German nurse avoids jail after injecting thousands with saltwater shot instead COVID vaccine

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

But it might help? No?

It could help but it's not necessary in this case.
It looks like there is (fortunately) a lot of doubt in our society about a range of matters. Not many trust institutions anymore and that's something positive our of this anomalous situation.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The case is clear unless one wants to deviate and creates their own story.

All you've done is create your own story to suit your own bias.
You seem to be under the impresion that you know how the Judge in this case is thinking, Are physic powers now also part of your repertoire? So you're now a qualified law student aswell as a medical professional even though when quizzed on these qualifications you run a mile???

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The case is clear unless one wants to deviate and creates their own story.

All you've done is create your own story to suit your own bias.
You seem to be under the impresion that you know how the Judge in this case is thinking, Are physic powers now also part of your repertoire? So you're now a qualified law student aswell as a medical professional even though when quizzed on these qualifications you run a mile???

I used common sense and the existing evidence and not the bias you are referring to. You seem to be in a denial again.

You don't need to be a qualified lawyer to argue on the basics and use common sense. Is this a new standard or you have raised the bar again??

The nurse never believed that the vaccines are safe and effective. That was obvious. The judges
did not accept her excuse i.e that was an one-off incident but not jailed her arguing that the motives are not clear.

We all know what the motives are no matter how much you argue.

In terms of qualifications if I was you I wouldn't try to refer to them when by your own admission you are not qualifd in any scientific and medical field.

It is futile to argue by the way. My opinion in this matter cannot change unless some very serious evidence is presented.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
Are you getting upset again??

I used common sense and the existing evidence and not the bias you are referring to. You seem to be in a denial again.

I'm postive that it's you my friend that's in denial and from as your last sentence in the post shows, your bias here isn't going to change and shows any lack of learning or constructive thinking.

The judges accepted her excuse i.e that was an one-off incident not to jail her arguing that the motives are not clear.

So the Judge excepted it was a one off incident, thats different to what you said earlier, flip flopping again I see.

In terms of qualifications if I was you I wouldn't try to refer to them when by your own admission you are not qualified in any scientific and medical field

And again you claim I said something when I absoultely haven't. You seem to enjoy making up stories to fit your cognative bias?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Are you getting upset again??

I used common sense and the existing evidence and not the bias you are referring to. You seem to be in a denial again.

I'm postive that it's you my friend that's in denial and from as your last sentence in the post shows, your bias here isn't going to change and shows any lack of learning or constructive thinking.

The judges accepted her excuse i.e that was an one-off incident not to jail her arguing that the motives are not clear.

So the Judge excepted it was a one off incident, thats different to what you said earlier, flip flopping again I see.

In terms of qualifications if I was you I wouldn't try to refer to them when by your own admission you are not qualified in any scientific and medical field

And again you claim I said something when I absoultely haven't. You seem to enjoy making up stories to fit your cognative bias?

Naaah I don't think so. My arguments are clear and I have used the evidence as described in many newspapers that have covered the story. The story has been covered by the Mirror, Mail, The Washington Times, NPR, Reuters, and perhaps others.

That motives of the nurse are clear and she believed the vaccines are not safe and effective. The judges couldn't establish the motives as they said and decide not to jail her. My mistake above as I wanted to say that the judges did not accept her excuse that was an one-off incident. I rectified the phrase. Antibody tests were performed later on on those affected and there were no antibodies present in their bloods which means that she injected them with saline solution.

I think you said you were not qualified in any scientific and medical field.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Naaah I don't think so. My arguments are clear and I have used the evidence as described in many newspapers that have covered the story. The story has been covered by the Mirror, Mail, The Washington Times, NPR, Reuters, and perhaps others.

So now the media are telling the truth, another flip flop from you!

That motives of the nurse are clear and she believed the vaccines are not safe and effective. The judges couldn't establish the motives as they said and decide not to jail her. My mistake above as I wanted to say that the judges did not accept her excuse that was an one-off incident. I rectified the phrase. Antibody tests were performed later on on those affected and there were no antibodies present in their bloods which means that she injected them with saline solution.

So the Judge couldn't establish a motive for her actions but you can?? The Nurse herself claims she only used saline because she broke a vial, so know you know the Nurses motives better than her it seems!!

I think you said you were not qualified in any scientific and medical field

I'm thinking this is a reflection of your own insecruties here, because you know I've never made such a comment but you do keep trying to infer this, dont you?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Naaah I don't think so. My arguments are clear and I have used the evidence as described in many newspapers that have covered the story. The story has been covered by the Mirror, Mail, The Washington Times, NPR, Reuters, and perhaps others.

So now the media are telling the truth, another flip flop from you!

That motives of the nurse are clear and she believed the vaccines are not safe and effective. The judges couldn't establish the motives as they said and decide not to jail her. My mistake above as I wanted to say that the judges did not accept her excuse that was an one-off incident. I rectified the phrase. Antibody tests were performed later on on those affected and there were no antibodies present in their bloods which means that she injected them with saline solution.

So the Judge couldn't establish a motive for her actions but you can?? The Nurse herself claims she only used saline because she broke a vial, so know you know the Nurses motives better than her it seems!!

I think you said you were not qualified in any scientific and medical field

I'm thinking this is a reflection of your own insecruties here, because you know I've never made such a comment but you do keep trying to infer this, dont you?

Never said that the media is always lying. Here they cover a story. Most newspapers covered this story by branding her an anti-vaxxer by the way for which I strongly disagree given her position and history.
So strawman argument.

Yes this is what the nurse claimed. But the judges didn't believe her as it seems. She had a history of skepticism in social media which was known to the court. She injected 8,600 people according to the media. Subsequently antibody tests were performed and no antibodies found which means she injected them with saline solution. And was fired for that.

Motive is clear. The nurse didn't think the vaccines were safe and effective.

I thought you did. But it doesn't make much difference as what you are saying in these threads verify that you are not qualified in any of these areas.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Never said that the media is always lying. Here they cover a story. Most newspapers covered this story by branding her an anti-vaxxer by the way for which I strongly disagree given her position and history.
So strawman argument.

I'm not going to go over the millions of anti-vaccine posts you've made in the short time you've been here, but you said numerous times in other threads that you don't trust the media, it's funny that with this story you do?

Yes this is what the nurse claimed. But the judges didn't believe her as it seems. She had a history of skepticism in social media which was known to the court. She injected 8,600 people according to the media. Subsequently antibody tests were performed and no antibodies found which means she injected them with saline solution. And was fired for that.

That's not what's said in the article, it's infered that 8600 could've been injected with saline but nothing to back up this claim, thats possibly just the amount of people the Nurse saw in her capacity during her job. The evidence in court shows only a handful actually were injected with saline....

however there was only enough evidence to convict the nurse for changing out six syringes.

I thought you did. But it doesn't make much difference as what you are saying in these threads verify that you are not qualified in any of these areas.

Oh you poor thing, you really do like to throw around insults to cover your insecurities don't you?? You should maybe speak to a psychiatrist about that....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Never said that the media is always lying. Here they cover a story. Most newspapers covered this story by branding her an anti-vaxxer by the way for which I strongly disagree given her position and history.
So strawman argument.

I'm not going to go over the millions of anti-vaccine posts you've made in the short time you've been here, but you said numerous times in other threads that you don't trust the media, it's funny that with this story you do?

Yes this is what the nurse claimed. But the judges didn't believe her as it seems. She had a history of skepticism in social media which was known to the court. She injected 8,600 people according to the media. Subsequently antibody tests were performed and no antibodies found which means she injected them with saline solution. And was fired for that.

That's not what's said in the article, it's infered that 8600 could've been injected with saline but nothing to back up this claim, thats possibly just the amount of people the Nurse saw in her capacity during her job. The evidence in court shows only a handful actually were injected with saline....

however there was only enough evidence to convict the nurse for changing out six syringes.

I thought you did. But it doesn't make much difference as what you are saying in these threads verify that you are not qualified in any of these areas.

Oh you poor thing, you really do like to throw around insults to cover your insecurities don't you?? You should maybe speak to a psychiatrist about that....

Anti-vaxxer?! So another strawman!

Do I have to pay tribute and show my loyalties to every drug and vaccine out there? You must be joking.

No. The nurse injected thousands of people. There were subsequently antibody tests performed and no evidence of antibodies in any of them. It doesn't specify the number but these tests have shown the nurse didn't injected them with the Covid vaccines.

The motive is clear.

It's not an insult to state that someone doesn't have qualifications in science and/or medicine. I think that you said it before and some others did too. But it's again obvious from what you have been saying on these threads.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Anti-vaxxer?! So another strawman!

You really should look up how to use the word "strawman"

No. The nurse injected thousands of people. There were subsequently antibody tests performed and no evidence of antibodies in any of them. It doesn't specify the number but these tests have shown the nurse didn't injected them with the Covid vaccines.

Again with you making assumptions to back up your cognative bias here. Please post the proof that the Nurse injected thousands other than a newspaper article that makes claims without evidence. You've flip floped in the same sentence and then say "it doesn't specify the number". it could be 10 for all you know.

It's not an insult to state that someone doesn't have qualifications in science and/or medicine. I think that you said it before and some others did too. But it's again obvious from what you have been saying on these threads.

I must be really getting to you, pointing out your bias and assupmtions. Your continued use of assumptions alone points out you have no medical or scientific training but you do seem to be infatuated with my qualifications, it's a little strange that your insecuraties manifest like this??

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Anti-vaxxer?! So another strawman!

You really should look up how to use the word "strawman"

No. The nurse injected thousands of people. There were subsequently antibody tests performed and no evidence of antibodies in any of them. It doesn't specify the number but these tests have shown the nurse didn't injected them with the Covid vaccines.

Again with you making assumptions to back up your cognative bias here. Please post the proof that the Nurse injected thousands other than a newspaper article that makes claims without evidence. You've flip floped in the same sentence and then say "it doesn't specify the number". it could be 10 for all you know.

It's not an insult to state that someone doesn't have qualifications in science and/or medicine. I think that you said it before and some others did too. But it's again obvious from what you have been saying on these threads.

I must be really getting to you, pointing out your bias and assupmtions. Your continued use of assumptions alone points out you have no medical or scientific training but you do seem to be infatuated with my qualifications, it's a little strange that your insecuraties manifest like this??

The nurse was fired because of her involvement into this. She doesn't need to have injected thousands. The amount she has injected is unknown but her excuse given that she injected just six wasn't accepted by the court. It is presumed that she injected more than six. But the judges couldn't establish the motive. It says in the opening page. I don't think I have said how many she has injected with saline solutions.

But the motive was very clear. The judges just didn't want to jail her.

It is really delusional to think that you are getting into me. I didn't know how you have established that I have no training in any scientific field but you seem to be making a lot of false assumptions.

What I find remarkable is your incoherent statements and claims and your assumptions that everyone is a layman.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The nurse was fired because of her involvement into this. She doesn't need to have injected thousands

You said this...

The nurse injected thousands of people.

Then you say this??

The amount she has injected is unknown but her excuse given that she injected just six wasn't accepted by the court.

Thats where you're wrong, the court found her guilty of six counts of intentional assult, one for each person she injected with saline.
You need to read the article again..

It is really delusional to think that you are getting into me. I didn't know how you have established that I have no training in any scientific field but you seem to be making a lot of false assumptions.

Really? When you keep trying to comment on my qualifications and your poor attempts at inferring I have none?? It appears as an infatuation!

What I find remarkable is your incoherent statements and claims and your assumptions that everyone is a layman.

Thats funny coming from someone who only ever seems to post their assumptions....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The nurse was fired because of her involvement into this. She doesn't need to have injected thousands

You said this...

The nurse injected thousands of people.

Then you say this??

The amount she has injected is unknown but her excuse given that she injected just six wasn't accepted by the court.

Thats where you're wrong, the court found her guilty of six counts of intentional assult, one for each person she injected with saline.
You need to read the article again..

It is really delusional to think that you are getting into me. I didn't know how you have established that I have no training in any scientific field but you seem to be making a lot of false assumptions.

Really? When you keep trying to comment on my qualifications and your poor attempts at inferring I have none?? It appears as an infatuation!

What I find remarkable is your incoherent statements and claims and your assumptions that everyone is a layman.

Thats funny coming from someone who only ever seems to post their assumptions....

Yes she injected thousands around 8,600 but nobody knows how many of those were injected with the saline solution. It is presumed that it wasn't only 6 given her history and skepticism for the Covid vaccines. The judges didn't accept

I have read the article don't worry. The judges couldn't establish the motive. But the motive is known: The nurse didn't believe the vaccines to be safe and effective.

I haven't referred to your qualifications as a prerequisite to take part in these conversations. I have asked others too as they think to be very confident in matters they obviously don't know about.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yes she injected thousands around 8,600 but nobody knows how many of those were injected with the saline solution. It is presumed that it wasn't only 6 given her history and skepticism for the Covid vaccines. The judges didn't accept

The court found her guilty of 6 counts, so if you have additional information, then please by all means, post it!!

I have read the article don't worry. The judges couldn't establish the motive. But the motive is known: The nurse didn't believe the vaccines to be safe and effective.

Ahh, back to making assumptions. If the motive was known then the Judge would have used this in the trial. Oh, but wait you also know the Judges thoughts too, don't you??

I haven't referred to your qualifications as a prerequisite to take part in these conversations. I have asked others too as they think to be very confident in matters they obviously don't know about.

Making assumptions about others, thats not like you!!!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yes she injected thousands around 8,600 but nobody knows how many of those were injected with the saline solution. It is presumed that it wasn't only 6 given her history and skepticism for the Covid vaccines. The judges didn't accept

The court found her guilty of 6 counts, so if you have additional information, then please by all means, post it!!

I have read the article don't worry. The judges couldn't establish the motive. But the motive is known: The nurse didn't believe the vaccines to be safe and effective.

Ahh, back to making assumptions. If the motive was known then the Judge would have used this in the trial. Oh, but wait you also know the Judges thoughts too, don't you??

I haven't referred to your qualifications as a prerequisite to take part in these conversations. I have asked others too as they think to be very confident in matters they obviously don't know about.

Making assumptions about others, thats not like you!!!!

The motive is known. The judges didn't want to jail her. You need to come to terms with this. I know you would have been satisfied with her going to jail but the judges didn't think so.

Yes they did use the information they had but they couldn't establish the motives as they claimed. They didn't know whether she did it to sabotage the vaccination campaign.

Nobody could believe her excuse but the judges were reasonable given the very absurd and ludicrous vaccination campaign that wanted to establish itself via coercion and pressures, intimidation, threats of dismissal, etc.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The motive is known. The judges didn't want to jail her. You need to come to terms with this. I know you would have been satisfied with her going to jail but the judges didn't think so.

What you need to come to terms with is that all you've posted are assumptions based on cognative bias. So you know for a fact that the Nurse's suspended sentence was based on the Judges opinion on the vaccine? You surely have evidence of this? It wasn't possibly her first offence, which Judges tend to had out suspended sentences for?

Nobody could believe her excuse but the judges were reasonable given the very absurd and ludicrous vaccination campaign that wanted to establish itself via coercion and pressures, intimidation, threats of dismissal, etc.

So again, you have evidence for these assumptions made by you that nobody could belive her excuse? You do understand how a trail works? They use this little thing called "evdience" and not just make decission based on assumptions...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The motive is known. The judges didn't want to jail her. You need to come to terms with this. I know you would have been satisfied with her going to jail but the judges didn't think so.

What you need to come to terms with is that all you've posted are assumptions based on cognative bias. So you know for a fact that the Nurse's suspended sentence was based on the Judges opinion on the vaccine? You surely have evidence of this? It wasn't possibly her first offence, which Judges tend to had out suspended sentences for?

Nobody could believe her excuse but the judges were reasonable given the very absurd and ludicrous vaccination campaign that wanted to establish itself via coercion and pressures, intimidation, threats of dismissal, etc.

So again, you have evidence for these assumptions made by you that nobody could belive her excuse? You do understand how a trail works? They use this little thing called "evdience" and not just make decission based on assumptions...

The judges couldn't establish the motive. But the motive is known: The nurse didn't believe the vaccines to be safe and effective.They found an excuse not to jail her.

The nurse injected thousands of people. There were subsequently antibody tests performed and no evidence of antibodies in any of them. It doesn't specify the number but these tests have shown the nurse didn't injected them with the Covid vaccines.

You seem to be very worried with this case.
No cognitive bias from my side or vaccine apologetics. These are your own characteristics.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The judges couldn't establish the motive. But the motive is known: The nurse didn't believe the vaccines to be safe and effective.They found an excuse not to jail her.
The nurse injected thousands of people. There were subsequently antibody tests performed and no evidence of antibodies in any of them. It doesn't specify the number but these tests have shown the nurse didn't injected them with the Covid vaccines.

So a Judge couldn't establish a motive with all the evidence at their finger tips but you can with just assumptions?? I asked you earlier for the proof..

The court found her guilty of 6 counts, so if you have additional information, then please by all means, post it!!

I see thats not forthcoming, so again, it was just your assumption, or should I wait a little longer??
You should re-read the article because it doesn't say that antibodies weren't found in all 8600 anywhere?? Assumptions again!

You seem to be very worried with this case.
No cognitive bias from my side or vaccine apologetics. These are your own characteristics.

I'm not worried at all, I'm actually enjoying watching someone post assumption after assumption about the case because of their cognative bias and denial of the facts.
It's acually fun to watch.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The judges couldn't establish the motive. But the motive is known: The nurse didn't believe the vaccines to be safe and effective.They found an excuse not to jail her.
The nurse injected thousands of people. There were subsequently antibody tests performed and no evidence of antibodies in any of them. It doesn't specify the number but these tests have shown the nurse didn't injected them with the Covid vaccines.

So a Judge couldn't establish a motive with all the evidence at their finger tips but you can with just assumptions?? I asked you earlier for the proof..

The court found her guilty of 6 counts, so if you have additional information, then please by all means, post it!!

I see thats not forthcoming, so again, it was just your assumption, or should I wait a little longer??
You should re-read the article because it doesn't say that antibodies weren't found in all 8600 anywhere?? Assumptions again!

You seem to be very worried with this case.
No cognitive bias from my side or vaccine apologetics. These are your own characteristics.

I'm not worried at all, I'm actually enjoying watching someone post assumption after assumption about the case because of their cognative bias and denial of the facts.
It's acually fun to watch.

Yes they argued they couldn't establish a motive as they didn't want to jail her. Motive is very clear to everyone: She didn't believe the vaccines are safe and effective.

Nobody has argued that she injected all 8,600 of them with the saline solution. But nobody believes she has injected only 6 of them with the saline solution. It is an unknown in this case.

We only have some of the evidence and we cannot be in the minds of the judges but if we take an educated guess we have good chance of being correct. Nothing wrong with an educated guess/assumption.

The case is very clear to me.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yes they argued they couldn't establish a motive as they didn't want to jail her. Motive is very clear to everyone: She didn't believe the vaccines are safe and effective.

So you know better than the Judge and know his motives behind his sentencing of the Nurse? You can get all that from making assumptions?!?!?

Nobody has argued that she injected all 8,600 of them with the saline solution. But nobody believes she has injected only 6 of them with the saline solution. It is an unknown in this case.

You say that but in the post above you said...

There were subsequently antibody tests performed and no evidence of antibodies in any of them.

Which is it? I sense a flip flop coming!!?!?!?

We only have some of the evidence and we cannot be in the minds of the judges but if we take an educated guess we have good chance of being correct. Nothing wrong with an educated guess/assumption.

So you're educated in German law, are you? Care to share those qualifications, I think it more likely qualifications in assumptions!