kadkadels

I agree. It seems to me that people just ... like to forget stuff like that. They just want someone else in charge. And now with the advent of TikTok a certain party frequently targets young people and tells them that there are easy solutions to their problems. Sad thing is, other parties don't seem to get that they need to be where the young people are and provide content that matches what they like to see.

I can also only recommend to read "the invisible doctrine" by goerge monbiot. Sad enough that I can't think of a similar book in German. Or a newspaper that would be able to match the Guardian, for example.

Looks good to me, I'm a native speaker.

Aside from their political positions - which are diametrically opposed to mine anyway, so I won't argue about them right now, it would be pointless - they seem to be the most incompetent party around. Corrupt and buyable, just look at Krah and Bystron. Then there was the scandal about leaked chats from a obvious paedophile guy (Holger Arppe), low key criminals like Gunnar Beck who stole something in a shop, etc etc

This is met with denial by their rabid voter base. That party doesn't care about Germans or Germany. They care about lining their pockets. That is all. Where that money is coming from doesn't matter. They will sell out our country to the highest bidder if they could. You can't actually say you care about Germany and vote for that party, it doesn't make sense.

The vaccines significantly reduce the severity and duration of covid. Reduced severity translates to a lower risk of complications, including myocarditis. It doesn't have to prevent infection completely to protect you.

No, not really. Actually it was completely different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#United_Sta...

>In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey who withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Change_in_drug_reg...

>In the United States, the new regulations strengthened the FDA, among other ways, by requiring applicants to prove efficacy and to disclose all side effects encountered in testing. The FDA subsequently initiated the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation to reclassify drugs already on the market.

I will be in the minority here but I really like Windows 10. Might be stockholm syndrome from work.

What exactly you might ask, well, just ... how it looks, for example. Still modern. I like the search bar. Dicking around in the registry. It's weird antics, like Win32 file namespace API not allowing folder names to end with a space but the file system supporting it so you end up with some weird behaviour if some scanner manages to create a folder with a trailing space and then you end up with two folders, one with a space at the end and one without, and you can't delete the one with the space without looking up \\?\

Stockholm syndrome.

(I also like Linux)

Could also be: delayed checkups, e.g. blood pressure, cancer. Delayed treatment. Other transmittable diseases, for example novel flu variants. But no, it has to be the vaccine.

We are not talking about vaccine efficiency or efficacy here though but adverse events specifically.

>If we check the data for say the Pfizer trial, what we see is no effect on mortality

The point is that there are almost no serious adverse events occuring post-vaccination. There is no pharmacovigilance safety signal or concerning pattern wrt MRNA-vaccines. As we have seen in 2021 with the astra zeneca vaccine, post market surveillance worked and it was promptly investigated as soon as a safety signal emerged. EMA (and other regulatory agencies) communicated transparently about their findings and decisions.

Thank you for reminding me of this fine example of post-market surveillance, I almost forgot :)

>You seem to be really emotional about this.

I'm not, don't worry :)

>Need to say, the psychogram of those who defend pharma relentlessly to this day is very interesting. I see anger, insults

The only one who is hurling insults and seems quite angry is you.

>fascist authority

ah yes, just call regulatory agencies "fascist", that makes total sense.

>attaching a label because it soothes you mentally

once again an insult instead of data

>The little section you got from google translating is a government-approved interpretation of this data

No it's not. It's what scientists say. Are they fascists too now?

And I'm not sure how anyone can be a conspiracy theorist and honestly believe that all governments and regulatory agencies all over the world try to hide some grand conspiracy about vaccine efficacy and safety, but here we are.

>vaccination gives immunity to virus or that there are no side effects from vaccination

Who claims that? Nobody does or did. This is a familiar tactic: shifting the goalposts from vaccinations have very rare side effects and do not guarantee one hundred percent immunity to complete immunity and no side effects at all. Rarely does a vaccine provide complete 100% immunity from a disease, in rare cases it does, e.g. Polio. Also nobody ever claimed that vaccines have no side effects, they are just very, very rare. So rare that the expected benefits far outweigh any risk of side effects.

Rule number 1: don't argue with conspiracy theorists, they will come up with all sorts of nonsense.

>„Fact checkers“ have been shown again and again to be politically biased up to active manipulation. Only people who always agree with the politics they want to push have not noticed at this point.

Have they? Show me some of those manipulated fact checkers, please. With reputable sources, I'm not inclined to read bullshit.

>By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product.

Not really, no. Or show us some data.

>Meanwhile this new Dutch data looks quite interesting, maybe someone here would like to give it a shot:

conveniently only available in dutch, but online translators to the rescue:

>https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2022/sterfte-e...

where the first paragraph in 6.4 translates as follows:

>The analyses show a lower or comparable likelihood of dying from causes other than COVID-19 in the first weeks after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to the vaccination status before receiving the respective dose. This holds true for all age groups and also for long-term care users. Based on these results, there is no population-level evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse reaction.

Oops. Well, you tried.

It does affect concentration and if an IQ test goes on for long enough and is not interesting enough to warrant some kind of hyperfocus, I get distracted. And so my IQ score will be worse. Or not? I have ADHD and it doesn't make me dumber, but since focus is a critical part of thinking, it does make it harder if I'm not interested. I'd rather say that IQ tests are designed for neurotypical people.

Well, in that case, good that Australia isn't the only country in the world: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

which clearly shows that all-cause deaths in England were higher among the unvaccinated.

Here is a Reuters fact check: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-evidence-link-uk-exces...

Don't worry about it being awkward, there are many reasons for being in a wheelchair besides not being able to walk at all. I mean, the fact that wheelchairs are provided at the entrance indicates that there is a demand from individuals who can walk to access them.

You seem to be confused about how the Swiss legal system works, so let me clarify it for you:

The government is bound by laws, constitutional principles, and institutional mechanisms that prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of minorities or violating international obligations. Of course the population can't force the goverment "to do whatever they want" and this is not how any of it works.

>Which may or may not even effect the people who are suing at all.

It's evident that the lawsuit does affect them since they reside in Switzerland and are therefore only able to hold Switzerland accountable. If they were to reside in Germany, France, or any other country, they would have the freedom to pursue legal action against those respective nations. This aspect was also the reason for the dismissal of the Portuguese case; the plaintiffs were suing countries other than Portugal.

>You have a court, which was created in an attempt to give legal options to victims of crimes committed by nation state and which could not be heard elsewhere.

It is common practice for decisions concerning human rights abuses by the Swiss Supreme Court to be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which serves as the ultimate authority in such matters.

>It really must be dismaying to see how little anyone actually cares about the environment on a global challenge, for someone who cares about the environment. Instead we have people arguing literal nonsense in a court.

They did what they could and took responsibility for what they could. Which is a lot more than other people do.

>If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal?

To benchmark against India or China regarding pollution sets the standard at its lowest. If we continue this pattern, finger-pointing will never stop. It's important that we raise our standards and lead by example.

They have more than 2500 Members, you know every single one of them? Impressive.