Did COVID Vaccine Injuries Influence FAA’s Revision of EKG Test Limits for Pilots?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Let's get something straight here- your suspicions are focused on the messenger. In essence, you like to attack the messenger. My suspicions are focused on the evidence of various official stories. Attacking the messenger generally degrades a conversation to a flame war. But perhaps that is your goal?

Providing examples that reveal how specious your arguments are hardly just focused on you. The example is pretty clear in that it reveals how little you rely on actual critical thinking. It demonstrates that logic would dictate that one apply the same standard to all evidence and conclusions. You continually fail to do that. I have merely pointed out that the evidence of you being a Russian troll would require anyone that follows your logic must make the conclusion that you are a Russian troll or admit they don't use any objective standards when it comes to critical thinking.

Your statement in this sentence where you claim you are focused on evidence of "official" stories but you keep using sources that are in no way official points to how you can't tell official from conspiracy theories.

 

[Scott]

So the FAA claims. Janice Hisle, in an article for The Epoch Times, had a great rebuttal to the FAA on this, as well as to their claim that there is “no evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with COVID-19 vaccines.”" Quoting from her article:

**
FAA Gives Partial Answer

In a Jan. 17 email to The Epoch Times, the FAA said there is “no evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with COVID-19 vaccines.” That was the same language the FAA used in previous responses to inquiries.

Critics allege that the FAA has found no such evidence because no investigation has been done.

Regarding the revised EKG standard, the FAA said: “When making changes to medical requirements and guidance, the FAA follows standard processes based on data and science.”

But the FAA has yet to reveal what data drove its decision to allow COVID injections for pilots. The agency has not disclosed the reasons for changing the acceptable range for pilots’ PR intervals.

Stephen Carbone, a former FAA safety inspector, takes issue with the FAA on both counts–allowing the COVID shots and the new EKG standard for pilots.

“The FAA’s decision to lower the EKG standards is the latest assault on aviation safety from an organization that has pledged to put aviation safety ahead of all else,” he said in a Jan. 22 email to The Epoch Times. “It is nothing short of safety sacrilege; to those of us in aviation, safety is sacred.”

Whatever the reason for the FAA’s change to the PR interval limit, Carbone is distressed over its possible consequences.

“I can’t highlight enough how dangerous this is and how irresponsible,” he said. “It risks the lives of pilots; it risks the lives of passengers; and it risks the lives of anyone in a house, apartment building, school, car, beach, park, or museum under the aircraft’s path.”
**

Full article (behind a paywall):
FAA Change to Heart-Test Limit Triggers Worries Over Pilot Health, Public Safety | The Epoch Times

I quoted the same text to Conc back in post #19. The very first line in his response was "You need to understand that no rational person is going to give any credibility to the Epoch Times."

To those who don't trust The Epoch Times for whatever reason, I suggest looking to Janice Hisle's long reporting record instead. From her website:

**
Janice Hisle established herself as a bulldog news reporter—with a heart—during more than two decades as a professional journalist. She would fight, scratch and claw for public records yet wrote tragic stories with a soft touch.

​After more than two decades as a full-time writer for daily newspapers, Janice became a freelance writer. She spent eighteen months writing and researching her first book, Submerged: Ryan Widmer, his drowned bride and the justice system.

[snip]

Janice graduated summa cum laude from Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, with a bachelor’s degree in journalism/news-editorial.

Her work has focused mainly on public safety and criminal justice, including coverage of dozens of murder cases, with occasional articles on business, health and fitness.
**

Source:
https://janicehisle.com/about-janice-hisle-speaker-writer-author/

You credulity is showing again. You believe one side without evidence and discount the other when they make statements.

The "one side", as you call it, has been an investigative reporter for over 2 decades. In her article, she quotes a former FAA safety inspector, who lambasts the FAA's decision. The other is some nameless governmental spokesperson. The most important thing here, though, is that the governmental spokesperson hasn't actually provided evidence for their main claim here, that being that they changed the EKG test limits due to 'data and science', yet have yet to reveal what alleged data and science they're referring to.

Nice logical fallacy. The credentials of the reporter don't make her story not be speculation. Read the words she wrote. People allege. People take issue. There is nothing in there that is actual facts from sources that show it to exist.

Actually, I believe it's the opposite- her entire article is chalk full of facts. Let's start with the first sentence that I quoted above. Janice Hisle writes, "Critics allege that the FAA has found no [evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with] because no investigation has been done."

Do you have any evidence suggesting that critics -don't- allege this? Or take it from the other way- do you have any evidence suggesting that the FAA -has- done an investigation?

It is not the responsibility of the government to disprove every silly allegation.

Conversely, it -should- be the government's responsibility to provide evidence that serious allegations aren't true, if that's its stance.

 

[Scott]

Let's get something straight here- your suspicions are focused on the messenger. In essence, you like to attack the messenger. My suspicions are focused on the evidence of various official stories. Attacking the messenger generally degrades a conversation to a flame war. But perhaps that is your goal?

Providing examples that reveal how specious your arguments are hardly just focused on you.

I don't see you doing that. From where I stand, I see most of your time is dedicated to attacking the messenger (whoever they may be) of viewpoints you disagree with rather than addressing the evidence.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Actually, I believe it's the opposite- her entire article is chalk full of facts. Let's start with the first sentence that I quoted above. Janice Hisle writes, "Critics allege that the FAA has found no [evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with] because no investigation has been done."

Do you have any evidence suggesting that critics -don't- allege this? Or take it from the other way- do you have any evidence suggesting that the FAA -has- done an investigation?

Let's look at that first sentence.

Critics allege. They allege, they haven't presented any actual evidence.

Just because a critic alleges something is NOT evidence it exists.

Critics allege that Phoenyx is a Russian troll. If we follow your logic then you are a Russian troll since critics allege it without evidence.

Conversely, it -should- be the government's responsibility to provide evidence that serious allegations aren't true, if that's its stance.

It is not the responsibility of the accused to prove a negative.

Since critics allege you are a Russian troll, is it your responsibility to prove you aren't? Does the fact that you have not proven you aren't a Russian troll prove you are?

Your logic when applied objectively to your being a Russian troll would seem to prove you are Russian troll. Perhaps the problem is that your logic is faulty.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I don't see you doing that. From where I stand, I see most of your time is dedicated to attacking the messenger (whoever they may be) of viewpoints you disagree with rather than addressing the evidence.

You don't see a lot of things. One of the biggest blind spots is you don't see that your logic is faulty as hell and you don't apply it objectively.

 

[Scott]

Actually, I believe it's the opposite- her entire article is chalk full of facts. Let's start with the first sentence that I quoted above. Janice Hisle writes, "Critics allege that the FAA has found no [evidence of aircraft accidents or incapacitations caused by pilots suffering medical complications associated with] because no investigation has been done."

Do you have any evidence suggesting that critics -don't- allege this? Or take it from the other way- do you have any evidence suggesting that the FAA -has- done an investigation?

Let's look at that first sentence.

Critics allege. They allege, they haven't presented any actual evidence

First of all, how would you know? I strongly suspect you don't even know the critics Janice Hisle is referring to. Secondly, my point is that Janice Hisle's claim that critics allege this is well founded. You certainly haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Scott]

Providing examples that reveal how specious your arguments are hardly just focused on you.

I don't see you doing that. From where I stand, I see most of your time is dedicated to attacking the messenger (whoever they may be) of viewpoints you disagree with rather than addressing the evidence.

You don't see a lot of things.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

First of all, how would you know? I strongly suspect you don't even know the critics Janice Hisle is referring to. Secondly, my point is that Janice Hisle's claim that critics allege this is well founded. You certainly haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.

LOL.. So someone that isn't named makes a specious claim without any evidence and you think I need to provide evidence?

Critics allege is a phrase that contains zero evidence. The fact that the critics are not named means they can't be questioned.

Critics allege that Phoenyx is a Russian troll only here to spread disinformation. That claim is well founded since critics do allege that. You certainly haven't provide any evidence to the contrary.

Objectively if you believe your claim then you must also believe mine. The evidence is the same. The logic is the same.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Unsubstantiated assertion.

It is well substantiated based on your posts on JPP. Almost every thread you have started promotes a conspiracy theory of some kind.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630598472570224641

By now everyone who is paying attention has realized that something is amiss with the COVID 19 gene therapy shots. You’ve probably seen reports of severe adverse reactions up to and including death, reports of people of all ages dying suddenly in their sleep, and athletes of both sexes at the peak of physical condition collapsing in practice or in competition. These conditions, we are learning, are not caused by the virus; rather, they are caused directly by the contents of the vials or because of a significantly weakened immune system from taking shot after shot

.There’s another cohort that we need to think about in case you are not aware. This group is in the aviation industry, and this article will focus on the cockpit crew in that aircraft that gets you safely where you want to go. Know that flight attendants, air traffic controllers, and support personnel are also affected; however, a problem with your pilots can lead to a disaster, killing you and maybe hundreds of other innocent passengers and even people on the ground. This article highlights those pilots.

We face a two-pronged dilemma, both of which must be addressed. First, the governments of the countries forcing flight crews to be “vaccinated” must immediately withdraw those mandates. Next, the pilots who took the shot and are adversely affected must be helped to reverse those ill effects.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The airline safety problem is made significantly worse by many airlines adopting WOKE hiring. It is unlikely that we will get through this year without a major airline disaster, there have been several near catastrophes over the last months.

 

[Scott]

Let's look at that first sentence.

Critics allege. They allege, they haven't presented any actual evidence.

First of all, how would you know? I strongly suspect you don't even know the critics Janice Hisle is referring to. Secondly, my point is that Janice Hisle's claim that critics allege this is well founded. You certainly haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.

LOL.. So someone that isn't named makes a specious claim without any evidence and you think I need to provide evidence?

You made the assertion that the critics Janice Hisle refers to haven't provided any actual evidence, so yes, I expect you to back up your claim.

Critics allege is a phrase that contains zero evidence. The fact that the critics are not named means they can't be questioned.

Your focus is all wrong. Either the FAA did an investigation or they didn't. They're the ones that should be questioned as to whether or not they've conducted this investigation.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You made the assertion that the critics Janice Hisle refers to haven't provided any actual evidence, so yes, I expect you to back up your claim.



Your focus is all wrong. Either the FAA did an investigation or they didn't. They're the ones that should be questioned as to whether or not they've conducted this investigation.

LOL. When you ask me to prove a negative it means you lost the debate.

Here is the evidence they provided .....


"




"
Prove they didn't provide what I just quoted.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636226165181648896

 

[Scott]

You made the assertion that the critics Janice Hisle refers to haven't provided any actual evidence, so yes, I expect you to back up your claim.

Your focus is all wrong. Either the FAA did an investigation or they didn't. They're the ones that should be questioned as to whether or not they've conducted this investigation.

LOL. When you ask me to prove a negative it means you lost the debate.

I asked you to provide evidence for your assertion that the critics Janice Hisle refers to haven't provided atual evidence. So far, you haven't provided any.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I asked you to provide evidence for your assertion that the critics Janice Hisle refers to haven't provided atual evidence. So far, you haven't provided any.

My lack of evidence would be considered proof of their lack of evidence, don't you agree? That seems to be your standard.

You really shouldn't make such idiotic requests by demanding people back up their claims when you use the Baileys who have provided no evidence that scientists have never isolated or grown viruses.

Here is proof that the Baileys are lying on part of their claims.
Viruses have been grown in cultures. The Nobel prize was awarded in 1954 for the discovery of how to grow the polio virus in tissue cultures.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/

Are you going to deny that the Nobel prize was awarded for growing viruses in cultures?

 

[Scott]

I asked you to provide evidence for your assertion that the critics Janice Hisle refers to haven't provided atual evidence. So far, you haven't provided any.

My lack of evidence would be considered proof of their lack of evidence, don't you agree?

Definitely not.

That seems to be your standard.

When have I ever said I had proof of anything?

Here is proof that the Baileys are lying on part of their claims.
Viruses have been grown in cultures. The Nobel prize was awarded in 1954 for the discovery of how to grow the polio virus in tissue cultures.

I see you've brought this up in the virus debate thread as well. I'll respond to you on this there.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Definitely not.


When have I ever said I had proof of anything?

ROFLMAO. So I have to prove things and you don't? And you then think we should take what you say with some semblance of seriousness. You are providing nothing but bullshit.

I see you've brought this up in the virus debate thread as well. I'll respond to you on this there.

I look forward to you conceding to the actual facts and getting away from your bullshit. Rule number one would be demanding the same standard for yourself and your sources that you demand of the other side.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

FAKE NEWS as usual!

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1638980902289313792