measures...

The Primary Outcome Measures look like this: "Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as reported via electronic diaries for participants aged 2 to Could be vaccine side effects... or just standard COVID symptoms in kids, if not the flu...

The Secondary Outcome Measures—which the protocol defines as "planned outcome measures that aren't quite as critical as the primary ones for gauging an intervention's effect, but are still worth tracking"—are looking specifically at Geometric mean Titers of SARS-CoV-2...

So, which two were actually used by the FDA to confirm its effectiveness?

I think this is meant for the under-12 group, though we were discussing the 12-16 age bracket... and that's what the media seems to be focusing on anyway...

These represent the symptoms that children might potentially develop following vaccination. To confirm whether actual COVID is present, they will utilize a PCR test to detect acute infection; that is how one can discern whether it is corona, influenza, or some other viral illness.

Keith Wilson said:Looking at the details for NCT04816643 Recruitment status... It’s an interventional study, specifically a Study Type : Interventional ( Clinical Trial. The focus seems to be on the Primary Outcome Measures regarding how people respond to the vaccine. The setup is an Allocation : Non-Randomized Intervention model : Parallel Assignment Masking : None ( open Label ) Primary Purpose : Prevention official Title. They're looking at an Estimated Enrollment that's quite significant. Regarding the timeline, the Estimated Primary Completion date is March 4, with the Estimated Study Completion date set for September 1. Most clinical Studies have One primary outcome measure, though you have to watch for those specific cases for clinical Studies with more Than One primary outcome measure with different completion dates... just standard procedure. Everything is tracked under the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier. Just keeping an eye on the progress...
This link is actually great.

Just learned that a clinical study actually uses Primary Outcome Measures and Secondary Outcome Measures...

The Primary Outcome Measures look like this: "Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as reported via electronic diaries for participants aged 2 to Could be vaccine side effects... or just standard COVID symptoms in kids, if not the flu...

The Secondary Outcome Measures—which the protocol defines as "planned outcome measures that aren't quite as critical as the primary ones for gauging an intervention's effect, but are still worth tracking"—are looking specifically at Geometric mean Titers of SARS-CoV-2...

So, which two were actually used by the FDA to confirm its effectiveness?

I think this is meant for the under-12 group, though we were discussing the 12-16 age bracket... and that's what the media seems to be focusing on anyway...

Is it not perfectly logical that one would first measure whether an active infection with visible symptoms exists after vaccination, and only subsequently determine if antibodies against COVID have been developed by the vaccine? Therefore, it follows that this must be a secondary outcome.

Keith Wilson said:Looking at the details for NCT04816643 Recruitment status... It’s an interventional study, specifically a Study Type : Interventional ( Clinical Trial. The focus seems to be on the Primary Outcome Measures regarding how people respond to the vaccine. The setup is an Allocation : Non-Randomized Intervention model : Parallel Assignment Masking : None ( open Label ) Primary Purpose : Prevention official Title. They're looking at an Estimated Enrollment that's quite significant. Regarding the timeline, the Estimated Primary Completion date is March 4, with the Estimated Study Completion date set for September 1. Most clinical Studies have One primary outcome measure, though you have to watch for those specific cases for clinical Studies with more Than One primary outcome measure with different completion dates... just standard procedure. Everything is tracked under the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier. Just keeping an eye on the progress...
This link is actually great.

Just learned that a clinical study actually uses Primary Outcome Measures and Secondary Outcome Measures...

The Primary Outcome Measures look like this: "Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as reported via electronic diaries for participants aged 2 to Could be vaccine side effects... or just standard COVID symptoms in kids, if not the flu...

The Secondary Outcome Measures—which the protocol defines as "planned outcome measures that aren't quite as critical as the primary ones for gauging an intervention's effect, but are still worth tracking"—are looking specifically at Geometric mean Titers of SARS-CoV-2...

So, which two were actually used by the FDA to confirm its effectiveness?

I think this is meant for the under-12 group, though we were discussing the 12-16 age bracket... and that's what the media seems to be focusing on anyway...

The former, I suspect, is what matters, as the latter likely requires more time to establish.

Keith Wilson said:Looking at the details for NCT04816643 Recruitment status... It’s an interventional study, specifically a Study Type : Interventional ( Clinical Trial. The focus seems to be on the Primary Outcome Measures regarding how people respond to the vaccine. The setup is an Allocation : Non-Randomized Intervention model : Parallel Assignment Masking : None ( open Label ) Primary Purpose : Prevention official Title. They're looking at an Estimated Enrollment that's quite significant. Regarding the timeline, the Estimated Primary Completion date is March 4, with the Estimated Study Completion date set for September 1. Most clinical Studies have One primary outcome measure, though you have to watch for those specific cases for clinical Studies with more Than One primary outcome measure with different completion dates... just standard procedure. Everything is tracked under the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier. Just keeping an eye on the progress...
This link is actually great.

Just learned that a clinical study actually uses Primary Outcome Measures and Secondary Outcome Measures...

The Primary Outcome Measures look like this: "Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as reported via electronic diaries for participants aged 2 to Could be vaccine side effects... or just standard COVID symptoms in kids, if not the flu...

The Secondary Outcome Measures—which the protocol defines as "planned outcome measures that aren't quite as critical as the primary ones for gauging an intervention's effect, but are still worth tracking"—are looking specifically at Geometric mean Titers of SARS-CoV-2...

So, which two were actually used by the FDA to confirm its effectiveness?

I think this is meant for the under-12 group, though we were discussing the 12-16 age bracket... and that's what the media seems to be focusing on anyway...

Precisely; while this concerns much younger children, the underlying principle remains identical.
Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
Keith Wilson said:Morgan Peterson, thanks for the link. It makes things a bit clearer...
Since everything is written in the future tense, I'm curious about some of these dates and statuses listed below (specifically, what "Recruitment status: Recruiting" and "Estimated Primary Completion date: March 4" actually imply):

"ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04816643
Recruitment status : Recruiting
First Posted : March 25, 2021
Last update Posted : June 1, 2021"

The info link says: "Recruiting: The study is currently recruiting participants."

"Study design
Go to sections
Study Type : Interventional ( Clinical Trial)
Estimated Enrollment : 4644 participants
Allocation : Non-Randomized Intervention model : Parallel Assignment Masking : None ( open Label ) Primary Purpose : Prevention official Title
Allocation : Non-Randomized Intervention model : Parallel Assignment Masking : None ( open Label ) Primary Purpose : Prevention official Title
Masking : None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose : Prevention
Official Title : Evaluate The Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of an RNA Vaccine Candidate against COVID-19 in Healthy Children < 12 Years of age
Actual Study Start Date : March 24, 2021
Estimated Primary Completion date : March 4
Estimated Study Completion date : September 1, 2023"

Thanks.

Recruitment status simply means that the study is actively enrolling patients at this moment. That timeframe can vary wildly—it might be shorter or longer depending entirely on the research protocol, the specific data points they need to harvest, and a multitude of other variables. It could be as brief as two weeks or stretch out over several years.
In this particular instance, because we are dealing with children, they must reach a specific number of participants to ensure the sample size is statistically significant for the results; this is always a hurdle in pediatric trials, as the inclusion criteria are notoriously much stricter than those for adults.
Pfizer has estimated that they will need until March 2022 to gather the required number of subjects—over 4,600 in this case. If they hit that target sooner, they will close recruitment; if they don't, they may extend it.

As for this: Estimated Primary Completion date : March 4, 2022—this indicates that by that date, while they may still be enrolling new patients, they will be conducting evaluations on those already vaccinated to measure the "Primary Outcome Measures."

Which, in English, is defined as:
In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. most clinical Studies have One primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.

Or, to put it more plainly, they are measuring the expected efficacy of the vaccine (as established in the study protocol) after a set period, which serves as the initial requirement to determine the vaccine's true effectiveness.

Regarding this: Estimated Study Completion date: September 1, 2023—this means they expect to have finished collecting all necessary data by then for the
The date on which The Last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an Intervention / treatment to collect Final data for the primary outcome measures, Secondary Outcome Measures, and adverse events (meaning, the final visit for the very last participant). The "estimated" study completion date is simply the date the researchers anticipate the study will officially conclude.

- essentially, the primary endpoint
- secondary endpoints (should there be any)
- adverse effects

Upon gathering all this information and documenting the findings in a comprehensive written report, the study reaches its conclusion.
Typically, you can find these study results published at the clinicaltrials.gov link.
Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
I suspect the author intended this thread to serve as a focused dialogue regarding whether one believes children should be vaccinated against COVID-19—exploring the "why" behind both affirmative and negative stances. Naturally, a deep dive into the clinical trials involving pediatric populations for these COVID-19 vaccines is more than welcome here.
Anything else—be it adult vaccination, the political establishment currently in power in the USA, previous pandemics, or various pharmaceutical scandals—is NOT the subject at hand, given that you have a multitude of other forums where such debates can unfold.
For now, any off-topic posts will simply be deleted; moving forward, we shall be issuing warnings.
Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
Keith Wilson said:It would be nice if our morning, evening, and local news outlets actually bothered to report the facts regarding the push for childhood vaccinations:

1. The need for this vaccine in children is being driven by the manufacturer, not your country's Department of Health based on independent studies
2. The manufacturer submits its application to a regulatory agency that relies on clinical trial data conducted by the manufacturer itself (specifically in the USA, rather than the EU)
3. The manufacturer's clinical trial measures vaccine efficacy like this:
"The study showed that the immune response to Comirnaty in this group was comparable to the immune response in the 16 to 25 age group (measured by SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels). Vaccine efficacy was calculated in approximately 2,000 children aged 12 to 15 who had no prior symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Half of the subjects received the vaccine, while the other half received a placebo. None of the 1,005 people who received the vaccine developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared to 16 out of 978 subjects who received the placebo. This means the vaccine demonstrated 100% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 disease in the trial (though the actual rate could be between 75% and 100%)."

First, they claim efficacy was measured via antibody levels. Then, they select a sample of kids who haven't shown symptoms before (shouldn't they have measured antibodies before the shot too?), only to ultimately determine efficacy based on whether symptoms appeared—not through PCR testing—and those symptoms are basically just a common cold in kids...

Morgan Peterson, please... any thoughts on point 3?

I must ask, what part of this is escaping your comprehension?

It is right here:

Immunogenicity of an RNA Vaccine Candidate against COVID-19 in Healthy Children < 12 Years of age

It clearly states:

All participants will have blood drawn AT Baseline prior to Dose 1 and 6 months after Dose 2. Immunogenicity of an RNA Vaccine Candidate against COVID-19 in Healthy Children < 12 Years of age to participants 16 to 25 years of age in the C4591001 study will be based on immunogenicity data collected at Baseline and 1 month after Dose 2. The persistence of the immune response will be based on immunogenicity data collected in participants at Baseline and at 1, 6, 12 (original BNT162b2 group only), and 24 months after Dose 2 (original BNT162b2 group only). In addition, efficacy against confirmed COVID-19 and against asymptomatic infection will also be assessed.


Baseline simply refers to the start of the study, meaning before any medication is administered.
Of course they are testing for antibodies; how else would one possibly determine whether a participant had been infected prior to or following the vaccination?
Hilderik - Feedback for the Admins in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Linda King said:The real issue here is the quality of this thread. Perhaps it isn't solely for the reason you imagine. I actually reported the first part of this discussion for hate speech—no caveats, no "ifs," no little smiley faces offered for context (just compare that to what Hilderik is doing here). Yet, the post wasn't deleted, nor was there any penalty, nor did it particularly disrupt the flow of the debate. That is why I have stopped reading. And then there is Woobie, of course—thousands upon thousands upon billions of Woobie’s posts. To be perfectly honest, both of you have become quite distasteful to me, though each in his own unique way (please don't think I am grouping you together in one single bucket).

Hilderik, however, does not employ hate speech; I know him from the Politics section—where things are known to truly heat up—and he simply possesses a somewhat more explosive writing style ("drop a bomb, chase the gang"), which is evident even in his thread over at the Ban Corner. If you read just that, it becomes clear that his comment could easily be viewed as the work of a "hero rather than a villain." It isn't outside the bounds of forum character, which is perfectly acceptable.

And now, if he is being unjustly accused, is it not only natural that he would lose his temper? Surely that ought to be taken into account when deciding on his permanent status.

One more thing—a somewhat radical idea, I know... bear with me (this goes to the admins): Why shouldn't we simply believe him if he claims his comment was misunderstood? He argued his case quite effectively in his own thread, after all.

I have been moderating that specific PDF for some time now, so I believe I am in a position to offer an opinion.
I won't delve into the disciplinary record Hilderik has accumulated; that is a judgment left to the long-term moderators.
However, Hilderik requested the permanent status himself, and right now, that sounds suspiciously like blackmail—either the moderation follows his whims, or he takes his belongings and leaves. Because he is furious. It is a display of extreme maturity, clearly.
Incidentally, I don't believe Hilderik needs to be granted permanent status, nor should he be restricted from posting in that PDF, provided he isn't insulting others.
As for the thread you are calling trash—it was started when the COVID PDF first opened, and I recall discussions about whether such a thread should even exist. Those more experienced than I predicted very accurately what this topic could devolve into, which is the exact opposite of the standard of discourse we attempt to maintain in the COVID PDF.
We left it open to allow people to write as much as they pleased, providing a sort of pressure valve, with minimal moderation intended only to punish major infractions, insults, hate speech, and the like.
Given all of this, knowing that no one will punish him for expressing his views, Hilderik, as a regular contributor to the COVID PDF, can certainly choose to mind his vocabulary and the context in which he writes.
Regarding Woobie, who seems to be a thorn in many people's sides on the COVID PDF and beyond—since when have the problems on this forum been people who have enough time to write and sustain posts that are almost always coherent, on-topic, and even conciliatory in certain PDFs? It is obvious that those with opposing views find him irritating, just as we moderators find them even more so, but is having a contrary view—which might even be a minority opinion in some threads—a reason to punish a user, or to allow him to be insulted, labeled a paid troll, and subjected to other such filth? I think not.
They have the perfectly good option of ignoring him, which is an excellent way to completely resolve high-tension debates.
That is all from me.
Forum members being insulted on Corona in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Matthew Young35 said:I submit reports, yet they are simply ignored.

But there isn't a single report from you on record. I just went ahead and checked right now. 🤔
Forum members being insulted on Corona in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I am firmly convinced that such behavior simply cannot be tolerated here. However, if an occasional insult manages to slip through the cracks, I suppose that is inevitable. It would be highly beneficial if you could report those posts directly. Otherwise, we would be forced to stand guard over every single thread, which is quite frankly an impossible task.
Quarantine Life in Coronavirus ·
Frank Martin2 said:Now, imagine you’re an elderly person with some health issues sitting in a hospital, 9.3 miles and you find out from your medical results that you’ve tested positive.

You don't have a car, you don't have cash—and even if you did, you can't just call an Uber home because you'll end up infecting the driver or whoever you might ask for a ride. (And honestly, plenty of seniors live alone these days; family moves away, and any friends they do have are usually in the exact same boat.)

So, what are you supposed to do? Request a specialized medical transport vehicle that actually meets CDC safety standards? 🤣

Seriously, tell me how someone in that position is even expected to get back home to quarantine.

If this is the same one ENFP is talking about, these vehicles traveling from Canada to Germany 🤣🤣
Second Semester 2020/21 School Year in Coronavirus ·
driftingtinker said:So, my whole class basically tanked yesterday, getting nothing but Cs—though honestly, in any sane era, they would’ve just failed outright—all because nobody has a clue how to solder. I mean, they were supposed to pick up those basics back in middle school shop class, but clearly, absolutely zero people learned a thing, and they didn't catch up in freshman year either.

Just a bunch of future electrical engineers who can't even measure voltage or solder a basic connection to save their lives.🙂

🤣 🤣
But in all seriousness, may God help us all once these kids actually enter the workforce.
I can only pray that nobody gets injured on the job. 🕺

Now, I must admit I am not entirely familiar with the standard curriculum for vocational schools elsewhere, but judging by what my own child is experiencing, this educational meltdown isn't some byproduct of the pandemic. No, it is the direct result of our leadership's utter incompetence in attempting to organize even a remotely coherent school system.
Back in the days of old-school socialism in the South, I sometimes get the feeling we were the Albert Einsteins of the world compared to them.
Second Semester 2020/21 School Year in Coronavirus ·
Quincy Adams said:Someone who spends their isolation period labeling the sick should probably have their professional credentials revoked.

If people were permitted to leave their homes during quarantine simply because they felt like it, why on earth is it suddenly an insurmountable obstacle to sit for the SATs with a negative test result? If the public school teachers are spiraling into such a frantic panic, why don't we just have healthcare workers or paid volunteers look after the kids? For heaven's sake, it isn't as if supervising a standardized exam requires the structural complexity of engineering an intergalactic spacecraft...

Exactly.
To deny a child who has spent years grinding and studying the chance to take their exams just because of a quarantine period is nothing short of utter nonsense—it’s a blatant form of discrimination.
And no, it is absolutely not the same thing to just "try again next year" for your preferred university; that shouldn't even be a point of debate. Not everyone has an extra year to spare, nor do they all possess the nerves, the cash, or the patience to rot at home just because they were barred from a single day of testing.
If we treat this like a pandemic for children, then we must treat schools and universities with the same logic: they need to step up and organize. Schools should implement makeup exam dates, and colleges should push back enrollment until every interested student has had the opportunity to apply.
But no, we are powerless, because "it's a pandemic."

I graduated and started college right in the middle of a war zone, and I certainly don't recall anyone making a massive scene or refusing to hold graduation exams just because there was a legitimate risk of being shot at.
I also clearly remember two of our professors showing up to proctor our exams straight from the battlefield.
The truth is, when there is actual will, there is always a way.
Quarantine Life in Coronavirus ·
placidnomad87 said:But what exactly prompted you to get tested in the first place? Does a positive result automatically trigger a mandatory quarantine for everyone living under the same roof? And what happens if someone was merely exposed and there's just some suspicion about it—in those instances, are all household members required to go into isolation as well?

I actually started developing symptoms myself; I ran a slight fever and lost both my sense of taste and smell. After those symptoms began on Tuesday, I reported them to the CDC on Thursday, and they didn't come to test me until the following Tuesday. If you factor in the two days it takes to receive the test results, that's pretty much the entire duration of the isolation period.
Quarantine Life in Coronavirus ·
coastaltiger7 said:It's been about 10 days since her isolation period ended.

Either this was written incorrectly, or it's simply imprecise.
My household members were required to be in self-isolation from the very day I received my positive test result. As far as I was concerned, my isolation period began when symptoms first appeared, but since I wasn't even tested until nearly ten days later, I was technically only in isolation for one single day; meanwhile, they had to remain in isolation for another nine days following my lead.
Should we bring back lockdowns? in Coronavirus ·
How can anyone still be scratching their head wondering why certain posts seem to vanish into thin air? I feel it is absolutely necessary to remind everyone of a specific subforum rule that was implemented back on January 26, 2021: Comparing anti-epidemic measures to genocide, Nazism, or any other similar atrocities will henceforth be subject to stricter penalties.
Wobbie etc. in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Hilderik didn't receive a formal strike until after I personally cautioned him to maintain a civilized tone in the no-points section, followed by yet another warning I issued directly within the thread.
Everything is laid bare in the discussion because I made a point not to delete any posts; given how much information and detail they contain, I simply didn't want to erase all that effort.

We also communicated privately, where I clarified that we cannot penalize users merely for expressing their opinions, regardless of how misguided or incorrect you might find those views to be.
The reality is that he was warned multiple times to settle down and cease the insults, yet he chose to persist.

It begs the question—exactly how many warnings does one need to receive before facing a heavy strike or a permanent ban?
We aren't in kindergarten here, gentlemen.

Woobie received a strike very shortly thereafter following a report, but unlike some of you, he actually accepts the decision, corrects his behavior, and moves on.
Wobbie etc. in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Larry Allen34 said:This isn't "my truth"—these are official FACTS—and that is precisely where the issue lies, when people resort to trolling something that shouldn't even be up for debate, all while Woobie tries to frame my position as merely a personal opinion. I corrected my own slip-up regarding whether the modified vaccine was rolled out in 2016 or 2018, yet that minor correction is being weaponized to dismiss undeniable realities. And the reality is this...

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and their team introduced a new modified vaccine back in 2016.

Since 2017, his team has been aware of potential complications stemming from field mutations, where the virus utilizes all three variants to find an opening—an opening it found in the type 2 strain, which they excluded from the modified vaccine, yet they continued pushing forward for the next three years regardless.

The WHO is publishing false claims about having conquered polio in Africa—it appears the supposed victory happened in the latter half of 2019, not 2020 (a strain that had already vanished in 2016 due to the application of the Sabin-2 vaccine). Just seven days after those reports, there was a massive damage-control fallout once the information leaked through independent media outlets and eventually reached mainstream giants like the Guardian and others.

Only then did the WHO admit to the mess, even suggesting they might reconsider the Sabin-2 vaccine just to fix the disaster they created—a disaster that, in plain English, translates to hundreds upon hundreds of children dying every single year in the depths of Africa.

And for this entire catastrophe? Not a single soul has been held accountable.

These are facts, not mere perspectives; every single one of these points is backed by the numerous links I’ve provided from both independent and mainstream sources. Ultimately, you can even find the evidence of this "damage control" on the official WHO website itself, though naturally, it's phrased as a formal statement saying, "this happened, and now we are cooperating with the health ministries of the affected countries to rectify the situation."

https://www.who.int/csr/don/29-novem...can-region/en/

So, when someone denies the connection between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and this modified vaccine—which is indisputably their product—or denies that we waited three years, or claims the entire scientific community is responsible for the oversight, that isn't a debate. It is pure, unadulterated trolling, and it really ought to be sanctioned!

Alright, I hear you, and I do remember—though the details are a bit hazy—that there was indeed some kind of scandal involving that polio vaccine.

However, I still struggle with the idea that we should punish someone for trolling if all they are doing is offering a different interpretation of the events.
By that logic, anyone who writes that they don't want to be vaccinated, or doesn't want their children vaccinated, because they have a fear—whether rational or perceived—of vaccines altering DNA, should be punished as a troll. To me, that simply isn't fair.
People have every right to express their opinions, their fears, and even their misconceptions.
Wobbie etc. in Feedback & Suggestions ·
@Amy Rogers6, I have received the reports.

However, one must understand that the essence of moderation is not for us to sit in judgment and declare who is right or wrong,
but rather to ensure that the discourse remains civilized—or, as my late grandmother used to say, fluid.

In the warning, I explicitly stated: please communicate civilly and cease these accusations of being trolls or liars.
Furthermore, if a particular segment of a user's post grates on your nerves, why not simply bypass it? Why not focus instead on other areas where you might dismantle their points with superior arguments—be they factual, rhetorical, or logical—since that is the nature of such topics.
What you hold to be an absolute truth may be perceived as a falsehood by another, yet does that truly preclude the possibility of dialogue?

It would be a profound shame to delete everything and issue a ban, particularly since you have contributed such lengthy and engaging posts; therefore, I simply ask that you de-escalate the tension.
Wobbie etc. in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Since when did this forum become a playground for dragging other members through the mud—especially when you're essentially complaining about a mess you helped create?

If this kind of behavior is actually permitted here, then perhaps I should feel empowered to start several highly specific threads, naming those individuals who get under my skin right in the title, just to give everyone else a clear target for their own grievances.
After all, wouldn't we all agree that targeted venting is far more productive for "healthy" communication than simply hitting the ignore button?
I may have missed the exact moment when a moderator finally wandered into the unmoderated section of this forum to issue a warning stating that the thread would be under moderation from this point forward.

That has been the standard operating procedure for as long as I have been following this forum, which, quite frankly, feels like an eternity.
However, I suppose they decided to take a shortcut this time, didn't they?
Not that it matters, since the whole thing is fundamentally flawed and patently unfair. ☕

Furthermore, if you look at the PDF, those malicious trolls have been left entirely to their own devices; they maintain profiles solely to push agendas that clearly fail to gain any traction in the public sphere, yet somehow find a foothold here.
And as I sit here typing this very sentence, they are busy flooding the corona PDF thread with nothing but pure idiocy.

I personally flagged over twenty individual posts for harassment and trolling, but of course, my efforts were met with absolute silence.

But fine, let Peter—also known as Ginger—have his way.

🤦