15% severe side effects. 40% mild side effects. Only 40% no side effects at all after vaccination.
The survey was conducted by INSA. A reputable polling institute.
"Reitschuster.de" does not fulfill "basic requirements at credibility and transparency", criticized the portal "Newsguard". The journalist has received a great deal of encouragement and sympathy from the so-called "lateral thinkers" scene.
"Reitschuster.de" does not fulfill "fundamental requirements of credibility and transparency", criticized the portal "Newsguard". The journalist receives particularly much encouragement and sympathy for this from the so-called lateral thinker scene.
Greetings from the Bahamas🙋♂️
No, really. Government media that has been doing nothing but propaganda for 2 years criticize someone who does not represent the official government narrative. What a surprise.
How about making up your own mind instead of taking a preconceived opinion from the media?
Here's a little insight into who pays so-called fact checkers. Interesting article. I recommend to read
Falcon wrote on 01/18/2022 at 00:51 PM
No, really. Government media that has been doing nothing but propaganda for 2 years criticize someone who does not represent the official government narrative. What a surprise.
How about making up your own mind instead of taking a preconceived opinion from the media?
Here's a little insight into who pays so-called fact checkers. Interesting article. I recommend to read
Sorry falcon,
if I go to the website and the first thing I see is Ernst Wolf, I might as well go to wochenblick.at or watch Servus TV.
Your research and studies you talk about also only go in the direction that support your opinion.
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Former Member
Chatterbox
18th Jan. 2022, at 01:26 am CET#5265
1 Like
Liked this post: Anonym
Falcon wrote on 01/17/2022 at 23:57
Thanks. Your posting now reads much more differentiated. I was disturbed by the argumentation with the relatives etc. That is a killer argument and has no place in a discussion.
Otherwise, I agree with you in part. There were many problems before that. No question about it.
It is all the more astonishing to me that people really believe that politicians only want the best for us and that they are now really concerned about health protection.
But one thing has changed drastically since Corona.
You were relatively free and you could more or less break away from the system and do your own thing when you noticed the abuses.
Our legal system before Corona was: the individual is paramount and everyone has the same rights.
That is the basic principle of a free liberal society
Now we have: Collectivism instead of individualism. The individual must subordinate himself to the '' body of the people''. Individual interests count for nothing and therefore must give up rights for the collective
This is the basic principle of communism and fascism
In my eyes, both things (collectivism and individualism) lead to tensions within society, especially in a society of 80 million + inhabitants. It is nevertheless completely utopian to believe that one gets so many individuals under a hat, where all are top content with. For me, the current system is also by no means a democracy (at least not what we have as a wishful thinking of it in the head), but is rather to be called a plutocracy.
If you take a look at tribal societies in the Amzonas or elsewhere, you will quickly realize that their population is in most cases below 150. 150 is also the so-called Dunbar number:
"The Dunbar number (English Dunbar's number) is the theoretical "cognitive limit" of the number of people with whom an individual can maintain social relationships. The concept was developed by psychologist Robin Dunbar. The Dunbar number describes the number of people of whom someone can know the names and essential relationships among them."
In such natural structures, many of the problems we have in our giga-societies do not arise in the first place. But this is not meant to be a plea for the 7.x billion people of the world to live like this again, but only for understanding.
By the way, I can well imagine that large parts of mankind (if they do not exterminate themselves in the next decades) will once live in a synthesis of capitalism and communism (best of both worlds). If I had to choose between capitalism and communism, however, I would also prefer capitalism, but this is probably largely due to the fact that I live in the privileged West.
GoodFellas wrote on 01/18/2022 at 01:16 PM
Sorry Falke,
if I go on the web page and as the first Ernst Wolf to see to get, there I can go equal on wochenblick.at or Servus TV look.
Your research and studies that you talk about also only go in the direction that support your opinion.
This is simply because you have a fixed opinion. What, for example, is supposed to be bad about Servus TV, except that the government media report badly about it
In Austria, you won't find real discussions anywhere else. On Servus TV, all sides are invited and then discuss with each other. Just as it should be in a democracy
And just by the way. I hardly watch Servus TV, except for said discussions now and then. I don't read Reitschuster or Apolut. I look for my own studies/data or follow scientists who do this and present it conclusively
But I posted the link because it deals with the media world and how and by whom fact checkers are paid
Otherwise, please show me the discussion on German television where a Drosten discusses with a Bhakdi? And it does not matter what you think of whom or who is right or wrong. The point is that an open and fair discussion belongs to a democracy. Many people seem to have forgotten that
Instead, all those who deviate from the official narrative are pilloried by the media and reduced to the personal. But logically. How will a 25 year old "journalist" be able to judge whether epidemiological statements are right or wrong? Quite simply. He can't. Nevertheless, one damages the reputation of these people to the utmost and sends with this witch hunt a warning to all other scientists who have a different opinion
And that doesn't make you wonder? Alone the fact that there have been no fair discussions between critics and supporters until today? And the only station that still does this is then unserious for you?
Have you ever questioned why you have this opinion? So really honestly reflected and also inwardly allowed the possibility that you might be wrong? Have you at least considered that your world view could be wrong? Who told you that media are so free and independent? Wasn't it the media themselves?
Just ask yourself the following questions for a moment:
Do the media have any influence on public opinion?
Are there powerful people with a lot of money or in powerful positions (politicians)?
Do these people want even more power and money?
Is it then advantageous to influence public opinion?
Do we live in a capitalist system?
Are media also economic enterprises that can be bought with enough money?
Yes?
Then why the hell do you assume that there is no influence on the media and that no one with enough money would have thought of buying the media?
In Austria, a billionaire (Benko) just bought the biggest daily newspaper. And he also happened to be a good friend of the chancellor at the time
And what do you think? An isolated case?
The media write what their owners want. No more and no less. What is not to understand about it? Quite seriously?
If you were a billionaire, you could buy a media outlet. Which one would you like? The mirror, the courier? Take your pick. The price has to be right. If the current owner doesn't agree, you'll have to add a few million above the market value, and you'll be fine
In my eyes, both things (collectivism and individualism) each lead to tensions within society, especially in a society of 80 million+ inhabitants. It is completely utopian to believe that you get so many individuals under one hat, where all are top satisfied with. For me, the current system is also by no means a democracy (at least not what we have as a wishful thinking of it in the head), but is rather to be called a plutocracy.
If you take a look at tribal societies in the Amzonas or elsewhere, you will quickly realize that in most cases their population is below 150. 150 is also the so-called Dunbar number:
"The Dunbar number (English Dunbar's number) is the theoretical "cognitive limit" of the number of people with whom an individual can maintain social relationships. The concept was developed by psychologist Robin Dunbar. The Dunbar number describes the number of people of whom someone can know the names and essential relationships among them."
In such natural structures, many of the problems we have in our giga-societies do not arise in the first place. But this is not meant to be a plea for the 7.x billion people of the world to live like this again, but only for understanding.
By the way, I can well imagine that large parts of mankind (if they do not exterminate themselves in the next decades) will once live in a synthesis of capitalism and communism (best of both worlds). If I had to choose between capitalism and communism, however, I would also prefer capitalism, but this is probably largely due to the fact that I live in the privileged West.
That's true what you write, but misses the point a bit
You are describing the optimal composition of a social structure. And this is what everyone has anyway. Nobody lives directly together with 80 million people. But everyone has his own social environment and that's exactly what you're describing here
But that doesn't have much to do with the state system
A free society grants individual rights, because only in this way can a free society be possible at all
From my point of view there is no good side of communism. This already contradicts the basic idea of communism, which is completely incompatible with a free society. Precisely because it does not grant all people the same rights, but because it wants to make all people equal
But people are not equal and must therefore have the opportunity to develop freely. Thus, everyone can then also optimally fit into society and contribute according to their strengths
Communism subordinates individual rights to collectivist rights. Communist tendencies can be seen right now at Corona
Exactly this cruel way of living together is already a form of communism/fascism, which are both very similar
In general, every dictatorship, every totalitarian state, whatever you call it, is a collectivist system. Always, without exception. It is not possible otherwise. A liberal society cannot be communist or fascist and vice versa
It would be a free communism only if each individual could decide not to participate. And then it would already no longer be communism
And the same principle applies the government now again. Namely collectivism. It is argued with the public health. Public endangerers are healthy people who are accused of spreading diseases. Inalienable basic rights guaranteed to every human being are now converted into privileges that one only gets if one behaves faithfully to the government and that only for a certain period of time. The perfidious thing about it is that basic rights are defensive rights against an encroaching state. An encroaching state as one experiences it now just with Corona
The bad thing is that most people have no idea what basic rights are, why they are so important and that basic and human rights are the most important achievement of mankind
Few people are aware that humanity has lived in a slave system for tens of thousands of years. For example, the feudal system in the Middle Ages. Where there were three classes. And the lowest class, to which we would all now belong if the system still existed, had almost no rights
It was officially allowed to torture ordinary citizens during the interrogation of witnesses, the so-called "embarrassing interrogation"
And now, because of a moderately severe flu virus, they let all these fought-for freedoms be taken away just like that and spit on those people who want to warn them about it. I wonder how stupid people can actually be
Many people find that even good and right that there are Corona measures.healthy people are locked out and treated like pests, it is simply times so regulations pulled through which violate the fundamental right because of an ohso deadly infectious disease.
Have the people no more eyes or why they do not want to see the people just not die en masse? I'm just shocked how one tries with pressure to bring the people to vaccinate.If the vaccine is so great why then with all force try to give people a vaccination.I do not have to be protected damn it!!! And that a vaccination does not protect others or to infect itself puts the whole thing still the crown on.Despite vaccination, the measures are as strong as ever and that will not stop.
The will now think up every time on's new a new variant until the human bodies kaputtgeboostert are.Besides, what have because the positive tested?Maybe a cold or fever and that's it.Only a very small number have to go to the hospital or die of it.In my environment or area is not a single person died of Corona or seriously ill, they are all still alive and well.We are here grandios verar.....😒
15% severe side effects. 40% mild side effects. Only 40% no side effects at all after vaccination.
The survey was conducted by INSA. A reputable polling institute.
I can find in the whole article but somehow nothing at all about what is considered a serious side effect? Each respondent as he feels it? Were the respondents told what a serious side effect is from a medical point of view?
He himself admits in the article that the severity of a side effect is subjective
Even if conducted by INSA, without further information on the conduct of the survey, it is relatively worthless to me
Chatterbox
Liked this post:
Blubbo33
"Reitschuster.de" does not fulfill "basic requirements at credibility and transparency", criticized the portal "Newsguard". The journalist has received a great deal of encouragement and sympathy from the so-called "lateral thinkers" scene.
Greetings from the Bahamas🙋♂️
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Anonym,
Falko, 
Myngmyng, 
Saphira
No, really. Government media that has been doing nothing but propaganda for 2 years criticize someone who does not represent the official government narrative. What a surprise.
How about making up your own mind instead of taking a preconceived opinion from the media?
Here's a little insight into who pays so-called fact checkers. Interesting article. I recommend to read
https://apolut.net/das-faktencheckerprogramm-der-eu-heisst-soma-von-norbert-haering/
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post:
Blubbo33, 
palme7777
Sorry falcon,
if I go to the website and the first thing I see is Ernst Wolf, I might as well go to wochenblick.at or watch Servus TV.
Your research and studies you talk about also only go in the direction that support your opinion.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Anonym
In my eyes, both things (collectivism and individualism) lead to tensions within society, especially in a society of 80 million + inhabitants. It is nevertheless completely utopian to believe that one gets so many individuals under a hat, where all are top content with. For me, the current system is also by no means a democracy (at least not what we have as a wishful thinking of it in the head), but is rather to be called a plutocracy.
If you take a look at tribal societies in the Amzonas or elsewhere, you will quickly realize that their population is in most cases below 150. 150 is also the so-called Dunbar number:
"The Dunbar number (English Dunbar's number) is the theoretical "cognitive limit" of the number of people with whom an individual can maintain social relationships. The concept was developed by psychologist Robin Dunbar. The Dunbar number describes the number of people of whom someone can know the names and essential relationships among them."
In such natural structures, many of the problems we have in our giga-societies do not arise in the first place. But this is not meant to be a plea for the 7.x billion people of the world to live like this again, but only for understanding.
By the way, I can well imagine that large parts of mankind (if they do not exterminate themselves in the next decades) will once live in a synthesis of capitalism and communism (best of both worlds). If I had to choose between capitalism and communism, however, I would also prefer capitalism, but this is probably largely due to the fact that I live in the privileged West.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Anonym,
Saphira
This is simply because you have a fixed opinion. What, for example, is supposed to be bad about Servus TV, except that the government media report badly about it
In Austria, you won't find real discussions anywhere else. On Servus TV, all sides are invited and then discuss with each other. Just as it should be in a democracy
And just by the way. I hardly watch Servus TV, except for said discussions now and then. I don't read Reitschuster or Apolut. I look for my own studies/data or follow scientists who do this and present it conclusively
But I posted the link because it deals with the media world and how and by whom fact checkers are paid
Otherwise, please show me the discussion on German television where a Drosten discusses with a Bhakdi? And it does not matter what you think of whom or who is right or wrong. The point is that an open and fair discussion belongs to a democracy. Many people seem to have forgotten that
Instead, all those who deviate from the official narrative are pilloried by the media and reduced to the personal. But logically. How will a 25 year old "journalist" be able to judge whether epidemiological statements are right or wrong? Quite simply. He can't. Nevertheless, one damages the reputation of these people to the utmost and sends with this witch hunt a warning to all other scientists who have a different opinion
And that doesn't make you wonder? Alone the fact that there have been no fair discussions between critics and supporters until today? And the only station that still does this is then unserious for you?
Have you ever questioned why you have this opinion? So really honestly reflected and also inwardly allowed the possibility that you might be wrong? Have you at least considered that your world view could be wrong? Who told you that media are so free and independent? Wasn't it the media themselves?
Just ask yourself the following questions for a moment:
Do the media have any influence on public opinion?
Are there powerful people with a lot of money or in powerful positions (politicians)?
Do these people want even more power and money?
Is it then advantageous to influence public opinion?
Do we live in a capitalist system?
Are media also economic enterprises that can be bought with enough money?
Yes?
Then why the hell do you assume that there is no influence on the media and that no one with enough money would have thought of buying the media?
In Austria, a billionaire (Benko) just bought the biggest daily newspaper. And he also happened to be a good friend of the chancellor at the time
And what do you think? An isolated case?
The media write what their owners want. No more and no less. What is not to understand about it? Quite seriously?
If you were a billionaire, you could buy a media outlet. Which one would you like? The mirror, the courier? Take your pick. The price has to be right. If the current owner doesn't agree, you'll have to add a few million above the market value, and you'll be fine
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Anonym, Anonym,
Donnie, 
Saphira
That's true what you write, but misses the point a bit
You are describing the optimal composition of a social structure. And this is what everyone has anyway. Nobody lives directly together with 80 million people. But everyone has his own social environment and that's exactly what you're describing here
But that doesn't have much to do with the state system
A free society grants individual rights, because only in this way can a free society be possible at all
From my point of view there is no good side of communism. This already contradicts the basic idea of communism, which is completely incompatible with a free society. Precisely because it does not grant all people the same rights, but because it wants to make all people equal
But people are not equal and must therefore have the opportunity to develop freely. Thus, everyone can then also optimally fit into society and contribute according to their strengths
Communism subordinates individual rights to collectivist rights. Communist tendencies can be seen right now at Corona
Exactly this cruel way of living together is already a form of communism/fascism, which are both very similar
In general, every dictatorship, every totalitarian state, whatever you call it, is a collectivist system. Always, without exception. It is not possible otherwise. A liberal society cannot be communist or fascist and vice versa
It would be a free communism only if each individual could decide not to participate. And then it would already no longer be communism
And the same principle applies the government now again. Namely collectivism. It is argued with the public health. Public endangerers are healthy people who are accused of spreading diseases. Inalienable basic rights guaranteed to every human being are now converted into privileges that one only gets if one behaves faithfully to the government and that only for a certain period of time. The perfidious thing about it is that basic rights are defensive rights against an encroaching state. An encroaching state as one experiences it now just with Corona
The bad thing is that most people have no idea what basic rights are, why they are so important and that basic and human rights are the most important achievement of mankind
Few people are aware that humanity has lived in a slave system for tens of thousands of years. For example, the feudal system in the Middle Ages. Where there were three classes. And the lowest class, to which we would all now belong if the system still existed, had almost no rights
It was officially allowed to torture ordinary citizens during the interrogation of witnesses, the so-called "embarrassing interrogation"
And now, because of a moderately severe flu virus, they let all these fought-for freedoms be taken away just like that and spit on those people who want to warn them about it. I wonder how stupid people can actually be
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Anonym,
Falke, 
Falko, 
MasterChiefKief, 
Myngmyng, 
Saphira
Have the people no more eyes or why they do not want to see the people just not die en masse? I'm just shocked how one tries with pressure to bring the people to vaccinate.If the vaccine is so great why then with all force try to give people a vaccination.I do not have to be protected damn it!!! And that a vaccination does not protect others or to infect itself puts the whole thing still the crown on.Despite vaccination, the measures are as strong as ever and that will not stop.
The will now think up every time on's new a new variant until the human bodies kaputtgeboostert are.Besides, what have because the positive tested?Maybe a cold or fever and that's it.Only a very small number have to go to the hospital or die of it.In my environment or area is not a single person died of Corona or seriously ill, they are all still alive and well.We are here grandios verar.....😒
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post:
DieWunderharke5000, 
GibMaFuffi, 
Jubla2014, 
palme7777, 
ruhrpott
This will help you and your loved ones
Do not give the conspiracy theorists a chance
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
I can find in the whole article but somehow nothing at all about what is considered a serious side effect? Each respondent as he feels it? Were the respondents told what a serious side effect is from a medical point of view?
He himself admits in the article that the severity of a side effect is subjective
Even if conducted by INSA, without further information on the conduct of the survey, it is relatively worthless to me
This post has been translated automatically