Vaccine mandates

stunspore

Member
But, if you want to believe that these chemicals are not toxic to the body in any amounts, then be my guest to test this hypothesis.
We all breathe in carbon monoxide as soon as we are outside. Already tested. So far you aren't dead from the looks of it.
And walking past someone who has a ciggie, sure passive smoking, but the nicotine if present in the smoke, isn't the killer part to the walker-by.
And yeh we all eat nuts/rice containing trace amounts of cyanide and still not dead.
 

stunspore

Member
Here is another question for you to ignore, avoid, and dismiss. Two people are sitting in a restaurant. One is vaccinated, and the other is not. The unvaccinated person is asked too leave, and the vaccinated person can stay. Can't the vaccinated person be infected with Covid-19? Since there are MORE vaccinated people with Covid-19, it would seem more logical that vaccinated people should be the ones asked to leave. Based on the statistical risks alone. Right?
I reckon more people die with seatbelts on than those without. Maybe we should punish those who wear seatbelts? Based on the statistic risks alone right?
Percentage vs raw numbers. If you claim to be a good maths person (from you "critical thinking skill"), you'll know which stat is the correct one to use for comparison. In case you aren't, you should use the percentage one.
There's a higher chance that unvax person is diseased-ridden - that was the point of vaccination and you did acknowledge that to some degree it works.
 

stunspore

Member
I am a prochoice believer. And, there are hundreds of thousands of REAL like-minded Australians who also feel the same way I do.
Yep - we've seen those protest rallies at pretty much every capital city. You're not the only cultist/qnon believer/brainwashed person. It does feel more empowering that there are other like-minded people out there.

It comes down to balancing prochoice and compulsory choice through risks/rewards. Just that you've chosen to go with covid vaccine a prochoice, while other government rules compulsory. And either:
- gone prochoice because of your pseudoscience/poor understanding of science/conspiracy issues
- gone prochoice and made up your pseudoscience/deliberate make belief with nonscience to support your prochoice.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Based on known chemistry - i am not aware how acetic acid/acetate ->fat (triglyceride). And it seems like you had a fruitless internet search, so you put the onus of me proving a negative -> which is ridiculous. If there was an established pathway, it would be there in the research by now, since alcohol interaction is well studied. The triglycerides are produced from long chain fatty acids -> and there's not a pathway i am aware that takes the 2 carbon chain acetate/acetic acid and joins them up to make a long chain fatty acid. In addition, "That is, the carbon in the carboxyl group is removed. " -> i think you must mean the hydrogen in the carboxyl group. Removing carbon from the carboxyl group... that would be bit too weird. It's ok, a typo?
Well, at least you do know something about chemistry. I meant the proton(the hydrogen) in the carboxyl(COOH) group. I didn't mean the Carbon atom that these elements bind to. That would be very weird for the compound indeed! I am also trying to refresh my memory of many years gone by. So, It may well have been a typo for using Carbon instead of Hydrogen.

I am NOT interested in shifting the burden of proof. That requires that I waste my time proving to you why my own statements are not false. This would relieve you of the responsibility of demonstrating WHY my statements are not true. I stated that Acetate with CoA form Acetyl CoA. This enzyme is used in the biosynthesis and metabolism of fatty acids. These fatty acids plus glycogen, are stored in the liver as fat. Now, if this is false, or pseudoscience as you claim, then it would be nice if you could share your reasons as to WHY it just ain't so! "I don't know", although honest, is not a practical reason. Also, I really don't want to go down this lipid bio-synthesis rabbit hole, when we were talking about any amount of alcohol as being toxic to the body.

You said, that in small amounts all of the toxins I've mentioned are NOT toxic to the body. I said that they all are. They may be LESS TOXIC in small amounts, but still toxic none the less. Quantity may determine the level of toxicity or harm, but it doesn't make a toxin, a non-toxin.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
We all breathe in carbon monoxide as soon as we are outside. Already tested. So far you aren't dead from the looks of it.
And walking past someone who has a ciggie, sure passive smoking, but the nicotine if present in the smoke, isn't the killer part to the walker-by.
And yeh we all eat nuts/rice containing trace amounts of cyanide and still not dead.
So you define a toxin, as any substance that kills you!! If it don't kill you, it is not a toxin? I disagree! This is definitely not my definition of any substance that is toxic to the body

I reckon more people die with seatbelts on than those without. Maybe we should punish those who wear seatbelts? Based on the statistic risks alone right?
Percentage vs raw numbers. If you claim to be a good maths person (from you "critical thinking skill"), you'll know which stat is the correct one to use for comparison. In case you aren't, you should use the percentage one.
There's a higher chance that unvax person is diseased-ridden - that was the point of vaccination and you did acknowledge that to some degree it works.
I reckon more people die with seatbelts on than those without. Maybe we should punish those who wear seatbelts? Based on the statistic risks alone right?
Percentage vs raw numbers. If you claim to be a good maths person (from you "critical thinking skill"), you'll know which stat is the correct one to use for comparison. In case you aren't, you should use the percentage one.
There's a higher chance that unvax person is diseased-ridden - that was the point of vaccination and you did acknowledge that to some degree it works.
Just sheer gibberish. You are all over the place. I have no idea what you're talking about. The point I was making was, that being vaccinated does NOT prevent anyone from being infected, transmitting, or dying from this virus. Vaccinated or unvaccinated! This is a simple, verifiable, and provable fact, that we are seeing everyday from the hospital reports alone.

Without actual evidence, a "higher chance", means nothing. Based on "fucking what."?? Based on the daily hospital reports, it seems to be the vaccinated people who are "disease-ridden". Not the unvaccinated!

And yes this vaccine does work. But only in its specificity to an antigen. Unfortunately, viruses do not stay specific for long. They will just mutate to avoid this vaccine's specificity(high affinity). Fortunate, our natural immunity is less specific(low affinity), and will recognize the virus, regardless of its mutations. Think of it as a vaccine that only recognizes the steering wheel of a car. And an immune system that recognizes the entire car. But hey, eventually there will be mRNA vaccines for every part of the car for you to take.

Yep - we've seen those protest rallies at pretty much every capital city. You're not the only cultist/qnon believer/brainwashed person. It does feel more empowering that there are other like-minded people out there.

It comes down to balancing prochoice and compulsory choice through risks/rewards. Just that you've chosen to go with covid vaccine a prochoice, while other government rules compulsory. And either:
- gone prochoice because of your pseudoscience/poor understanding of science/conspiracy issues
- gone prochoice and made up your pseudoscience/deliberate make belief with nonscience to support your prochoice.
Again, this sounds like gibberish, and double talk. I don't give a shit if you want to believe that I am paralyzed with a fear of needles. I don't give a shit, if you want to believe that prochoice people are cultists, who believe only in pseudoscience, or the fucking Loch Ness Monster. I don't give a shit if you choose to stick a hundred of these vaccines into your body. But only a total moron would not understand the dangers for abuse, when your freedom to choose what goes into your body is taken away. That is where the line is drawn. And hundreds of thousands of other Australians, feel the same way. This NOT empowering, this is just amazement at the complete lack of common sense. You wouldn't want anyone to take one of your kids away from you, just because of a one-child government policy? Or, maybe you would, if they gave you a good enough reason!

This has nothing to do with science you idiot! This has to do with the freedom CHOICE ALONE!! I don't have to know dick about science to simple say no thank you. But because I do, I definitely will say no thank you! And, because of all the forcing, coercing, shaming, discriminating, and threatening, I am definitely saying NO THANK YOU!!! How the fuck do you balance something that you take away? How do you balance something with nothing??
 

stunspore

Member
Well i tried to help de-brainwash, but it seems it's fully rusted-on, hard-core conspiracy ridden, Trump-like "it's all about me" cultist.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
My Pfizer booster caused a slightly sore arm for half a day. I am in my mid 70s so the risk for me clearly lies in not being vaccinated.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Well i tried to help de-brainwash, but it seems it's fully rusted-on, hard-core conspiracy ridden, Trump-like "it's all about me" cultist.

Shell is an absolute fanatic. There is no reasoning with him.

Lost cause.

All replying to him does is provoke pages of relentless reply, all utter rubbish..

Abandon hope.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So, is there an answer anywhere in this elitist, hateful, bigoted, and vitriolic circle-jerk session? Of course not! Do any of you genius see any dangers of abuse, when any government can force its citizens(directly or indirectly), to stick anything they want(even vitamins) into their bodies without their consent? If there was at least a 20% mortality rate, a 30% survival rate, fewer induced variants, high vaccine efficacy, minor side effects, full vaccine ingredient disclosure, or any evidence that the vaccine is working, THEN MAYBE!

I believe that even if the government held the children of unvaccinated Australians to ransom, until they got vaccinated, you morons would still be rationalizing the merits of this policy. But of course you already have this crap in your body. So, what else would I expect you to say? "I'm an idiotic sheeple!"??

If sticking multiple genetic-based, antibody-inducing, lipid nanoparticles into your body, can somehow relieve your irrational fear of this manufactured viral apocalypse, THEN GO FOR IT! The virus will just keep mutating, and more genetic vaccines will continue to be manufactured. Next step, YOU'LL HAVE TO START PAYING FOR YOUR IN-VOGUE FIXES!

How ironic. The government uses a flu pandemic to foster fear, uncertainty, and anxiety. Then it creates a demand for an experimental product. Then it sells this snake-oil as the solution to the same fears it has created. Then it squashes, denigrates, discriminates, and demonizes any and all dissentions and disagreements. It lies to us about giving our freedoms back, every time a new vaccine goal is reached. And, now, we have more viral variants than we do vaccines. Looks like you sheeples will be shooting up for the long haul. This government has turned you all into vaccine junkies! If I go out, I'd like to go out naturally. Good luck!
 

stunspore

Member
well, even given Shell a chance to provide research/information on alcohol to fat, Shell couldn't even do that. i would have liked to learn something real. In the end, pseudoscience. And "my rights, my choice" droning.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
well, even given Shell a chance to provide research/information on alcohol to fat, Shell couldn't even do that. i would have liked to learn something real. In the end, pseudoscience. And "my rights, my choice" droning.
Yeah, who gives a shit about the rights to choose what goes into your body? Silly, right? Even without the "bum-fuck" science you claim to know, you should still know better.

So you're saying that you don't have a clue if the liver does detoxify ethanol into acetate(in spite of the pathways and sources I keep posting)? Or, will answer any of the questions that I keep asking? You're saying that my job is to prove to you that the opposite of what I believe is NOT true(a negative)? And, to keep doing so, in the hopes that you might agree with me? And, all the time, you contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion? You provide no evidence, answer no questions, or can't provide any consistent logic or examples. You are just another sad trolling coward! The chances of convincing you closed minded, egocentric, ignorant sheeples, with dominate submissive/insecurity genes, to ever admit that you could be wrong, would be the same chances of God himself trying to convince theists that he doesn't exist. So keep lying to yourself, because history will certainly reveal the truth. And, you will have no choice but to accept it!! OR NOT!!

In the mean time, just do what you're told to do.
 

stunspore

Member
All i am asking Shell, is a link or 2 showing the biological/chemical pathways from alcohol to fat. I can't seem to locate it. It would be enlightening to me if you can.
It may not relate to the thread, which most of your stuff usually isn't.
But i think at least this is one which can easily be demonstrated.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
yes, we could have locked in a mental institution, but I'm not so sure thats the answer you want
I just found out, that a close friend of mine(Roy), is dying from stage 4 skin cancer(Squamous Cell Carcinoma). He needs an experimental, but approved treatment, which has had some success. The treatment cost $120K. Because the treatment is experimental, all Government funding and other charities have refused him.

Yet, the government can spend billions on this experimental shit, and distribute it out to everyone for free. Go figure!!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
All i am asking Shell, is a link or 2 showing the biological/chemical pathways from alcohol to fat. I can't seem to locate it. It would be enlightening to me if you can.
It may not relate to the thread, which most of your stuff usually isn't.
But i think at least this is one which can easily be demonstrated.
Fuck off troll!! Play your silly playground games in the sand pit. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing. If a chem teacher can't find a alcohol to fat pathway, then he ain't much of a teacher. And, if there were no pathway, he would be the first one to be able to explain why? So, fuck off moron!
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I just found out, that a close friend of mine(Roy), is dying from stage 4 skin cancer(Squamous Cell Carcinoma). He needs an experimental, but approved treatment, which has had some success. The treatment cost $120K. Because the treatment is experimental, all Government funding and other charities have refused him.

Yet, the government can spend billions on this experimental shit, and distribute it out to everyone for free. Go figure!!

experimental treatment?:eek: I hope you tell him to stay away from that shit. We all know you don't use drugs that haven't been tested for at least ten years
 

stunspore

Member
Fuck off troll!! Play your silly playground games in the sand pit. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing. If a chem teacher can't find a alcohol to fat pathway, then he ain't much of a teacher. And, if there were no pathway, he would be the first one to be able to explain why? So, fuck off moron!
Yep - Shell can't prove this - another pseudoscience. And if there is no pathway, well, i wouldn't be able to prove it -> but first up why would 2 ethanoic acid molecules (or ethanoate, if they ionised or get ionised) would join to produce a longer single chained fatty acid? Well, the methyl group on one side aren't reactive, while I'm not aware of how a carboxylic group bonds to another carboxylic group covalently - i've done plenty of carboxylic with other functional groups, but not carboxylic to carboxylic acid.

It sounds you're frustrated that you couldn't prove your "common sense" and got angry. It's fine. I don't mind being corrected, but it appears you've scored yet another pseudoscience to add to all the others.

As for where's the energy and hence fat from - i reckon it's the sugars in the drinks that causes people to get fat - it's virtually a sugar drink with alcohol to give people the buzz. Choose low sugar.
 
Top