Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:First of all, I take my hat off to you for doing that kind of work rather than chasing money and a bogus form of status. I also pay tribute to you for asserting that having this discussion here is perfectly valid. However, I must ask, do you really think I am so inhuman as to care less about such vulnerable people than I do about my little bit of freedom? What makes you think that?
I accept that I made an error of judgement. I tried to strike a conciliatory tone, even though you had misrepresented and insulted me. I should have realised that you don't read carefully, as further evidenced by your recent, unjustified, unpleasant and wide-of-the-mark invective.
Even those who agree with you will remember, once the dust has settled, your nasty manner.
By the way, no, there's nothing wrong with making money. Chasing money – the term I used – is something quite different. Take a look at the eye-watering amounts raked in by the pharmaceutical companies. Do you think there's no room for corruption there?
I had already seen that, for most people, it is only once they or a loved one are seriously damaged by the pharmaceutical industry that they begin to ask questions. Then they start to wonder why they didn't ask questions before. Even if none of these beleaguered scientists' warnings ever come true, sadly, that is going to be an experience a fair few reading this will have to go through. It is desperately sad.
With chasing money and the pharmaceutical industry particularly in mind, I am reminded of something from somewhere:
"Love of money is the root of all evil."
This article really helped me to understand what's been going on on this thread.
It also does a good job of explaining how it is that we are ruled by sociopaths.
I take my tin foil hat off to the author.
Really sorry to hear that. My best wishes for the young person's recovery.
I bet you enjoyed that! You made me smile too.
Let's just accept that debunking. I shouldn't have added it – it's getting further away from the topic, anyway.
But, you're not worried about Bill Gates' plans?
Not exactly off-topic, as Bill Gates is absolutely central to what is happening, and since other forum members keep on bringing climate change into the proceedings:
"Harvard Scientists Funded by Bill Gates to Begin Spraying Particles Into the Sky In Experiment to Dim the Sun"
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/harvard-geoengineering-particles-stratosphere/
Hmm,,, Think that's a good idea? Even if some predictions, based on solar cycles and activity as well as the historical record, that we're headed for a new mini-ice-age are wrong, it still doesn't strike me as 'awfully wise'.
I know you like your 'fact-checkers'. I thought I'd see how they handled this. One said,
"But there is no suggestion he is in favor of blocking all sunlight from reaching Earth." (my italics). You've got to laugh, haven't you?
Sociopaths like this, who have the real power, represent a grave danger not only to the human race, but to all life on the planet.
Or do you choose to believe?
On a related note, but more on topic, since it involves aerosol vaccines:
"NASA Admits Spraying Skies"
https://www.thinkaboutit.online/nasa-admits-spraying-skies/
Since you can no longer call these 'conspiracy theories', the next stage is to tell me it's all perfectly OK – there's nothing to worry about. Good luck!
Exactly what were the profiles of those involved in the trials? How long did the trials last? Are they complete? Just a few of the questions one should ask.
As if I should need to make this point, I emphatically do not want the weak to die. Always and in everything, I feel it is my duty to defend the weak.
Who is making the Nietzchean argument? Why not look at the eugenicist roots of some of those involved in pushing the agenda?
One of the foremost Nietzcheans these days, it seeems, is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, recently appointed to Biden's COVID-19 advisory board. He thinks that nobody should live beyond 75, and that health care should be apportioned according to how 'worthwhile' the life is. Take a look. This is for real. Avoiding the temptation to make cheap jokes about Biden's age, I'll just ask, is everyone comfortable with that?
Eugenics never went away, but it had to become stealthy. Don't imagine it is the exclusive preserve of the rabid right-winger.
"Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades."
'Bioethics and the New Eugenics'
Those who do not ask questions: wouldn't they be the ones with the 'religious belief system'?
@Johhny_Heartfield
Are you truly fully informed about how very different these new experimental vaccines are from any vaccines that there have ever been before?
How do you know these vaccines are not going to produce serious problems in the long term?
I hope it isn't because Elton John told you they were safe…
In 1976, Elton John was also pushing the Swine Flu vaccine they wanted everyone to have (there was no need). That didn't go too well:
https://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/deja-vu-the-swine-flu-vaccination-fraud-of-1976
Have they got something on Elton?
(comments now turned off because the vast majority were scathing)
@TheOneFormerlyKnownAsDaniel
Yes, our immune systems are amazing. On the whole, only in those with weak immune systems (mainly the elderly) is COVID-19 a real problem. I don't make light of that. Every case is a tragedy. Old Lives Matter. Like most, I have elderly people close to me about whom I am very concerned. The brutal truth though is that flu, pneumonia and the like are often the 'straw that breaks the camel's back' at the end of life. So, either COVID-19 has been doing that job recently, or, at least perhaps in some case, it wasn't COVID-19, but that is what ended up on the death certificate.
For most, the immune system will deal with it – that is, until you start messing with everyone's immune systems with these very different, not properly tested, new experimental vaccines, produced by companies with long criminal records – companies that are immune from prosecution in the event of injury or death.
You want to gamble? I'd say all bets are off.
Thank you for trying to soothe me and reduce my worries, and thank you for being friendly.
I had a look at the Dr. Michael Yeadon article to which you referred,
https://lockdownsceptics.org/how-robust-is-covid-immunity/
but I'm afraid I couldn't find much comfort in it.
The authors refer to the long observed pattern of the evolution of viruses towards being less dangerous. It is not in the viruses' interests to kill everybody, since they want to spread. So that would be good, but, unfortunately, it applies only if they are left alone, as the article explains.
My understanding is that this attenuation is why the Spanish Flu (February 2018 – April 2020) was all over in two years, without any intervention.
The authors say that the variants around just now are not more dangerous than the 'original', even though we are being told the opposite, and this would certainly be in line with expectations.
However, they include this statement, which relates, I think, to Dr. Yeadon's view:
"Some feel that novel pharmaceuticals and non-pharmaceutical interventions – or specific circumstances – could possibly disrupt this evolutionary process and favour a more severe variant or threaten acquired immunity."
and they finish by warning that overconfidence in vaccine effectiveness for the very old could be a major risk.
Here is Dr. Yeadon's Coronavirus Vaccine Safety Petition. Note especially the first concern, regarding antibody-dependent amplification (antibody-dependent enhancement – ADE). This is the same as the pathogenic priming and cytokine storm I have been highlighting:
https://dryburgh.com/mike-yeadon-coronavirus-vaccine-safety-concerns-petition/
Other important points are highlighted in blue.
Maybe it's not bed-time reading!
You're making a lot of sense. Entries like that make this a great forum.
@ Kid A
I understand the concept of false balance, but will you concede that there is a big difference between, on the one hand, the arguments for and against, say, an even two-handed discussion in a national TV studio in which one person represents 90% of the number of experts and the other 10%, and, on the other hand, kicking every dissenting expert off every major internet platform?
Quote:…not every voice should be heard…it´s ok to "silence" peopleAre you sure about that? Shall I put you down under the heading, 'don't care about freedom'?
My grandfather had a reserved occupation. He didn't have to go to war, but he felt compelled to do so in order to help defeat an evil tyranny, and he gave his life in the process. Under that regime, there was a prevailing scientific orthodoxy, from which sprang the most heinous acts. If you spend just a couple of moments looking at it, you will soon see that it was utterly insane. However, at the time, if, as a scientist, you spoke against it, your career was over. There have been many similar examples throughout history.
But it could never be happenning here and now, could it?
'The international scientific community' is one of those phrases that sits alongside 'the science says'. Is it so unbelievable that the actually quite small number of experts driving policy forward could have, in polite terms, a conflict of interests? What is the basis for your child-like faith in them?
Perhaps the scientists who are trying to warn us, and whom you want silenced, are 'self-righteous', and do have 'big egos'. I am not able to judge. How are you able to judge?
These would have to be egos so large that they don't take into consideration the likely ridicule and condemnation from their peers? Isn't it more likely that, If you had a big ego, you would want the approval that goes with swimming in the mainstream and saying all the 'right' things?
On what basis do you ascribe to these scientists 'half-knowledge'?
I don't know what your beef is with vets, but a professor of molecular biology, former chief scientist at Pfizer, etc. – they're not vets, are they?
But, to speak up for vets: they are intelligent people, who have studied for years, and have many more years real-world experience. Are you so sure a vet would not be able to work out what is going on?
Quote:Facts are facts.Where do I go with that one?! It's unarguable, isn't it? You've got me!
It's so interesting that all the vicious, personal attacks, whether on the scientists trying to warn us or on those of us here trying to give ear to them, come from people who want to believe things are just as they are presented.
Why is that? I'm sure it reveals something.
Actually, I would really like to believe that things are basically all above-board too, but I'm not prepared simply to dismiss these other voices. The stakes are too high.
As i keep repeating ad nauseam, I hope they're wrong, and I hope I am an idiot for listening to them.
@the conscience
That Schopenhauer quote is just absolutely perfect.
@Punj Lizard
It has been very bad. Don't imagine that I belittle it with my 'bad flu' term. Don't forget, flu kills tens of thousands every year, so flu is not a trivial thing.
Just to compare with your wife's very wise precautions, when I go out shopping, as well as a mask, I wear glasses and surgical gloves. I cover the gloves with gunge. I use a different pair for every shop. I use each pair again (rather than throw them away) only after some weeks have passed. I wipe all the packaging with gunge when I return, and wash fruit and vegetables thoroughly. Of course, I also keep my distance from others. Actually, I don't know anyone that goes to the lengths I do. I never see anyone else in the shops wearing gloves, and I realise that people probably think I am an idiot.
I couldn't have been taking this more seriously.
The use of the term 'bad flu' (I don't know, maybe if I'd taken time I could have come up with something better, but it would have been more wordy) was intended to make the contrast between what we have so far witnessed and what may lie in store.
I think bringing comparisons with climate change debates into this is bringing in something which tends to be polarising and which is not relevant. This subject should not be polarising. It has many strands and is far from straightforward (which is not to say that climate change is straightforward, but let's keep it separate).
You also raised the subject of the homeless. I couldn't be more familiar with the plight of the homeless, having had them stay in my home on several occasions. Anybody who doubts the scale of the problem should visit Bristol city centre on Christmas Day. You wouldn't be able to accuse the dozens of people trying to get some precious sleep in a shop doorway on a quiet day of being beggars posing as homeless. But let's also leave that subject.
The drop in fertility rates to which you briefly allude should have been at the top of the news agenda for many years. So why hasn't it been? And what are the causes of this alarming drop? You touch on something of the most profound importance, and maybe it isn't entirely unconnected to our discussion.
You are quite right about data and the loss of privacy and that ship having sailed, as you accurately pinpoint, particularly since 9/11 and the 'War on Terror'. It is just interesting to note how, in the USA, the enormous Patriot Act was drafted so quickly and pushed through in the wake of 9/11. Nobody could have digested it all. Should we read anything into that? Anyway, let's not go there either.
What we don't yet have, however, is all our data on an implantable microchip. Cue predictable howls of derision from those who don't see that we are on the path towards this. Vaccine passports are a step along that path.
Yes, recently, cytokine storm has been highlighted as a product of COVID-19. I see no reason why it shouldn't be. However, the warnings are that this risk will be enormously magnified by the new experimental vaccines.
Now, because of your doubts about some climate change scientists, is that a reason to dismiss these scientists?
They could be wrong. I hope they're wrong. But, shouldn't they have a hearing instead of being censored? What if they are right? Why is the precautionry principle always thrown out of the window?
Don't opt out of the thread, Punj. I'm not interested in having an argument with anyone. I am only interested in having a discussion, and everyone (well, most people anyway) has a valuable angle to bring. The more the better (minus the bullies).
And no, we are not 'fucked'. We must not allow ourselves to think that. But we do have to recognise that we are ruled by sociopaths. And that is our fault. Once we see that, we don't have to be 'fucked' any more.
Quote:I'm working in the health department with disabled and/or elderly people. Their lives aren't sugar coated even without a deadly virus. So yes I'm very annoyed by egocentric views of people who think they lose some kind of freedom if they have to adapt a teeny bit of their routines to life under a deadly virus.First of all, I take my hat off to you for doing that kind of work rather than chasing money and a bogus form of status. I also pay tribute to you for asserting that having this discussion here is perfectly valid. However, I must ask, do you really think I am so inhuman as to care less about such vulnerable people than I do about my little bit of freedom? What makes you think that?
I won't get offended, because I know you can't have grasped what I am trying to say. The reason I continue here, despite all the sniping so unbecoming of this place, is precisely because I am extremely concerned about the future of the elderly and disabled, but also, increasingly, about the future of us all.
Before I attempt another explanation of my concerns, let me reiterate. I don't know.
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
Also, please forget about what you think is my opinion. This isn't about my opinion. I simply want to share the warnings being given by scientists and doctors – warnings that are being suppressed (a concern in and of itself).
I have never in my life wished harder for something to be wrong.
The warnings state that the new experimental vaccines will transform something that has perhaps been like a bad flu into something far, far worse.
One explanation describes how the new experimental vaccines will cause pathogenic priming. This means that when the vaccinated individual encounters the next coronavirus in the wild (and that could even be the common cold), the immune system will go berserk. It is a well known phenomenon called cytokine storm. The end result is something like sepsis, followed by organ failure – probably sudden cardiac arrest.
Because of your work, you might be interested to hear of very recent developments in care homes in the UK, where, of course, the vaccine roll-out is more advanced than anywhere else other than Israel (a lot of bad stories coming out of there, by the way). Two examples are in Exmouth and Sidmouth. Staff had worked very hard for many months to keep these places clear of COVID-19. In January, residents were vaccinated. Now they are suddenly dying in numbers. This could be an early example of what we might see much more of next winter.
The vaccines are not being blamed. Is it coincidence? If you die within 28 days of a so-called positive PCR 'test', no matter what the actual cause, your death is added to the COVID-19 statistics. However, if you die within 28 days of a new experimental vaccine, it can't be the vaccine!
Scientists have been trying to develop coronavirus vaccines since 2002 (with SARS, MERS, etc. causing concern). It turned out that it was very difficult to do. They would give the vaccines to animals (most notably, ferrets), and all would seem well at first. It was only later, when the animals encountered the wild form of the virus, that things went wrong. The animals kept dying, because of pathogenic priming and cytokine storm. So, attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines were abandoned, and strong cautions were issued regarding any future attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines.
Fast forward to now, and suddenly we are to accept that all these problems have recently, and very quickly, been overcome? Do we have the transparency to be able to assure ourselves of this? No. Can these pharmaceutical companies stretch time in order to test for long-term effects? What do you reckon?
The trials, such has they are, aren't even over yet!
And remember, the pharmaceutical companies have ensured that they are granted immunity from prosecution all around the world, even if you could demonstrate that you had been damaged, assuming you were still alive.
If the warnings currently being sounded are correct, then we would expect to see the real problems begin next autumn, when many will have been vaccinated and then they start encountering the season's viruses as they circulate (northern hemisphere).
As well as the terms pathogenic priming and cytokine storm, other names for the same processes include: immuno-priming, immune super-priming, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), antibody-induced enhancement and immune enhancement.
Four warning about this possibility (there are many more) are:
Professor Dolores Cahill
Dr Sucharit Bhakdi
Dr James Lyons-Weiler
Dr Michael Yeadon
As I've said before, you have a bounty of information at your fingertips. I've already given more than enough leads, as have Devotional and the conscience, for anybody to find out for themselves. Just know that YouTube, Facebook and others are doing their best to shut down these warnings, so you have to dig a little. If you still think Wikipedia and the fact-checkers are independent and without bias, I don't think I can help you.
And hey, if anybody does have a good look and can come back, not with tales of how these individuals have been smeared, but with convincing explanations of why they are wrong, I'm absolutely ready to hear it!
For me, by far the best outcome would be that, after the next two winters, say in summer 2023, none of what has been warned against has come about. I would very gladly read on here tons of ridicule at my expense. I would happily lie on the floor while you all kick me and tell me what an idiot I was to pay any heed to such nonsense, and I would thank you for it.
If you can't be bothered looking up the names listed above, or discovering all the others issuing dire warnings, here are a couple of links to the warnings of an individual who explains that the bodies of the vaccinated will be incubating increasingly dangerous forms of the virus. He would appear to be another laying his reputation on the line. This is very new. So far, I have given him less scrutiny than the others. Is he right? I hope not.
This is a Belgian pro-vaccine vaccine expert who has worked for GSK, Novartis, Gavi and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So, not an 'anti-vaxxer' then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9PdZn_Yd5w&t=89s
By the way, anyone out there with the balls and decency of Devotional and the conscience, who is perhaps coming late to this thread. Don't be intimidated. Come and add your voice.
@ Punj Lizard
Tomorrow (Monday 15th March) at 16:30 (UK time), there will be a British Parliamentary
debate on the matter of vaccine passports in response to the e-petition that has
garnered nearly 300,000 signatures (100,000 are required to trigger a debate).
Let me try and respond to your invitation and make the case against vaccine passports.
It's difficult to speak about them in isolation from the new, experimental vaccines,
PCR 'tests', lockdowns, death certificates, etc., etc., especially as the very idea of
them coming in has already, by design perhaps, chivvied people into rolling up their
sleeves and offering themselves up…but I'll try.
I know you believe it is just a temporary thing, which enables live music to restart.
I understand why people don't see a problem, especially if they trust governments.
However, the French have a saying. It's something along these lines:
"The temporary becomes the permanent."
If I perhaps know you a little, Punj, I'd say you were a lover of freedom.
Can I jog your memory? Do you recall more than one attempt in recent history in the UK,
both by governments of the left (well, New Labour anyway) and the right, to introduce
ID cards? Why couldn't they push it through? Because people weren't having it!
These vaccine passports, I believe, will morph into ID cards. It is essentially what
they would be from the outset anyway.
History shows us time and time again that when governments award themselves emergency
powers, they rarely give them up easily. I rather doubt that vaccine passports will
be restricted just to international travel, gigs, restaurants and the like. I believe
they might be required if you want to go to work or even buy food. This, essentially,
would make them mandatory.
This, in turn, would effectively make taking the new, experimental vaccines compulsory.
Many people have very good reasons for not wanting to take them. I particularly wonder
what happens to people with a history of serious adverse reaction.
(And, yes, I can hear someone out there shouting, "Nobody cares!")
Do we also talk about privacy? Are we not bothered that these cards could carry a
wealth of personal data. I mean, you have considered that, right? Are you OK with that?
I also think not many people have factored in that you will be continually having
to fork out for tests to keep your passport valid. More money rolling in for someone…
By the way, if Tony Blair is really pushing something, doesn't that give you pause
for thought?
What happens when the stories start coming through that people are faking these
vaccine passports? Perhaps the reports will be true; perhaps not. It hardly matters.
Just wait and see. They will come. And then, what do you suppose will be the
proposed solution?
And will everyone on this forum be gagging for that too?
I fear this plan might have been long in the making.
I have great sympathy for Bent and the other guys. They've got to make a living.
If they start considering the ramifications of going with vaccine passports, it
puts them in a very difficult position. That, of course, would be the motivation
not to look closely.
I'm hanging onto the hope that Bent is going to come around. We all know that MP work
incredibly hard. It takes time to get to grips with this question – time he perhaps
hasn't had, because of his devotion to music-making (for which I am usually so
grateful).
I'm sorry. I can't resist quoting Sister Sledge:
"We're lost in music –
Caught in a trap."
I think he might just take another look. I really hope so.
Devotional said, "Sometimes what you fight is what you become." Maybe the left/right
pantomime is the best trick in the book. So, you look at Trump and the alt-right, and
you see lies, bigotry and hatred. Understandably, you want to run in the opposite
direction. But, do you apply the same scrutiny to that which you are embracing?
Left or right? It's like backing one horse when both are owned by the same stable.
It appears to me that virtually all the politicians of the left, right or centre, all
around the world, who have any chance of getting near power, are already bought and
paid for.
I'm going to leave you with this short video. It's a prediction about something like
what we're witnessing, made back in 2012 by Thomas Sheridan (not Tommy Sheridan). I don't
necessarily subscribe to everything he says. but it's well worth a look.
Anybody here care about freedom?
Absolutely with you. I love the classic prog, especially Yes, but I'm also partial to intelligent, well made hard rock, with that raw emotion.
While N.O.X. blew me away, it's sitting on the shelf because I don't want to overlisten to it. I'm hoping for more-meat-and-two-veg (with apologies to veggies!) like Child of the Future (perhaps the last time they delivered what we're talking about on record – and, by the way, where's that CD?!).
Perhaps you are correct and the authors of the Corman-Drosten Review have it wrong. The rebuttal you cite appears, on a superficial reading, quite persuasive. Really, though, you (I presume) and I (definitely) would struggle to be sure who is correct. This is why I say that I could be wrong in listening to scientists and doctors warning about aspects of this crisis we are passing through.
However, if the authors of this report are not sufficiently highly or specifically qualified, would you pay attention to the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the PCR 'test' himself? (See post to come.)
Beyond the authors of this report, there are many, many more scientists and doctors trying to warn. Of course, they don't all say the same thing, because there is no such thing as 'the science'. Science is never 'settled'. In case you worry that they are not sufficiently highly or specifically qualified, be assured that there are molecular biologists among them.
As a layman, trying to weigh up what different groups of scientists and doctors are telling me, I have on the one hand the 'trusted' experts (the only ones most people get to hear from), who have driven through the policies on lockdowns that have caused untold damage, and who, it appears, might have serious conflicts of interest, while on the other hand I have the other experts (who you don't see on your TV or read about in your papers), who are being censored, banned, smeared, fired and who are losing their careers. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. They are absolutely passionate about many things, but, perhaps most of all, about the possible disastrous long-term consequences of these new, experimental vaccines. (Please note: not vaccines in general. Please also note: long-term consequencees as opposed to immediate side-effects.)
Anybody not rushing out to get one of these experimental vaccines (the trials aren't finished yet) – instead preferring to ascertain exactly what they are signing up for – would do well to research pathogenic priming and cytokine storm.
If the warnings are correct, next winter could make what we have seen so far look like a tea party. This will be because of the experimental vaccines (but it will be blamed on new variants or viruses).
If you decide to get the jabs (now and every year for ever more), good luck to you. Just be sure you are giving your informed consent.
