Sharpe

30 minutes into this at the moment Rob which is on this topic : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ET7banSeN0

18 hours ago, PHUCKITMAN said:

 You really should read your NEWS from at least 3 different sources before you decide what is fact and what is fiction. Just advice from a OLD MAN but it used to be called verifying your sources.

I must have read news from hundreds of sources at this point. There are enough Doctors that are fully licensed and on the medical registers and other experts in the field with verifiable credentials to give me reasonable pause.

If you are so sure the vaccines are 100% safe, why was the blood clot issue only picked up after they started giving it to millions? What other potential issues are there? There is zero statistical chance of any more serious side effects? The point is I am not fearful for my life over coronavirus, I've probably had it already (fever that peaked at 103f, dry cough etc, didn't get tested, mostly went away after 5-6 days). I am certainly fearful of potential long term complications from a rapidly developed vaccination program, even if the technology itself has been around for a long time.

Anyway starting to go round in circles with this. Good day!

2 hours ago, PHUCKITMAN said:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/01/992148299/covid-doesnt-discriminate-by-age-serious-cases-on-the-rise-in-younger-adults

It most definitely does massively discriminate by age. If the vaccines are proving to be very successful and older patients have massively declined, then it would follow that new patients would come from those that are younger. However, the total number of patients will be much fewer in number. The younger cohort will also be far more likely to survive. This doesn't mean that coronavirus is now much deadlier for those that are younger. You can see this in the updated cdc data I posted in this thread.

My question on whether you drive is because when you drive you put others life at risk. It can certainly be debated as to what extent, but your chance of killing someone driving a vehicle is higher than if you take a train for example. Is this a poor comparison to taking a vaccination to protect others? Perhaps. The fact is though that the vast majority of the elderly can receive a vaccine, and they have generally been first in line to do so. Trying to guilt or coerce others into receiving a new medical treatment is dangerous thinking. It may very well be that the vaccines are safe for the vast majority and on balance a good idea. However, caution is warranted in those that are of particularly low risk, especially when negative side effects will potentially disproportionately effect healthspan. As an example, a 20 year old with a very low risk of coronavirus gets a vaccine and then hypothetically develops a serious autoimmune condition from said vaccine. They will then potentially have to live with this for the rest of their life, on average another 60 or so years unless they developed a condition that shortens lifespan. Conversely, an 80 year old at very high risk from coronavirus takes the vaccine and develops the same autoimmune condition. They are already near the end of their life - the cost benefit analysis is completely different. There have been numerous experts and doctors voicing caution about the vaccines. I posted an example in this thread. There are certainly enough to be more than just a few fringe lunatics. Many have full medical licenses.

The do you drive question boils down to acceptable risk. We can't save everyone from everything. Life has inherent risk built in. Do we know what percentage of people have been told not to receive a vaccine? How does this weigh up against people that already have died from a vaccine after their government told them it was safe, only to then change recommendations after said deaths? It is still possible that new side effects will come to light? Such questions need to be approached with reasonable, level headed analysis. 

 

12 hours ago, RobMc said:

Ah, but is he any good and will this make him better? interesting to see, puts the gear I play on to shame, that's a serious investment. This is a serious question too, with a monitor this size how far away from it do you need to sit to get the whole screen in and to focus, or do you need eyes like a lizard? Point being if you have to sit 5 foot away, and with a smaller screen you only need to sit 3 feet away then it's a waste of money.

If the input lag is noticeably less than his last monitor he might have some improvement. There is also the being able to see more/better factor - particularly at distance. Mine is a 24" and I'm only about 1 foot away lol.

@IceLizard Not sure if you know about it but always worth checking to make sure you are getting the full frame rate : https://www.testufo.com/

There was a virologist I read about recently who had some major concerns about the current vaccination campaign. Managed to find him again. Yes his degree is in veterinary medicine, however his phd is in virology and it appears he has extensive experience in the field.

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/  

This is again well above my ability to even begin to question never mind refute. This is the type of stuff that gives me pause. I actually nearly posted a link a while back to Bret Weinstein and his wife discussing potential vaccine concerns, they aren't against vaccines they were just voicing concerns about the potentiality of long term side effects. I see he has coincidentally had Geert Vanden Bossche on his podcast 4 days ago. I haven't had the time to listen to it yet but will give it a watch and see what they say. I've known about Bret Weinstein for a few years now and he has always come across as a thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro&t=1s

I can't believe the bbc actually did what appears to be a fairly balanced article on vaccine concerns :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56665396

I think overall it paints a similar picture to the one I was trying to make.  I would add that I am still concerned about new side effects emerging, however the longer the vaccines are rolled out the less likely they are to appear. It would be great if they could work out why a very small minority are prone to these clots. I think that that, along with further individual analysis of a persons own unique risk factors and how that may tip the scale in regards to likely severity of symptoms, would be useful in making a choice about whether to get vaccinated, particularly in the young.

Protection of the few unable to get vaccinated would potentially remain an issue. In lieu of vaccination to protect others you could look at other measures for this, however this should be proportional to the overall risk in my opinion. Viral prevalence, advancements in treatment, etc., would play a role in determining potential reasonable measures to be taken. That is a whole other can of worms though.

 

1 hour ago, Timmah! said:

Well, this particular subject.  I've had the honor of taking care of people while they were dying,  sat in the room with them witnessing their last minutes, even as their family couldn't be bothered to visit them in their last days.  After a year of people on manifold media platforms spouting uniformed opinions or outright lying for dissembling reasons, costing others their lives, my patience on this subject is about as thin as it could be on any.

I get it. I do hope the vaccines on the whole are a major success with minimal side effects. Keep in mind that there are people out there who have experienced iatrogenesis, this can make you extremely hesitant to receive any medical treatment, not just vaccines. If I knew for certain that I wouldn't experience ill effects, yes I would take the vaccine to protect the few that are unable to receive it themselves. I don't wish ill health and death on strangers. 

2 hours ago, Majbasil said:

 For one thing, all of us are now much, much, much more accustomed to wearing masks, and it is not so strange to see someone in a mask.  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

And as a fashion statement, masks have added another opportunity for bling accessorizing to our wardrobes (hehe)       Now get back in those maps silly soldiers!    https://www.livescience.com/ways-covid-19-changed-the-world-2020.html

Sorry but no, they are fucking awful and need to go. I'm not accustomed to shit. At least in America you have the choice of moving to a mask or non-mask state depending on your preference.

 

35 minutes ago, Timmah! said:

Hey!  Congrats on a lotta stupid in one paragraph.  Asking me if I worked for Phizer was an invitation for sarcasm.  Also: Fuck you.  Have a great day.

You started the post with "Some of you are silly" which is pretty condescending, as if there aren't legitimate reasons for concern. I replied jokingly as we had had a reasonable, lengthy debate about a month ago and didn't think we were on the level of needing to start throwing ad this and ad that around if we didn't provide evidence for every remark. You already knew where I stood.

Just try not to talk in such absolutes. I get it, you think the vaccine is a good for you and for most people. Fair enough. You think any potential risks are worth it. You think those risks are extremely minimal. You can't say with 100% certainty that there aren't possible unknown side effects, not including those that have already come to light. 

I'll be honest, having to sit and look up all the information I have processed on this issue to provide links etc is time consuming and I can't really be fucked anymore lol. I think I said it in the last thread, we agree to disagree. I thought we were able to poke a little fun at each other perhaps in place of further discussion to the point of ad nauseum, but perhaps you feel too strongly about this issue for that.

15 hours ago, Timmah! said:

Well, there you go, well on your way to make a counter argument.  Now the next step is to research the very questions you posited, make a statement of what you believe to be fact & post what you believe are supporting results with links & citations.  And then, of course, what one considers 'surprising' could be open to personal interpretation, for starters.  This path, as you've determined it thus far is the one heading down argumentum ad infinitum/Ad nauseum.  You're not taking a definite position arguing points much less presenting a counterargument.  Here, if you really wanna have a debate:  https://bit.ly/32PI2qF

Your post above isn't filled with links and citations? I need to provide links to every idea/statement I make but you don't? Also clearly ignoring the several well thought out posts I responded with in the previous thread and now smugly trying to make it look like I can't present any kind of an argument when your own post is filled with conjecture. You are clever and write well, better than me I would say - but don't try and use latin to make it look like I am not saying anything of substance, just because you don't like it. Part of my argument is that we don't know - thus it can't be proven. It should be up to the individual. The vaccines may very well be worth it for the vast majority. The cost benefit analysis greatly improves the older you become. We do have evidence, from the past and currently, about potential harms of vaccines :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix

Here is my last post in the previous thread which you didn't respond to :" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517

"Under-30s in the UK are to be offered an alternative Covid vaccine to the AstraZeneca jab due to the evidence linking it to rare blood clots.""

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Current best estimate ifrs from the cdc - although we don't know to what extent the death count has been inflated. In the UK as an example all deaths within 28 days of a positive test are counted in the official tally.

0-17 years old - 0.005%

18-49 years old - 0.05% - Although I think this one will be weighted heavily towards 40+

50-64 years old - 0.6%

65 + 9% - Would like to see a bigger split here, 65-75 will be noticeably less than 80-90.

"I believe that people that don't want to get vaccinated should be barred from public venues, so they don't kill others with their inconsideration.  Their attitude is 'fuck them.'  So, fuck them.  Many have blood on their hands just as surely as if they walked-up & shot someone in the head. Worse actually, because at least that'd be a quick death compared to protracted, cascading multiple organ failure or a nice, slow suffocation due to pulmonary interstitial fluid accumulation.  But let's go with the 'I'm being a dick' premise, since it's more convenient."

I actually thought you were arguing reasonably sanely in the previous thread but this is unhinged. I find it sad if you actually think this. If you are this far gone, there is nothing I can say that you will find reasonable and vice versa to be honest. Maybe this is why it appears you are becoming more aggressive, as you find most of my viewpoints abhorrent.

I'll state this clearly for you. Even if this was the black plague with an ifr of 50% I wouldn't force or coerce medical treatment on anyone, and still wouldn't have mandatory lockdowns or masks etc. 

I wonder where such posts were with the flu all these years (which actually kills more young people) and other various maladies. How about traffic fatalities? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

"For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day.[1]"

Looks like we better get rid of driving immediately - wait no that would be ludicrous. You could make the argument that you are a brilliant driver, that you have never been in a crash. Unfortunately humans are error prone. Didn't sleep well last night? Better not drive the next day as your risk of killing someone has definitely gone up.

Life is inherently risky. You are going to die. It would be better to live in as free a world as possible not run by tyrannical loons trying to control everything you do.

8 hours ago, Timmah! said:

No counterclaim, supporting evidence, citations.  1 ad hominem.  Good stuff.

Please see the many previous replies in the last thread we had a debate in. 

"The chances of contracting COVID & it fucking you up are WAAAY higher than any danger the vaccine presents." Across all age groups? We definitely know for certain all possible side effects, there are no possible further surprises that could appear like the blood clot issue with astra zeneca? 

To reiterate what I think my main point in the other thread was - there is a vast continuum of risk from young to old and I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that if you are young and healthy the potential risks of a vaccine outweigh the benefits. The cost benefit analysis improves the older and unhealthier you get. I don't think if you are young and healthy with a minute risk, that it is worth taking the chance at this moment in time. 70 with high blood pressure and obese? Probably worth it. This leaves aside the moral aspect of "protecting" others which is a separate issue.
 

"a surprising number are going to be living with long-term or permanent damage to various systems of their body"

What percentage is "a surprising number"? How does this stratify across age groups? 

11 hours ago, Timmah! said:

Some of you are silly.  The only thing the vaccine does is instruct your body to produce the antigen/protein/marker that is found on the surface of the actual virus.  There is no virus in the shot.  It does not splice itself into your dna or anything.  If you feel unwell, that is merely your immune system's B memory cells & helper T cells making note of the protein.  Which shot you get doesn't determine how strongly your immune system reacts.  How badly you feel isn't an indication of how robustly your immune system responds.  Many people who caught a 'mild case' of COVID is because their immune system didn't mount a strong reaction, & contrary to getting over it easily, they actually carried it around for several weeks as opposed to those who felt really sickly and got over it.  As a result of having what they thought was a mild case & actually carrying it around for many weeks, it resulted in most of the mutations, & worse, put them at 60% greater chance of dying within six months after contracting the virus compared to people who felt really horrible & recovered.  That's because of the long-term damage that the virus did to several of their systems over the long-term infection they carried.  Strokes, neurological damage, heart damage, kidney damage, etc...  Ironic that the people who haven't... or didn't get a shot because they thought they wouldn't get really sick or thought they had a mild case are the ones 60% more likely to die from it.  And among those that did survive their 'mild case' of the virus, a surprising number are going to be living with long-term or permanent damage to various systems of their body.  The chances of contracting COVID & it fucking you up are WAAAY higher than any danger the vaccine presents.  But do what makes you happy.... & remember... I told you so.

 

Speaking in some strange absolutes here. Do you work for Pfizer?

@PHUCKITMANDo you drive?

A few family members had similar symptoms, maybe not quite as bad, that also went away quickly. This was after 1st astra zeneca dose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517

"Under-30s in the UK are to be offered an alternative Covid vaccine to the AstraZeneca jab due to the evidence linking it to rare blood clots."

Well gee guys thanks for picking that up in the clinical trial. Guess they won't be going ahead with their experimentation on children, too late for the ones that got it already : 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56656356

Imagine enrolling your kid in one of these trials when their risk is almost 0 if they are healthy. I'm sure all potential side effects have now been found. But hey let's potentially kill or fuck up my almost 0 risk 8 year old to "save" 90 year old grandpa. Makes sense.

Almost if by coincidence the same day this all happens, moderna starts rolling out in the UK. Sign me up.

9 hours ago, Timmah! said:

@Sharpe  She doesn't 'come back' to most of the shit she says.  That to which she does return is overhyped fear mongering for attention with sins of omission, that's why she's too busy booked with youtube appearances to return to further explain herself when invited.  Every BIG danger she drums up is 'theoretical' & nothing that's happened.  She really jumped the shark when she said taking a shit might pose a hazard vis a vis the sewer systems.  Your sole reference is one which slants some cherry-picked theoretical that's never before happened in decades of practical application.  She's doing what amounts to lying in her cherry picking & omission of hundreds of millions of people that have never had any of these worst case scenarios occur during viral & cancer treatments.  It's all very disingenuous. None of the batches developed & used for vaccines have these contaminants.  I've read the whole article, more than once.  She's talking out both sides of her mouth & omitting what she knows are purity protocols that are used in end-stage production.  I could go & copy & paste all of the information from the CDC, NIH, but it's all there if current facts are what's to be discussed, and not some what if's from one person in reference to early stage development.  But I suspect the interest level will drop-off sharply.   

Well I hope you are right. There are other treatments (pandemrix which I mentioned) that had major issues after coming to market that give me pause. I see no reason to personally take the risk, even if it is minute. As stated previously, that equation changes the older you get. I'm sure the websites you mention paint the vaccines in a very positive light, as I'm sure they did 10 or so years ago. I wouldn't mind seeing the links, I may even have read some of them already. You asked 7toes for some evidence that steps were skipped so I provided some evidence. That doesn't make it fact either. Everyone hopefully gets to make their own minds up, but I guess we will see on that front.

4 hours ago, Timmah! said:

So it's settled then:  You will start eating more cheese burgers & get vaccinated.  None of this has produced an example of skipped steps vis a vis 7toe's post.

"And if this DNA is not digested well enough, if residues are left, this harbours risks – I’ll come back to the risks from DNA residues, but the activity of the enzymes has to be monitored well and at the end you need to have a pure RNA without any more DNA. And that is not the case. BioNTech has admitted that there are DNA contaminants."

"So. Requirements were also made relating to the fact that they have not conducted a transport verification study. This means they have no idea whether the vaccine is still viable after transportation. That is currently being performed."

"It was found that the integrity of the RNA always varies in the batches that had been made. I will come back to that again. There needs to be a standard that is always the same for each batch. This should be used as the reference to measure the standard. And they only have this of course for the processes of the clinical phase. Now we have to generate a new standard for the new manufacturing processes, i.e., for the commercial sales. That hasn’t been done yet, they are in the process of doing that now."

"So it is theoretically possible that this linearised DNA that is in there as a contaminant could integrate into the host’s cell nucleus in a dividing cell, linearised DNA is optimal for integration. Circular DNA is not. DNA from bacteria is circular and is not as easy to integrate. It happens, but not so often. But as soon as you have a situation like we do here, it will happen more often. That is the risk. I didn’t really want to get into what can happen if this is the case: genes can be switched on and off, upregulated and downregulated, cancer can develop – there are a lot more possibilities. So this contamination definitely has to be reduced."
 

"WW: But these are processes that are probably not the same in all patients. Whether this happens at all is stochastic at the most, and if it does happen, the results are probably also dependent on each individual and what else is going on in their cells. So one can’t say put that in and this is what will happen, these are eventualities – if a million or so and so many thousands of people are vaccinated, then one can perhaps say with a certain degree of probability after 10 or 20 years whether something will happen or not.

VSK: Yes.

WW: With some things perhaps after 3 or 4 years. But one needs some time to be able to detect such effects clinically.

VSK: That’s exactly right. One never finds a group that all have the same mutation, this varies in people - exactly."

"VSK: That’s fine. So I’ll continue. There are also contaminants with regard to the lipids (30.32). There are two new lipids, they have focused on them. One is ALC-0315, that is the cationic lipid, and the other is ALC-0159, the PEGylated peptide, the PEG component. And they have found that the end product – that there are contaminants in the end product in some batches. They don’t know where this is coming from, probably from the cationic lipid."

"The EMA Committee issued complaints about 20 points in total regarding Good Manufacturing Practice. These are very extensive points, it will be quite a challenge to manage this in half a year I’d say, and they have issued 23 recommendations for further development of the quality of the of the product. And then there are another six pages at the end: I’ll quote from that: “The assessment of the safety risk is considered acceptable; there are theoretical calculations of worst-case concentrations from residues from the manufacturing process, but these have been found to be below established safety limits”. What this means is that our health depends on theoretical calculations, and not on actual tests in practice."


Sorry to copy and paste so much, that's about half way into it. Could easily copy more. None of this fills me with confidence. As I stated I can't speak to the veracity of these claims. If she is telling the truth, it looks like things have been rushed. Personally given my own personal level of risk, I see no reason to risk potential side effects. I don't have the expertise to know if she is making up these claims or exaggerating them. If there is even a small chance she is telling the truth that is plenty for me. 
 

1 hour ago, Timmah! said:

Looking for comparative incidence rates with a control.  If we're just going by anecdotes, I'm not hearing any mass die-off of the frail & elderly, since most of them have been vaccinated with both doses.  The oldest & weakest.  Most likely not passing it on to others is a great reason.  It's a harmless strand of RNA;  there's no reverse transcription taking place, which is one of a myriad of bogey men claims being thrown against the wall to see what sticks.  Shit, over here, outright lies are willingly taken as the truth just for shits & giggles.  Any partially-built spike proteins from the in vivo algorithm are completely harmless.  To save time on generalizations, the only thing that may be cause for any concern would be this novel lipid that is positively charged so that it encapsulates the RNA strand, allowing it to be delivered to the cytosol, intact by the immune system.  It has a less than desirable half life & going to produce free radicals until metabolized by the liver.  The part that sorta threw that initially-cited expert's opinions off the road for me were when she said she'd be too busy with youtube bookings for requested future consultations, & when she started discussing the potential for the lipids to be an environmental danger when shat out & flushed into the sewer system.  One obvious reason that is contradictory to her previsous statements is explicit based upon her own previous assertions.  Several more are implied for manifold reasons.  Could go on, but I gotta go make more $$$ before I turn into the swamp thing or some shit.

The risk of serious complications may well be minimal or non-existent. I see no reason to take the chance at this stage.  They said Pandemrix was safe before it was taken off the market. Why were the serious life altering side effects (for a small minority) not discovered during the clinical trials before it was brought to market? Does the human species understand physiology well enough to say with absolute certainty that "x" treatment won't cause complications? 

I don't get medical interventions to protect others. If they want protection, they can take the vaccine themselves if they think it is a good idea. For the small minority that can't, sorry still not doing it. I haven't seen the massive drive for personal responsibility in all this to reduce obesity rates for example, which is a major risk factor for dieing from coronavirus.
 

8 hours ago, Timmah! said:

The main reason this may seem rushed is because all the money needed was made immediately available to the developers.  The majority of time taken to develop a vaccine is in the funding of each round, as a company takes the hit themselves if there is a failure at any phase of development.  You then factor in that it is an MRNA vaccine, which has faster bulk production times & that shortens the timeline further.  Then with the POTUS implementing war production protocol & the timeline is shortened even further by pharmaceutical companies working together, along with any facility being needed at the disposal of the program.  This technology isn't new at all.  It's been studied, developed & in-use for several decades.  It's been used in cancer therapy for quite some time.  Your average Western citizen is gonna die from a Myocardial Infarct long before any vaccine.  Also, none of the purity or other quality control protocols were skipped; despite what the media circus (which makes money off hype & fear) would have one believe.  What I see is general statements of how 'something just isn't right', or 'it feels suspicious'.  What I don't see are any concrete examples of where developmental protocols have been skipped.

It "feels suspicious" when they are trying to get perfectly healthy young people to take the vaccine for something that has almost no risk to them. This is easily explained by fear and greed however. Fear because "everyone must get the vaccine for everyone to be safe" which is really just a ruse for fattening wallets.

Even if all the usual protocols were followed, how long does it take for antibody dependent enhancement to develop? Prion disease? Autoimmunity? What about the narcolepsy that hundreds developed after the swine flu vaccine 10 years ago? Maybe these effects would have shown up by now, I haven't taken the extra step of researching this as personally I have no plans on getting vaccinated. I do hope the vaccine is very successful with minimal complications. Very few medical interventions are without risk though. So where you are on the continuum of risk should play a role in your choosing whether to receive the vaccine or not. I see a lot of people say they'd rather have vaccine side effects for a day or two than the virus. Well how about if you are 20 and the virus is a slightly raised temperature for a few days and not much else or the risk of lifelong narcolespy (hypothetically)? Not really a good trade off. The decision is perhaps more difficult in the 50-60 range where risk somewhat increases relative to those that are younger.

3 hours ago, Timmah! said:

Don't know what vague initial process to which she's referring, but using mainly modified E. Coli to produce DNA which is then transcribed into MRna is necessary to mass produce the end product.  The initial, high-cost method is more a proof of theory & not intended for industrial level production; it would place the cost/dose way into the stratosphere.  Of course, I could be mistaken.

All I know is when you take some humans and inject fear and greed, the chances of something going wrong skyrocket. To me the individual needs to weigh up their own risk associated with contracting coronavirus and decide if the vaccine is a good idea for them. Telling a perfectly healthy 20 year old that has a minuscule risk to take any of the vaccines that from certain perspectives appear to have been rushed to market seems shortsighted. Iatrogenesis is real, there is no reason to risk potential life long complications if your risk is very low. On the other hand if you are an 80 year old diabetic heart disease patient it's probably a worthwhile risk.

1 hour ago, Timmah! said:

Oh Yeah?  Which ones?

This is meaty, but you asked : http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/gcep_dr_vanessa_schmidt_krueger/

"The problem that BioNTech had is that in the clinical phase the product, i.e. the RNA, was produced with completely different techniques to how it is being produced now. During the clinical phase they only needed small volumes of vaccine, they were able to use very expensive techniques that delivered highly purified end products. Now that they have entered mass production, that is no longer possible, they have had to switch to lower-cost processes, e.g. using huge quantities of DNA that functions as the substrate to be able to produce the RNA in an in-vitro transcription reaction."

So – the integrity of the RNA means of course the RNA quality. They have found that this is not very high: it was higher for the processes during the clinical phase. In this report they don’t say how high it is, but I have other information that says 78% of the RNA was good [translator: this refers to the integrity], the remainder was not, but now they have found new batches with only 55% RNA integrity, i.e., half of it is basically unviable."

I can't speak to the veracity of her claims, well above my pay grade. Reiner Fuellmich is German/American lawyer preparing lawsuits in America, Canada and elsewhere due to the mishandling of the coronavirus response.

@BigPapaDean Try scanning your computer with this tool and it will tell you your motherboard and how much ram and hard drive space you currently have :

https://www.crucial.com/store/systemscanner

3 hours ago, GhostfaceJim said:

Rescheduled for Monday!  Can't wait to see if I become a cyborg covid machine or maybe I get implanted with just a boring tracking chip from Microsoft!  Not like I don't carry my phone around with my anywhere that tracks and records every movement already!

What's your stance on mandatory vaccination? Vaccine passports? When governments say that the vaccine is "safe", do you believe that that means there is zero risk some people will have long term negative consequences from said vaccine?

14 minutes ago, price said:

did that fix your PB issues too? or did you not have those, I tried to direct download PB and replace that file but it still doesnt like what Im doing

Mw2 doesn't run punkbuster.