Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 421  Next >
1
Imperfect vaccination makes you a health hazard - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/

Quote
Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur.

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: NexStar 8SE
« on: October 26, 2021, 06:49:18 PM »
Quote from: Astronomer
You misunderstand the difference between “a few minutes before drifting off the target star” and “maximum exposure time” before a star starts to blur in an image/the background becomes too bright for usable images.

You misunderstand the difference between providing an argument with appropriate sources and pulling something out of one's rear end. You have provided no sources for this, and therefore it is the later.

If the limitation is the camera exposure then on the MIT telescope why, exactly, is the limit for an unguided mount max exposure only up to 5 minutes, while the exposure for guided mount is listed as 60 minutes plus?

This is a catastrophe of an argument. But really, it is obvious that this argument is no mistake. You clearly just came here to make things up and lie to us.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: October 24, 2021, 12:10:47 PM »





5
Flat Earth Community / Re: NexStar 8SE
« on: October 22, 2021, 06:29:02 AM »
You can get a decent scope for well under $600. Any cheap equatorial mounted scope will demolish the notion of a sun/moon/stars going in a circle above a flat plane.

Have you ever used an equatorial mounted scope? They only work for a few minutes before drifting off of the target star.

-----

$700 Equatorial Mount - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07NY44782/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07NY44782/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza

"Question: When polar aligned north, can you use a ball head mount to rotate your camera 180* to capture the southern sky without trailing?

Answer: Hi Doyle, YES! Once the head is aligned, move your camera wherever and it will track the object for up to 5 minutes when using a wide-angle the lens. A telephoto (200mm) can only go about 2 minutes."

---

In this one, on a page called "Equatorial Mount Tracking Errors" the author shows stars which drift out of shot within a short amount of time on an EQ mount.

http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?astrophoto_mount_errors.htm

Quote
Equatorial Mount Tracking Errors

~

"Capture Selected Frames capture mode was selected with period 1 second (exact period was 1.11s)."


---

Other types of advanced EQ mount packages are computerized with multiple motorized axis' and have cameras for optical guide tracking and following of a target star, and are more reliable, but this isn't what you're referring to.

Unguided mounts can only track for short amounts of time:

https://starizona.com/blogs/tutorials/exposure-times



https://web.mit.edu/wallace/instruments.html



6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 21, 2021, 05:04:24 PM »
Quote
But of an older video but it shows exactly where you can find the number of deaths that cover the old “died of motorcycle accident, had Covid”. It’s around 5% of deaths.

Did you watch the video?

His argument is to admit that people who die of physical injury are being counted as COVID deaths but claims that people who die of physical fatalities is generally a small percent of the number of the people who die so it's irrelevant. It's relevant because it affirms that they are counting anything and that this is an improper counting method. Many more people die to heart attack and cancer and biological causes and will be sweeped into those COVID death statistics. There shouldn't be people who died in motorvehicle crashes in the numbers at all, and just illustrates the point.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 18, 2021, 06:29:18 AM »
Actually, all those people went to law school and deal in the law and know what immediately means.

Even the website you copy and pasted that from says that immediately means expeditious.

https://www.adamsdrafting.com/promptly-and-immediately/



The author ends the article by recommending to use immediately when there is a real sense of urgency:



If there is a real sense of urgency, according to that author, you should use "immediately" in contracts.

In the above Service Provider example a "reasonable amount of time" for that action may be just the amount of time it takes to suspend the account of the User, or to perform the action demanded, and does not signify any delay or lessening of urgency.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 18, 2021, 01:55:27 AM »
Five lawyers who think that a two week delay is not "immediately":

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-there-a-legal-definition-of--immediately---2018777.html












9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 17, 2021, 09:34:43 PM »
The lawyer says that federal law states that it should have become immediately available when it was licensed.
And stack has provided the legal definition of what that means.
And a different lawyer - who is also a lawyer - is saying that there is no need to expedite this request. It’s interesting how selectively you regard people’s qualifications as significant depending on whether they say something which fits your agenda.

That's talking about the FOIA request for the information. According to FOIA a FOIA request can be expedited if there is urgency. The FDA disagreed that the FOIA request for the information was urgent, but said nothing about whether they broke the law by not making the information available for public disclosure at the time the vaccine was licensed in August.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Are you a lawyer? Please answer with only a yes or no.
No.

Are you?

The lawyer who made the lawsuit is a lawyer. The lawyer says that federal law states that it should have become immediately available when it was licensed.

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/scientists-sue-the-fda-for-data-it

Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.”

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 17, 2021, 07:21:45 PM »
Holy shit.
It’s genuinely incredible how much pointless debate Tom can spin out of the slightest semantic subtlety.
It’s baffling that people continue to engage with it.

It’s clear this request is being dealt with.
It’s equally clear that the only dispute is whether it’s a request they should expedite. That’s about it.

The lawyer says that federal law states that it should have become immediately available when it was licensed. Are you a lawyer? Please answer with only a yes or no.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 17, 2021, 05:44:03 PM »
Look up the definition of public disclosure.

The lawyer said:

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/scientists-sue-the-fda-for-data-it

Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.

Definition for public disclosure:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/public-disclosure



Look up the definition for immediately:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/immediately


12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 17, 2021, 04:55:27 PM »
Quote from: stack
Again, one lawyer says they should get X. Another lawyer says not in your timeframe. Who is right? Which lawyer? Are you equipped to say who is right?

The FDA didn't address the law in question. They was responding to the expedited FOIA request, arguing that it didn't need to be an urgent request, which is a separate matter about the nature of that FOIA request and not whether the FDA violated the law in August when the vaccine was licensed.

Quote from: stack
Did you look into the link I sent you regarding FDA Regulations? And how there are caveats regarding disseminating their findings? Subsequent to "immediately available upon licensing." There's a whole bunch of stuff around proprietary info, disclosures, etc. Again, you cherry pick one line in a regulatory document and leave out a whole host of context around it.

Incorrect. I did not point out the line in the regulatory document. The lawyer did. The lawyer is an expert at the law and you are not.

You believe that there may be regulatory hoops which allows the government to withhold the safety data for the products it licenses from the public. You are not a lawyer, however. You have no source for this information and must refer to yourself as the source, and admit that it is based on "I have no idea". On the other hand we have a lawyer who has studied the law for many years and can give his expert opinion on what it means. Why should we think that you are an equally qualified source which must be given equal weight?

Here we have another instance of you absurdly trying to use unqualified individuals to contradict qualified individuals.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 17, 2021, 12:39:06 AM »
Incorrect. That's talking about the FIOA request which said that the request was urgent. The FDA acknowledged that they had the information, but claimed it wasn't urgent.

This is not a claim that they didn't violate the specific law referenced. This is separate issue entirely. There is a federal law that states that it must be immediately available upon licensing. It is referenced in the lawsuit as well. Is there a specific response to this law by the FDA?

No, there is not. You are unable to even find a denial on this matter.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 17, 2021, 12:14:07 AM »
The lawyer says that they violated federal law by not releasing it right here:

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/scientists-sue-the-fda-for-data-it

Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.

Where did the FDA claim that they were not in violation of the law on this matter?

What's the definition of immediate?

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: October 16, 2021, 11:43:25 PM »

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 16, 2021, 11:22:07 PM »
How is Joe Biden's presidency going so far?


17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 16, 2021, 11:14:15 PM »
The group's lawyer says that according to federal law it was supposed to be released immediately. Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal expert? He is.

And an FDA lawyer wrote back saying that the request to expedite was unfounded. Lawyer v Lawyer, two experts in law. I'm sure the lawyers, experts, will work this out.

The FOIA and the request to expedite is good that they made those requests, but irrelevant to the point that it was supposed to have been immediately released when the application was approved. It wasn't. The FDA is withholding safety data from the public in violation of federal law.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 16, 2021, 09:21:38 PM »
It should not need to be requested or expedited because it was supposed to have been released when the vaccine was licensed

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/scientists-sue-the-fda-for-data-it

You can’t say no, you can’t sue for harm, and you can’t see the data underlying the government’s claim that the product is safe and effective.

...

Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.” 

The lawyer states that according to federal law this information should have been released when the vaccine was licensed. The public should have access to the the safety data for the vaccines and drugs they are putting into to their bodies.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 16, 2021, 09:06:34 PM »
The group's lawyer says that according to federal law it was supposed to be released immediately. Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal expert? He is.


20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 16, 2021, 08:11:28 PM »
Denial of the expediton request is an admission that they did not release it in the first place. They could have said:

- Here it is
- This request is invalid because it was already released, see xx

But this was not the answer. They imply with their answer that they have not released it. If they have not released it they are withholding it from the public.

There would be regulations if there was a "whole system" where the FDA waited until after drugs became approved and released before the public could see the safety data. Where are those regulations?

The regulations that the lawyers in the lawsuit found say that it was supposed to be released immediately. Written in black and white from the FDA itself. You have provided zero contradicting information, and only speculation, that there are alternate regulations which allow them to not release the safety data for the drugs and vaccines it approves. The evidence that you offer for your argument is "I have no idea". A real stunner of an argument from you. ::)

The FOIA request was made on Sept 9th and the followup lawsuit was made on Sept 16th. Five days ago on Oct 11th the group's lawyer said that the FDA has still neglected to provide the information and is delaying it -

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/scientists-sue-the-fda-for-data-it

Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.” 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 421  Next >