What is PASC?

[Roy]

Why do you suspect it is "really" going somewhere else instead of research?

All of those grants are public information.

Thank you for the link.
I think that the COVID Relief package is a prime example of misdirected funding and a good reason for suspicion with regard to any further COVID funding. Only a small percentage of the COVID Relief money actually went to COVID Relief.

 

[Baptist Believer]

How about the pro-life person who objects because of the use of fetal tissue (aborted or otherwise) in the making of the vaccine?

Fetal tissue was not used in the making of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, nor the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

This ridiculous declaration of yours while you tacitly support the party of abortion...

I do not support either the Republican or Democratic Party. I have supplied no funds to either, nor have I claimed to be a Republican since 2016. I have never claimed to be a Democrat, nor attended any meeting in support of, or held by, the Democratic Party. So let's stop this nonsense about "support."

...reminds me of when you said, with a straight face, that one could support the party.......and not support the plank.

Do you believe in every plank of the Republican platform? If not, how can you support the Party?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Thank you for the link.

Glad to help. Look around to see what they are soliciting for and what has already been awarded.

I think that the COVID Relief package is a prime example of misdirected funding and a good reason for suspicion with regard to any further COVID funding.

Compared to other areas where there is little oversight, there isn't much fraud at all in these types of grants. My brother applies for similar kinds of grants for his laboratory (he mostly pursues chemical synthesis processes for cancer research), and they have to jump through a lot of hoops to get funded.

 

[rlvaughn]

Fetal tissue was not used in the making of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, nor the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

From the first article:

Johnson & Johnson uses fetal cell lines in the production of its vaccine, whereas Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna do not.

From the second article:

However, Pfizer and Moderna did perform confirmation tests (to ensure the vaccines work) using fetal cell lines. And Johnson & Johnson uses fetal cell lines in vaccine development, confirmation and production.

Both articles go on to explain the difference between fetal cell lines and fetal tissue.

Banerji explained that these cell lines were taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since been grown in the lab for 30 to 40 years, creating fetal cell lines.

Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s.

This agrees with information supplied by the Lozier Foundation:

• AstraZeneca/University of Oxford used some abortion-derived cell lines in Confirmatory Lab Tests, Design & Development, and Production.
• Moderna, Inc./National Institutes of Health and Pfizer/BioNTech used some abortion-derived cell lines in some Confirmatory Lab Tests, but not in Design & Development or Production.
• Janssen Research/Johnson & Johnson used some abortion-derived cell lines in some Confirmatory Lab Tests, as well as in Design & Development and Production.

Different sources I have checked seem to agree on this concerning the three vaccines currently available in the US. People can and should educate themselves with this information and make an informed decision that will fit their conscience, based on the facts. Some people believe the cell lines are so far removed from the original fetal tissue produced by abortions as to not be a moral issue, while other do not so believe.

 

[Van]

To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative.

Posting "It is just fine to believe folks should be vaccinated, just do not present a false narrative to dupe others to agree." proves you did indeed say something about a false narrative."
And here was my response. "To suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a "false narrative" is irresponsible twaddle."

Pay no attention to the fear mongers, and get vaccinated if your Doctor recommends that you get vaccinated, seems like sound advice to me.

 

[rlvaughn]

And here was my response. "To suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a "false narrative" is irresponsible twaddle."

Yes, and that is what I am referring to. I did not suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative, but in your response you pretend that I did. Pay attention to what is written.

 

[Wingman68]

Fetal tissue was not used in the making of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, nor the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.


I do not support either the Republican or Democratic Party. I have supplied no funds to either, nor have I claimed to be a Republican since 2016. I have never claimed to be a Democrat, nor attended any meeting in support of, or held by, the Democratic Party. So let's stop this nonsense about "support."


Do you believe in every plank of the Republican platform? If not, how can you support the Party?

Did you vote for Biden or Trump?

The Republican party will not be supported by me. I will support individual candidates running under the R banner, however. I would never support any candidate running under the D banner. Please inform me, Christian to Christian, which plank of the Republican platform that should be abhorant to me/us?

Here is a quote from you on Sunday, “One of the reasons I really dislike much of what goes on here by some of the most prominent posters is that I'm sure we are creating atheists or agnostics by the way some are treated here. I would have disappeared long ago for good except I try to stick around to throw a life vest of grace to people who need time and patience to work out their faith.”
#3Baptist Believer, Sunday at 10:53

Narcissistic. You have thrown down insults, & accusations with the best of them. But to hear you here........what a guy. I wish I knew THAT guy. I have had you blocked just to spare myself from getting sucked into your word games, which you believe you excel at, apparently. That is why you’re here, my opinion.

 

[Van]

Yes, and that is what I am referring to. I did not suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative, but in your response you pretend that I did. Pay attention to what is written.

Folks this guy said he did not say anything about a false narrative. Then he denies the quote. Pay no attention to posters of obvious falsehood. And get vaccinated if your doctor recommends that you get vaccinated.

Rvaughn said, "To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative."
But this what he posted, "It is just fine to believe folks should be vaccinated, just do not present a false narrative to dupe others to agree."
And here was my response. "To suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a "false narrative" is irresponsible twaddle."

 

[rlvaughn]

Folks this guy said he did not say anything about a false narrative. Then he denies the quote. Pay no attention to posters of obvious falsehood. And get vaccinated if your doctor recommends that you get vaccinated.

Rvaughn said, "To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative."
But this what he posted, "It is just fine to believe folks should be vaccinated, just do not present a false narrative to dupe others to agree."
And here was my response. "To suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a "false narrative" is irresponsible twaddle."

Your response "To suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a 'false narrative' is irresponsible twaddle" was initially attached to my comment that "I don't tell anyone to get vaccinated or not get vaccinated." (Post # 14). You have a problem with reading comprehension. In my response to your post # 14 (post # 18), you miss the meaning, and especially the word "that" in what I wrote. I did not write "I said nothing about false narrative," but "To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative." That is, "that" standing for the idea of suggesting the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative.

The posts are there for anyone who wants to go back and check the exchanges. Going back, one can see I first simply called attention to your own words and said what you are saying works both ways. I did not say or suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative.

I will say "To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative" in another way which might help those who wish to understand. It is a false narrative on your part for you to make the comment you did when you quoted me, because I never said that the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative.

I will not indulge you any further in your desire to argue over something apparently just for the purpose of arguing, or because you imagine something I did not say. Good day.

 

[Van]

Your response "To suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a 'false narrative' is irresponsible twaddle" was initially attached to my comment that "I don't tell anyone to get vaccinated or not get vaccinated." (Post # 14). You have a problem with reading comprehension. In my response to your post # 14 (post # 18), you miss the meaning, and especially the word "that" in what I wrote. I did not write "I said nothing about false narrative," but "To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative." That is, "that" standing for the idea of suggesting the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative.

The posts are there for anyone who wants to go back and check the exchanges. Going back, one can see I first simply called attention to your own words and said what you are saying works both ways. I did not say or suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative.

I will say "To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative" in another way which might help those who wish to understand. It is a false narrative on your part for you to make the comment you did when you quoted me, because I never said that the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative.

I will not indulge you any further in your desire to argue over something apparently just for the purpose of arguing, or because you imagine something I did not say. Good day.

Good Golly, even when the case is made by direct quotes, this guy claims he did not say what he said.

Rvaughn said, "To post such a reply to my post when I said nothing about that is a false narrative."
But this what he posted, "It is just fine to believe folks should be vaccinated, just do not present a false narrative to dupe others to agree."
And here was my response. "To suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a "false narrative" is irresponsible twaddle."

My position is "get vaccinated if your Doctor recommends getting vaccinated for Covid."

His position is non-existent, thus "just for the purpose of arguing."

 

[Van]

And how many of those even had the opportunity to be vaccinated? One could (incorrectly) conclude from above posts that you imply that refusing to be vaccinated has resulted in 450,000 needless deaths. I'm sure some deaths have, and will, occur among those unwilling to be vaccinated, but based partly on my experience and partly on the timing of vaccine roll-out, my wild guess is that at present less than 10,000 fatalities fit that refused-vaccine profile. Which is nearly 10k too many, of course.

I began trying to be vaccinated soon after our state expanded vaccinations beyond first responders and medical staff, to include 70+. I finally got my 1st Moderna shot on March 5 with the 2nd set for April 2, and according to medical folks the full effect of the vaccinations isn't until 14 days past shot #2. Many many others have yet to be included in vaccine availability - our state expanded to include 60+ (my young wife's 1st shot is set for 3/30) so a death of a 50-year-old here could not be laid to refusal (yet).

Yes, misrepresenting the views of others is the stock and trade of false teachers. My point is that had the vaccine been both available and taken by at least 500,000 of those who died from COVID, or its complications, at least 450,000 would not have died. Those that suggest or imply the down side risks of the vaccine somehow out weight the advantages are irresponsible fear mongers, in my opinion.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Yes, and that is what I am referring to. I did not suggest the case for getting vaccinated is a false narrative, but in your response you pretend that I did. Pay attention to what is written.

Perhaps only the first line of post #14 was in response to you while the second, including "false narrative", was aimed at the ardent anti-vaccers? If that assumption is correct, it would've saved a lot of unnecessary back and forth had that post been more clear about who was being targeted.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Did you vote for Biden or Trump?

I voted for the person most likely to get Trump out of office – that was Joe Biden.

The Republican party will not be supported by me. I will support individual candidates running under the R banner, however. I would never support any candidate running under the D banner. Please inform me, Christian to Christian, which plank of the Republican platform that should be abhorant to me/us?

First, let me mention what I particularly like about it.

The following statement is outstanding and expresses well one of the major reasons why Republicans should not vote for Donald Trump:

--
“We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law. We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination.”

“The current Administration has exceeded its constitutional authority, brazenly and flagrantly violated the separation of powers, sought to divide America into groups and turn citizen against citizen. The President has refused to defend or enforce laws he does not like, used executive orders to enact national policies in areas constitutionally reserved solely to Congress...” (page 9 of Republican Platform)
--

This is also outstanding:

“The next president must restore the public’s trust in law enforcement and civil order by first adhering to the rule of law himself.” (page 39 of Republican Platform)
--

As for parts of the Republican platform I find problematic include the following:

-
“We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.” (Page 12 of Republican Platform)
-

The FCC’s Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, so calling for “an end” to the Fairness Doctrine in 2016 seems to be dishonest – something written to mislead voters into thinking it is a relevant issue.
--

Here’s another problematic plank that undermines the biblical ecological mandate to properly manage the earth. Clean water is essential for life to flourish:

-
“The EPA’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, issued jointly with the Army Corps of Engineers, is a travesty. It extends the government’s jurisdiction over navigable waters into the micro-management of puddles and ditches on farms, ranches, and other privately-held property. Ditches, dry creek beds, stock ponds, prairie potholes, and other non- navigable wet areas are already regulated by the states. WOTUS is now subject to judicial review and must be invalidated, but that will not be sufficient. Unelected bureaucrats must be stopped from furthering the Democratic Party’s political agenda through regulatory demands forced upon citizens and businesses beyond that which is required by law. We must never allow federal agencies to seize control of state waters, watersheds, or groundwater. State waters, watersheds, and groundwater must be the purview of the sovereign states.” (Page 18 of the Republican Platform)
-

I used to work for an engineering company that was one of the nation’s leaders in all facets of water planning, capture, purification, storage, transmission, and reuse. I know quite a bit about the “Waters of the United States” rule, and to exclude private property from regulations where pollution enters the watershed completely undermines ANY national program for clean water. Since water flows downslope, the actions of one state directly affect another, so it is only reasonable that there be a national policy that has precedence over the state’s regulations.
--

Another problematic plank is the anti-BDS position that already stifles, by law, viewpoints other than pro-Israeli secular government violence against others. It is a violation of religious and free speech rights. The appeal to “academic freedom” and claiming it is “anti-Semitic” is a cynical distraction from the real issues:

-
“We condemn the campus-based BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) campaign against Israel. It is anti- Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom.” (Page 35 of Republican Platform)

AND

“We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier and specifically recognize that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) is anti-Semitic in nature and seeks to destroy Israel. Therefore, we call for effective legislation to thwart actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.” (Page 47 of the Republican Platform)
-

What they don’t mention is that in many states, including mine, that companies are required to certify that they will not boycott Israel if they desire to perform any work in the public sector. That’s literally an enforcement of a political opinion that can undermine the ability of firms to work in the United States.

And before anyone tells me that Christians are required to approve of whatever Israel does, let me point you back to the Old Testament prophets and Jesus. Ask yourself if strong critiques of Israel is “anti-Semitic” or anti-Christian. Obviously, they are not.
--

There are other planks that are issues, but I think I have made my point. There are areas where I find strong agreement, which made a great argument against voting for Donald Trump in 2020 (unless one wants to be a hypocrite). There are other planks that I believe many Christians would reject.

Here is a quote from you on Sunday, “One of the reasons I really dislike much of what goes on here by some of the most prominent posters is that I'm sure we are creating atheists or agnostics by the way some are treated here. I would have disappeared long ago for good except I try to stick around to throw a life vest of grace to people who need time and patience to work out their faith.”

#3Baptist Believer, Sunday at 10:53

Narcissistic. You have thrown down insults, & accusations with the best of them.

I have never been accused of being a narcissist by anyone who knows me in real life. I suspect I am not, but I will check in with my wife and friends.

You accuse me of throwing down insults… Actually, I don’t ever intentionally insult people. If I say something that you find insulting, be aware I am not trying to insult you. I really mean what I say. I speak quite directly and I’m hoping, unlike with an insult, to appeal to your reason, not your emotions.

Regarding “accusations,” I do make accusations from time to time. I do not make them lightly, and I truly mean them. I try to never make a false accusation (unlike what is often done around here), and if you think I have made a false accusation about you, let’s talk about it. I might be wrong.

But to hear you here........what a guy. I wish I knew THAT guy.

I am that guy, but it is clear that you don't know me.

I have had you blocked just to spare myself from getting sucked into your word games, which you believe you excel at, apparently. That is why you’re here, my opinion.

I don’t play word games, however, I do like to be precise, since a lot of labels are thrown around here that have no meaning other than to paint people one way or the other.

But if I am blocked, then I doubt you will see this and this whole exchange is futile.

 

[Salty]

Baptist believer said in his post stated:
"The FCC’s Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, so calling for “an end” to the Fairness Doctrine in 2016 seems to be dishonest – something written to mislead voters into thinking it is a relevant issue."

Back in the 60's going into the '70" there were very few radio and TV stations
So the Fairness doctrine was justified.
But now the number of radio TV stations has geatly increased
In my city, has a child - form 2 TV stations to currently 8 or nine stations -
not to mention the several sub staions, - and same with radio.
In addition, we now have the internet where anyone can have their own podcast.,

So, if a radio station is making a lot of money airing Rush Limbaugh
but for "fairness" they put on a liberal talk show host - they could end up loosing money.

Here int he Salt City, the station that carries Rush - then decided to put on a liberal at night
Well, the rating were horrible, and the station lost money.
Should the govt make a station air something, that would cause them to loose money?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Should the govt make a station air something, that would cause them to loose money?

The government doesn't. That's the point.

The FCC abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, so for the 2016 Republican Platform* to call for it's abolishment is ridiculous. Either Republicans are completely uninformed, or else they are dishonestly inventing an issue for gullible voters.

* I cited the 2016 Republican Platform since that's the last time Republicans bothered to create one. In 2020, they essentially ran on the personality of Donald Trump (the "American First" agenda), claiming the 2016 platform still stands.

Of course, an "America First" agenda should trouble any Christian, since we are only secondarily citizens of the United States, and our first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God, which prioritizes the needs of the entire world.

 

[Salty]

The government doesn't. That's the point..

NO, that is NOT the point I was making. At one point with few stations -I could understand - but now with multiple stations. the fairness doctrine is not needed.

So, let me ask the question this way.
If you were in charge of a brand new county that had a multitude of radio and TV stations, not to mention podcasts on the net - would you consider that a fairness doctrine is needed and should be established?

 

[Baptist Believer]

NO, that is NOT the point I was making. At one point with few stations -I could understand - but now with multiple stations. the fairness doctrine is not needed.

So, let me ask the question this way.
If you were in charge of a brand new county that had a multitude of radio and TV stations, not to mention podcasts on the net - would you consider that a fairness doctrine is needed and should be established?

No.

But that's not what the 2016 Republican Platform claims.

Its reads, “We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.” (Page 12 of Republican Platform)

It would like me calling for an end to Prohibition or demanding that women be given the right to vote. The call to change something necessarily requires the existence of the thing addressed.

It's a variation of the old, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. In order for it to be a coherent question, the person being asked the question would have to be beating his wife.

The question is asked to make the hearer think the condition exists. It's a dishonest question, although it is quite popular in propaganda. It's like the question, "Who is the person behind the scenes controlling President Biden?" or "How many children has Donald Trump raped?" Without evidence that the situation has existed or currently exists, it is a form of attack.

So your question about what I believe about the Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant to what the Republican Platform alleges by its "position" regarding something that has not been in effect for 29 years at the time of its writing.

 

[percho]

There are over 500,000 thousand examples of long term affects of not being vaccinated. I know a little about how fear mongering works. It is just another form of intimidation, do as I say or "something bad will happen."

It is just fine to believe folks should not be vaccinated, just do not present a false narrative to dupe others to agree.

Consider the number of people who were convinced not to get vaccinated, and subsequently died of Covid? How many of those people are there? Apparently by May or June pretty much all the people who want to be vaccinated, will have been vaccinated. So subsequent deaths from Covid among those not vaccinated by choice will be the responsibility of the fear mongers.

Will any of the vaccinated die from Covid. Whose fault will that be? Who will determine whether they died from covid or something else? Dr F

Trust the science. Fallible or infallible?

 

[Van]

Will any of the vaccinated die from Covid. Whose fault will that be? Who will determine whether they died from covid or something else? Dr F

Trust the science. Fallible or infallible?

Since the vaccines are less than 100% efficacious, and it takes maybe two weeks between getting it in the arm and when its effect reaches peak, no one should ask "will any of the vaccinated die of Covid."

Finding fault is an exercise in futility.

Yes, godless people present falsehood to further their agenda.

 

[percho]

Since the vaccines are less than 100% efficacious, and it takes maybe two weeks between getting it in the arm and when its effect reaches peak, no one should ask "will any of the vaccinated die of Covid."

Finding fault is an exercise in futility.

Yes, godless people present falsehood to further their agenda.

Heart attack, cancer, hit by lighting, Pneumonia, run over by a truck, covid, flu, house fire. atomic bomb, gun shot intentional or unintentional, old age,

Causes of death or means of death?

Fault?
Godless people?

6:23