Cancer of the world (Split from “e-mobility devices banned from city buses in Erie Pennsylvania”)

[0000]

Oh, and btw @UniVehje - I decided to do VICE's job and pull up the search function on OpenVAERS to populate some cases to see if the data matched up with VAERS actual website (you have to click on the 'VAERS Report Details*' button to open a search session to compare VAERS ID data) - and whaddya know, I was able to do a little verification!

Here's just one example of a 13 year old (linked below) who died suddenly 3 days after his Moderna injection. Worth mentioning too that modeRNA was the shot with 3 times more mRNA spike instruction than Pfizer IIRC, but hey, it was totally OK to mix and match, didn't matter which you took right? It's just a single anecdote, but people like you seem to want to completely dismiss the possibility of what this data quite obviously suggests. Well here's one of the children you effectively need to step over on your way to ideological purity I suppose.

OpenVAERS - I can't link to the VAERS case #1463061 because the search address is a tokenized (just horrible that someone made this information easily shareable IKR), but if you pull it up, the data and summary is the same. I did this for a few cases just to verify things were being populated per VAERS and not some kind of misinformation, and didn't find any duplication issues. Makes sense as the author probably has a script to automate new entries.

Now I don't have time to verify all 35,549 cases match across websites, but let's say the OpenVAERS got 95%, 80%, or even 50% of those cases copied perfectly across for arguments sake. I mean, I'm no expert, but that's still over 17,000 deaths linked to these injections (and we know from a previous study that VAERS is under-reported to the tune of 1% to 10% of actual cases, linking the 2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study). In other words, the deaths linked directly to these injections were likely far, far higher than reported.

Kind of a horrifying statistical peculiarity going on, no? Something worth maybe a little bit of investigation and verification. I mean this horrible right wing conspiracy chart suggests that maybe "journalists" might better spend their time investigating whether mixing and matching mRNA concoctions with no long term safety data and zero toxicology information (what happens in the body after you inject it) was maybe not so safe or effective rather than slandering people who figured out better ways to share or themselves are sharing this extremely pertinent public health information.

Now I'm sure the CDC, the WHO, the AMA, and all the other official bodies and institutions who went along with this grand human experiment are going to go right along and investigate themselves for wrong-doing, and the mainstream press will totally hold these powerful and influential institutions accountable by asking the tough questions, the same media who got 75% of their advertising revenue in 2020 from the pharmaceutical industry. Any day now.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Vanturion

[0000]

7 hours ago, earthtwin said:

The more action you can take the better because Covid is so serious.

You're probably relatively young and have nothing to worry about from COVID itself despite all of the fear and pressure from previous years. If you're still worried about COVID though, some of the most credible advice and relevant advice in explaining what COVID is, where it came from, and how to effectively deal with it was given in this interview (I bet it'd blow some people's minds here too if they gave it a chance):

https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/quoth-the-raven-301-dr-peter-a-mccullough/comments

Coincidentally it was removed from YouTube. I'm actually curious what your thoughts are, so if you want to indulge me, listen to the interview all the way through and tell me if YouTube was justified in removing it from the platform or not. Out out of everything I've listened to the last few years, it's the best one I've heard getting it in one concise shot. Maybe not the best out there, but the best I've personally heard.

Oh and it doesn't hurt to skip the intro too. It's a finance blog guy oddly enough doing the interview, and he always does like a million shoutouts for 6 minutes or so.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Vanturion

[woke rider]

That's a great interview, thanks for the link. Youtube has been censoring a lot lately. Remember when we used to get over a million results from a google search? Now we get like 12 results. I often get none, no hits, just that ice fishing picture.

Edited July 16, 2023 by earthtwin
typo

[0000]

10 hours ago, sbb said:

Back when the virus was new, and about two weeks after Cuomo (NYS governor) had forced the infected elderly to be placed back into retirement homes after pulling his own family members out, there was serious fear that every old person was going to be slaughtered by this virus. There was a hospital ship available that could have taken every infected person and cared for them, but Cuomo refused to use it, and it sat idle.

I don't know inside NY political baseball, but even on the outside that bit of hypocrisy and deliberate sacrificing of the elderly and infirm was shocking, monstrous even. I mean, if one lives in actual reality, they pretty much expect that the tolerance bar amongst the ruling class is pretty high for what levels of abuse and hypocrisy they'll permit against the unwashed masses.

Still, I wonder if this was the real reason or factor contributing to his eventual fall from grace (not the sex scandal or whatever excuse no one cares about that they always run to get a guy out); this example of open malevolence perhaps crossing an unstated line with people who actually matter such as his socialite peers and financiers. What was the death toll, wasn't it something like 9000 when this was a story got out? No trial of course.

10 hours ago, sbb said:

The covid masks that the Experts have told us to be 70+ percent efficacy are no better than putting a tube sock over your face.  The "wear two masks = 97% efficacy" claim that the experts made is also no better than wearing a tube sock over your face, folded. Or a T-shirt.

The mask hoax was initially good guidance when the viral transmission was thought to be spread by spit.  Actual experts put out guidance to mitigate having someone else's sneeze land in your eyes, nose, or mouth; stay out of the spray (6+ feet) OR wear a spit-shield and sunglasses.

That advice was good for about 9 days, if I recall, after which the transmission was proven to be aerosol. And then that advice became completely irrelevant.

Great mask rant. There were also plenty of pre-existing studies too proving the utter uselessness of all kinds of fabrics. Pre-existing studies, publicly accessible. Right fucking there. Hell I got a full page word document of links compiling them, but who cares. Even the very idea of creating a warm and wet trap right in front of your dumbass breathing hole for hours in the day in which new "unvaccinated" air was constantly being sucked through and by... this was like a logic test equivalent to testing whether you can find your way out of a fucking paper bag. Masks. Fucking hell.

Our "betters" sure do know best.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Vanturion

[woke rider]

[woke rider]

 

[0000]

@earthtwin that talk had nothing to do with ideological or political censorship of information that disagrees with authoritative narratives though, which is what's most relevant to the topics we've been discussion thus far. It's all about advertising, marketshare, and market-dominance transforming the internet landscape over time and thus how people interact online and it's pretty clear the author is interested in building his social media business above anything else. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but not providing any relevant insight into big tech censorship (not that it's needed, we know what's going on).

It'd be a little more interesting to speculate on how Google Search's dominance may be disrupted in lieu of AI-search related products, but if they're simply going to be trained on Snopes, Reuter's Fact Checkers, and mainstream media articles , then they'll simply be a tool of further ideological indoctrination of the masses that will serve to continue, if not accelerate, the current trend to discredit and stamp out all narratives that challenge the status quo such as the interview I linked you.

In other words, helping to advance the Dead Internet Theory. Which I only heard of just the other day, fascinating how the wiki entry immediately maligns it with it's opening statement:

Quote

an online conspiracy theory that asserts that the Internet now consists almost entirely of bot activity and automatically generated content that is manipulated by algorithmic curation, marginalizing organic human activity

As if twitter bots, wordpress copy-pasta websites created for affiliate link dumps, youtube comment bots, and now AI Chatbots didn't functionally do exactly what the definition the wiki posts asserts is a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is a laughing stock for anything deemed "problematic" or "controversial" idea to mainstream thought.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Vanturion

[sbb]

54 minutes ago, Vanturion said:

Our "betters" sure do know best.

The photo shows the grift. The guidance was "6 feet OR a mask if 6 feet cannot be maintained."  It was, quite literally, about not getting sneezed on. If you had a spit guard (mask), you didn't need to stay out of the spray. They also should be wearing the lexan types, not cloth. But they wear cloth, to push the "it works against aerosols" hoax.

The above shield has "100% efficacy against the virus" according to the standard they were pushing to people who actually needed to mitigate risk. But such a shield wrecks the delusion of efficacy against an aerosol.  A lexan mask has the same efficacy against an aerosol virus as the crap masks any of the politicals in that photo are wearing.

Zero.

And some countries would bury you under the prison if you were caught not wearing such a placebo mask.

Things that stink, generally, don't get fixed with a mask.

Cheers,

Edited July 16, 2023 by sbb

[0000]

10 minutes ago, sbb said:

It was, quite literally, about not getting sneezed on

It was also about making sure everyone was prepped at all times to go into surgery. Medical qualification be damned!

For some reason the administration deemed it to be really, really important to ensure that all citizens weren't able to drop spittle into an open wound cavity on the off-chance that every qualified medical surgeon spontaneously died, and Joe-Masked-Blow was somehow the next warm body in line to cut into "Suzy-I need an appendectomy stat-Q."

Edited July 16, 2023 by Vanturion

[Eucner]

8 hours ago, Vanturion said:

It depends what kind of society you want to live in I suppose.

That has nothing to do with my post, a totally different subject.

[Freeforester]

That Wikipedia has (I believe) been largely discredited by its original creator for exactly the type of malinformation all too often found populating ‘matters and/or persons of certain interests’  does tend to suggest that it may no longer be quite the fount of knowledge it set out to be.

A little closer to home - on the one hand we like to imagine our monocycle runarounds as ‘efficient’ means of making our way across the surface of this planet,  and compared to electric cars this may well be a valid point. But at what cost, and what if Henry Ford had come up with a gyro…

 

 

[woke rider]

2 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Wikipedia is a laughing stock for anything deemed "problematic" or "controversial" idea to mainstream thought.

Wikipedia has degenerated over the years. It used to be better about publishing alternative information. That makes me wonder what actually counts as knowledge. I suspect that the Covid shutdowns were actually a cover for something worse. Have you noticed how the mass media rarely publishes stories about terrorism against the United States, as if it's not a problem. Mainstream media will usually call it something else, and refuses identify it as terrorism. Forums can be a good source of information. A lot of people around here in Wyoming don't even watch the news because they know it's BS, except for the local stuff.

[sbb]

12 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Medical qualification be damned!

I stumbled across this today.  Q.E.D.

Our European friends might enjoy this.

 

[0000]

6 hours ago, earthtwin said:

Wikipedia has degenerated over the years.

9 hours ago, Freeforester said:

That Wikipedia has (I believe) been largely discredited by its original creator for exactly the type of malinformation all too often found populating ‘matters and/or persons of certain interests’  does tend to suggest that it may no longer be quite the fount of knowledge it set out to be.

Larry Sanger, there it is. A great in-depth take on what happened from the quintessential insider. Highly recommended.

Good advice from the top YouTube comment as well:

Quote

If you are reading anything even remotely controversial on Wikipedia, read the history of changes, not the end result.

EDIT: I love how YouTube tags the top-left of this interview with COVID-19 CDC Spam, how ironic.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Vanturion

[Flygonial]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:51 AM, Planemo said:

Somewhat, yes. Even with rules. A modern society without rules is Mad Max on a mass scale. Humans are simply too self centered and cant be trusted unless on a small scale eg Amish/small tribes in Africa/Inuit nomads etc.

Humans are, in general, a selfish-based disease and a blight on this planet to every other living organism, even themselves.

Rules are needed for the majority to keep our sorry asses in check.

1st world citizens are way too narcissistic to live in a society without rules. Theres no turning back from that thanks to social media and capitalism so get used to it.

Though you've pinned blame on capitalism, it wouldn't be fair to pass such a scathing judgement over human nature without taking it into account. Why should human nature be defined by the worst behavior of people who thrive in a system that rewards heartless, cutthroat greed? Would it not be possible that the extreme individualism that many people value today is not brought upon them by a system that fights tooth and nail to perpetuate itself? For decades, politicians and pundits have conditioned people to believe that the poor are to blame for their own plight, lazy bottomfeeders who rob working people of their hard-earned wealth. Though not as many, plenty of people have followed a similar line of logic that they themselves are merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires. There will always be entitled people too, and in fact I don't believe that most people in our dominantly capitalist world today are actually that bad at their core, but like I said, what do you expect with the way things are?

On 6/29/2023 at 7:37 PM, Punxatawneyjoe said:

something wrong with this now? It's bad to own a business?

There's a world of difference between running a modestly sized business to being among the few who have accumulated enough wealth to have outsized influence over society by funding media that says what they want, pay politicians off, or use their enormous wealth to build borderline monopolies that continue to grow themselves. Sure, we get a huge variety of products out of capitalism, and there is a sense of appeal to voting with your wallet to weed out quality from the junk, but when your votes are limited by your wealth, you can see how this is ultimately ends up rigged. Though I often hear people repeat age-old adages on how capitalism for all it's flaws is the best we can get, and have bought into such narratives myself for much of my life, I've come to feel much more skeptical of this myself. I know many people can insist that what we see today is a perversion of capitalism, crony so to speak, but it seems to me that this is ultimately a natural outcome. Wealth begets wealth, and the earlier winners get to buy out competition to the point where they pose a serious threat to the checks and balances of the political system, and in many cases, they win. Should they be beaten back, it would only be a temporary defeat. In the last few decades, we've seen a rolling back of journalistic standards (thereby allowing for anyone with enough wealth to fund their own interests), social programs being gutted, a great drop in the influence of unions, and I'm not so confident that this game of tug-of-war can be won.

As many of us PEV riders probably know, the sway car manufacturers and modern oil barons hold are one of if not the biggest obstacles to how we get treated and perceived by both random people and the law. They've come to shape our living conditions to a point where so many people can't imagine alternatives to car dependency. Beyond this, I wouldn't feel as though it's a stretch to see how the accumulation of wealth and widespread privatization of the medical field (and research) is a huge reason for things such as vaccine cover-ups (though I admit I've not looked into that topic too much myself). 

I'm not one to say that I feel qualified or well-read enough to propose solutions to all these problems, but when people express their resentment towards capitalism, they probably mean something more along the lines of what I'm talking about.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

23 minutes ago, Flygonial said:

system that rewards heartless, cutthroat greed?

The problem is that a certain group hell bent on controlling the population uses "trigger" words to control their flock. Capitalism is one such word, leaving people with a picture in their mind, just like the above text. When in fact , that isn't what capitalism is at all. I asked the question in order to confirm my suspicions. People are such follower lemmings nowadays, it's disgusting.

[0000]

13 hours ago, Eucner said:

That has nothing to do with my post, a totally different subject.

You said:

Quote

“It could have been the right decision”

I thought ethics and informed consent factored into the calculus for people to judge if a health decision was right or wrong.

13 hours ago, Eucner said:

That has nothing to do with my post, a totally different subject.

Discussing how relevant human trial statistics were manipulated and falsified seemed more interesting to talk, especially in regards to helping others here assess authoritative credibility in the future, at least than debating an unprovable outcome. But alright, I'll give that a shot.

Quote

You can't know what the alternative fate for you would have been.

Well I think you can make a pretty good case that his results were almost certainly worse than doing nothing, beyond the standard age, weight, race, # of co-morbidity predictive risk assessment.

Researchers have compiled a ton of informative correlations thanks to the Pfizer losing their document disclosure court case with vaccine batch information and other disclosures and studies resulting in these findings:

RNA Degradation from time of manufacturing affecting lethality

EU Deletions records purged from VAERS indicating batch toxicity targeting by EU country

Lethality between injection manufacturers

LNP Toxicity as a component of the injections

Efficacy of Partial vs Full Vaccination study finding those who were “up-to-date” with their shots were worse off than those who were not.

It’s pretty well known now that the mRNA instructions people were pressured to inject into their body doesn’t just stay in their arm, look at the individuals who experienced the following:

Myocarditis

Blood Clots

Brain Damage

And many more, but I won't repost the entire compilation here. Anyway I would invite anyone to explore the howbad.info page that makes this information easily accessible.

In Summary:

Effectively individuals were making themselves sick to varying degrees with adjuvants and, more importantly, spike proteins so they could still get exposed to spike proteins later in the air, but now with a weakened immune status at best, as the injections did nothing to provide immunity, nor prevent the spread. The corona virus, being highly mutable, kept doing it’s thing and people who injected spike protein instructions were simply adding another, arguably worse, vector to expose themselves to toxic spike proteins in addition to the doses they’d get anyways by simply existing in a world that manufactured SARS-COV-2 for gain of function.

So no, I think it’s a nigh certainty he and others were made worse off by these toxic products. I also think it's best to raise awareness of these realities to stop further harm than pretending that anything that went on could possibly be have conceived of as "the right decision". Again, with sympathy to the people already made victim of the propaganda.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Vanturion

[Flygonial]

4 hours ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

The problem is that a certain group hell bent on controlling the population uses "trigger" words to control their flock. Capitalism is one such word, leaving people with a picture in their mind, just like the above text. When in fact , that isn't what capitalism is at all. I asked the question in order to confirm my suspicions. People are such follower lemmings nowadays, it's disgusting.

Which certain group is this, and what would you define capitalism as? For example, everything I've described moreso describes crony capitalism but I've already stated why I believe such problems to be insidious and make it difficult to avoid such negative outcomes. Would you argue that things could or should be done differently in how capitalism really should be? Would you argue my thoughts on the influence of wealth are untrue?

EDIT: I read back and realize that you already said that on the first page, oops. I do already agree that most people are pretty decent and many people do good things within the system we have right now. The poor are significantly overrepresented in crime, but I still feel it's unfair to label them as much it is to consider anyone wealthy a bloodsucker either. Even then, my argument still rests on the argument that the "corruption" we see develops naturally as a result of allowing the bad apples in the bunch to have more power than they really should.

I do feel as though the tone from @Planemo's comment is patronizing and distasteful, is that Hobbesian view of human nature what you meant by the attitudes held by 'a certain group'? I do admit that there is a tendency for some people hating on capitalism to just be contrarian for the sake of it, but I didn't come to have my current thoughts blindly (though I don't claim to be an expert) and in fact developed them in opposition to what I already believed before (In a similar vein, I'm also just a bit confused on whether or not you were just talking down on him or also me).

Edited July 17, 2023 by Flygonial

[Eucner]

10 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Well I think you can make a pretty good case that his results were almost certainly worse than doing nothing, beyond the standard age, weight, race, # of co-morbidity predictive risk assessment.

That's your assumption. There is also contradicting opinions. Nobody will never know for sure, because there is no alternate reality.

[UniVehje]

On 7/15/2023 at 7:33 PM, atdlzpae said:

I'm very skeptical of this claim because the mechanism of how mRNA works is drastically, drastically different from how a virus works.
Which is different from the classical "attenuated virus" vaccines.

Source? Preferably a study or something statistical?

I didn't find a reference. But this was an interesting article about responses to covid vaccines. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-covid-vaccine-side-effects-can-and-cant-tell-you-about-your-bodys-immune-response

And here's something about linking side effects to greater antibody response. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2797552

More about side effects for example here https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciimmunol.abj9256 COVID-19 vaccine side effects: The positives about feeling bad

On 7/15/2023 at 7:33 PM, atdlzpae said:

There are a lot of high quality scientists that disagree.

Nothing is ever 100 %. That's how science works. There's a process and method to it. But the problem is that we are not trained to judge medical papers. Maybe let the medically trained people figure it out. You may live in a country that has politicised medical issues, but over here that's not the case. In general we can trust the academics. 

On 7/15/2023 at 7:33 PM, atdlzpae said:

So neither you nor me know how many healthcare workers & scientists really support Covid "vaccines". A lot of them are afraid to speak up. Afraid of losing their job. Afraid of never being published again. Afraid of losing their career.

We'd need an anonymous survey to discern how many scientists & doctors really like how science & healthcare are currently being done.

This sounds exactly like politicised science and a very sceptical view point. This is what's interesting in these discussions. I really do wonder how these ideas get to spread so easily. You sound like there's a lot of mistrust in authorities and that's probably the key here. Are you academically trained?

On 7/15/2023 at 7:33 PM, atdlzpae said:

Unfortunately, there is fraud in the whole medical science.

There's a scientific method and academic way of dealing with possible fraud with medical companies. If we cannot trust the academic circles to generally be honest and self-correcting, then we have a big problem. If there are problems, it varies from country to country. Depending on corruption levels etc. It's a very big claim to say medical science is corrupt world wide. 

On 7/15/2023 at 9:25 PM, sbb said:

in many cases, yes. The part that gets buried is that most experts are only experts in their own particular silo, so they defer to (and parrot) others they consider to be experts.

You seem really mad about masks. I hope it's not political. But what I mean with experts is actually the research with academic standards. People can say what ever, but when  you do some proper research and others scrutiny it, then science gets done. When covid first appeared the only way to react was to come up with an educated guess and then do more research to actually find out what works. You seem to have lost trust in the process because the first responses varied and some differed with later studies. 

On 7/15/2023 at 9:25 PM, sbb said:

The covid masks that the Experts have told us to be 70+ percent efficacy are no better than putting a tube sock over your face.  The "wear two masks = 97% efficacy" claim that the experts made is also no better than wearing a tube sock over your face, folded. Or a T-shirt.

It was all mainly to stop you from infecting others. That's where masks are effective. Stopping some droplets to reach you is just a bonus. 

On 7/16/2023 at 1:51 AM, Vanturion said:

I’m thinking that the powers that be

 

On 7/16/2023 at 1:51 AM, Vanturion said:

those in charge

I really find this kind of position interesting. It's like the concept of god in religion. A belief that there must be some higher power pulling the strings. It's at the heart of most conspiracy theories and religions. The sheer logistics of controlling everything without being exposed sounds immense. Theoretically maybe possible, but very difficult to achieve by some rogue villains. I tend to think most people in positions of authority have good or neutral intentions and just try to do their job well. Plus there are many checks and balances in western countries. Or maybe it's all a simulation 

On 7/16/2023 at 2:54 AM, Vanturion said:

One in which you have an infinite amount of trust in the infallibility authority and authoritative institutions to the degree that you believe it's OK for them to lie to us for our own good, presumably, because they always put the best interests of society over their own self interest. This also requires you to logically accept that the good of society is superior to your own self interest, especially when those are in conflict*.

Are you speaking about those authorities in US or world wide? I mean the scientists in my country don't seem to be corrupt or serve some secret higher power. They are free to express what ever they want within academic standard and with reliable sources. I would guess someone in our universities would have exposed fake scientists in other countries who are passing knowingly wrong studies as true. That process is called peer review. It would take a world wide conspiracy for "them" to be able to lie to us in academic fake papers. 

On 7/16/2023 at 3:24 AM, Vanturion said:

It doesn't require a PHD to look up VAERS data

It would actually take an MD to analyse the data properly. The information is out there easily available. You seem to find the raw data but lack the ability to analyse the data and form educated conclusions based on research. Looks like you didn't critique your sources that well. But that's ok. Nobody expects you to do that. Unless you are in studying medicine in a university. 

On 7/16/2023 at 4:26 AM, Vanturion said:

Fair enough, I'll concede that I haven't personally attempted to compile the VAERS entries myself to validate the numbers

 

On 7/16/2023 at 4:26 AM, Vanturion said:

That's a pretty good indication that you know the VICE article referenced in the wiki and others are full of shit as they make no effort themselves to verify statistics

 

On 7/16/2023 at 5:36 AM, atdlzpae said:

Is there any accusation of data fabrication in OpenVAERS? No.
Is the data presented in OpenVAERS in VAERS? Yes.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext#cestitle160 An academic and peer reviewed research that includes VAERS data. I really hope you have done your own research properly and read through all the academic papers that are very easily available. 

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt

What VAERS Reveals About COVID-19 Vaccines

Simply put by Talaat: “We were very lucky to have such effective vaccines so early on.”

https://www.factcheck.org/issue/vaers/

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaers-data-misrepresented-734354810823

https://www.science.org/content/article/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public

https://publichealthcollaborative.org/misinformation-alert/conspiracy-site-uses-dubious-data-to-claim-that-covid-19-vaccines-are-deadly/

On 7/16/2023 at 5:36 AM, atdlzpae said:

Where are the good official sources? Sources that don't show that Covid "vaccine" has 40 times the mortality of all other vaccines combined? Please give us links.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext#cestitle160 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2021.1950504

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344985/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920307819

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1088

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10043280/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2022.2027160

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.670370/full

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350621003073

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00316-3/fulltext

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abe5938

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073592/

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36494-0

https://www.tga.gov.au/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety-reports/covid-19-vaccine-safety-report-12-01-23

On 7/16/2023 at 5:36 AM, atdlzpae said:

@UniVehjeNGL, I'm disappointed. I like conversations where someone actually reads the arguments and responds with counterarguments.

Seeing this lazy response I'm sadly having flashbacks to when I talked with Paul A, and no matter how many arguments I put up, his only response was always to just copy-paste something from a random article or a CDC announcement...

Please don't be like that. Try to actually understand what the other party is saying instead of just copy-pasting random articles from the internet.

I'm here for EUCs. Not interested in medical discussion. Neither of us are medically trained and there's nothing we can discuss without citing someone else. We can just throw links at each other. If you want to discuss vaccines, you can respond to any academic study with a similar research using the academic principles and having quality sources. If you find that some of the links above have wrong information, the authors would be very happy to hear from you. Their aim is to find out truth and proving them wrong would just make them happy. That's how science gets done. Or you can leave it to those who are trained to do it. We are not going to get any closer to truth on an EUC forum arguing with bunch of laymen. If I had doubts about vaccine safety, I would find reliable sources, academic studies that are peer reviewed. That's the only way for a layman to find out what is happening. I would not claim to do my own research better than professionals. 

And I actually do try to understand! That's why I'm engaging. I'm interested in how people take sides based on politics and on issues that they cannot understand themselves without years of studying. I'm also interested in the extraordinary claim of secret powers with ulterior motives manipulating vast numbers of highly intelligent people and then some laymen do their own research and figure it all out. It's just a fascinating thought when you think about it from logistical and practical point of view. Like if I would have to start a conspiracy it would seem extremely expensive and almost impossible. 

 

[UniVehje]

 

23 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Anyway I would invite anyone to explore the howbad.info page that makes this information easily accessible.

Now I understand you better. You've been reading that site and then feel compelled to spam an EUC related forum with the information you find there. I'm sorry, but this is mostly misinformation. 

Here's more about the background of this site. https://www.thedailybeast.com/craig-paardekoopers-shady-site-shows-covid-anti-vaxxers-will-believe-anything

Please get yourself better sources. 

[0000]

35 minutes ago, UniVehje said:

Now I understand you better. You've been reading that site and then feel compelled to spam an EUC related forum with the information you find there. I'm sorry, but this is mostly misinformation. 

Hardly, you are characterizing all of my arguments and posts in this 5-page thread as simply the product of one website that I only linked to in my last post. That's so intellectually dishonest, it should be clear to anyone reading that you are attempting to slander me and argue in bad faith.

For example, as the hit piece you linked calls out, I didn't post links any links to the targeting red vs blue states, which is just one small portion of the numerous compiled resources on that website, because I didn't personally find those statistical anomalies compelling. It's called nuance. An individual doesn't have to agree or align to everything you read as you are attempting to pigeon hole me above in order to dismiss basically everything I've said, argued, or linked to. Maybe that's hard to see though if you're heavily invested in a certain ideological alignment.

Frankly, it's absurd that you're a moderator who does this to a board member who makes quality contributions to the board other than the legitimate Off-Topic "spam" you've mislabeled me by because you disagree with my arguments.

I'll respond to your other post when I have time, although that will be more for other potential readers as it's pretty clear your close-minded attitude prevents you from even considering the possibility that corruption on a long enough time line tends to spreads to many institutions of influence. That despite all of the undisputed lies, definition changes, and utter disdain for ethics in the "pandemic" times as I've already pointed out - all of which must have surely been the product of the un-corruptible Science.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Vanturion

[Freeforester]

As far as I’m aware, the Danish peer reviewed studies into excess deaths and the Western Australian government own statistics concerning vaccine injury have caused a bit of a stir, though as is said (remarkable temporal correlations aside) while it appears to be a bit of a ‘thing’, this is not to say that the ‘thing’ is as yet proven beyond doubt, but the smoking gun certainly seems to be there to those with a mind open to the possibility, and further investigation is ongoing;  again the issues around vaccine injury come up more than once with citations in the Quoth the Raven interview with Peter McCullough, unless of course I’m hearing things…

 

 

 

[0000]

6 hours ago, UniVehje said:

Here's more about the background of this site. https://www.thedailybeast.com/craig-paardekoopers-shady-site-shows-covid-anti-vaxxers-will-believe-anything

Please get yourself better sources.

Alright, let's explore how well your source holds up and if you've helped or hurt your credibility in using that article to discredit my "spam". I'll refer to the article with quotes and bold text for discussion.

2^nd paragraph:

Quote

Many of these reports are unverified, but of the cases that do get investigated, the vast majority turn out to be unrelated to vaccines; those that are related are usually minor reactions.

The author sets up the reader for an expectation of doubt of VAERS data demonstrating their own inherent bias. They could have done the opposite by bolstering expectation of  legitimacy by prefacing the article with the fact that VAERS always warns submitter's with the following:

Quote

Reports to VAERS that appear to be false or fabricated with the intent to mislead CDC and FDA may be reviewed before they are added to the VAERS database. Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Meaning each VAERS submitter is legally bound to only submit credible information. Sure, mistakes and mischaracterizations happen, but the fantastically outlying VAERS data of late 2020 and after is compelling evidence of harm by comparative numbers alone and no amount of paid fact-checking and gas lighting is going to dissuade people, especially the people unlucky enough to be harmed, but lucky enough to be alive attributing their harm to these toxic products. Despite the author’s clear bias to cast doubt on this data, there are over (lagging data) 35,549 deaths (in the US alone) attributed to the injections still standing in the database, not counting the massive under-reporting factor found over a decade prior.

4th paragraph:

Quote

In the United States specifically, he writes on the site, “5% of the batches appear to have produced 90% of the adverse reactions.

Contested but not dis-proven by the author or anywhere in the article as it’s simply a report of what the data shows.

5th paragraph:

Quote

Paardekooper runs through what Paul V. Williams, an immunologist who reviewed his claims, characterized as “likely faulty data analysis” supplemented by “wild conjecture and conspiracy theories” to present a series of increasingly batshit arguments as the only logical conclusions.

Found random white lab coat (appeal to authority) to label with all the tried and true pejoratives while contesting none of the data with their own evidence. The rest is slander/opinion characterizing Paardekooper's inferences and speculations.

6th paragraph:

Quote

Over the course of the past year, Paardekooper’s social-media history suggests he gradually grew more and more convinced of the likelihood of a coming social and economic collapse—and of the need to become a prepper. (VERY LARGE TEXT, LOL)

Translation: man who recognizes unprecedented idiocy and instability directly resulting from insane and dangerous economic (lockdowns) and political policy and takes steps to ensure his continued survival… very scary? Evil preppers IKR?

7th paragraph:

Quote

Specifically, Paardekooper argues that most or all of the deaths and injuries reported to VAERS are clearly real, were definitely caused by the vaccines, and are just a fraction of the true vaccine casualty count.

That’s literally directly summarizing VAERS data that attributes the injection to cause of death as well as references the study I linked earlier that found VAERS reports is under-reported by a factor of 10x to 100x. The under-reporting is nigh self-evident, we all have witnessed friends, family, colleagues, online anecdotes that got immediately sick for a time following their injection, make no mentioned of longer term illnesses and symptoms, who never took it upon themselves to report to VAERS, I assume mrelwood in this very thread being an example not recorded in VAERS.

7th paragraph:

Quote

So, not all vaccine doses are created equal; some are obviously more toxic than others, he falsely claims. There’s a clear and direct link between the alphanumeric sequences of lot codes and their level of toxicity, he further tries to argue via a series of charts and graphs, which he takes to mean that this variation isn’t the result of random quality control errors—but an intentional scheme.

The author is asserting the data is false without showing proof how it is false. The only legitimate criticism so far is that Paardekooper is speculating on the intentionality of the discrepancies he's discovered and shown in the injection batch data. The author's assertion doesn’t change the data.

10th paragraph:

Quote

The site itself is not particularly innovative; anti-vax groups have been churning out web tools to help people cherry pick data—and gin up fear about vaccines—for years. Yet this bizarre new project has rapidly gained visibility and acclaim in anti-vax circles, because the spurious arguments Paardekooper and his allies have posted on the site, based on their facile analyses of batch-specific data, are unique and striking

Author asserts/implies anyone that finds issues with COVID injections (which aren't vaccines prior to the 2020 definition change as they provide no immunity) are anti-vax (label/slander). Gin up fear, cherry pick, bizzare, spurious – author asserts merely examining this data and demonstrating batch dependent toxicity, which is what the data shows, is not a cause for concern, that fear or any other emotional reaction is illegitimate, and organizing the data to make it presentable is cherry-picking.

It's an absurd demonstration of bias which isn’t surprising when the author categories Paardekooper as part of some kind of team (his allies). What about team “this data is concerning and should be shared with people concerned about public health," can I be part of that team? Attack, attack, attack - lots of character assassination and maligning anyone who would dare to take it upon themselves as an unwashed peasant without a professional medical affiliation. Like it's beyond our status to consider any of this data out of (their) context.

11th paragraph:

Quote

Misinformation experts believe that these arguments could also be compelling to many people who nurse doubts about vaccines but haven’t gone full anti-vaxxer yet.

Unnamed experts posing as propaganda police believe anyone who looks into VAERS data is on the verge of becoming an anti-vax pariah. More slander to malign anyone who would look into these matters for themselves and come to conclusions independent of those handed down from your countries equivalent of the CDC, NIH, or even WHO.

11th paragraph:

Quote

And the embrace of this “bad batch” theory could hamper vaccination efforts and fuel general mistrust in governments and health-care systems—all as experts and institutions struggle to contain the spread of the highly infectious Omicron variant.

Author still hasn’t presented any information contradicting bad batch data except the opinion, without evidence, of one random immunologist in the 5th paragraph. All stereotypes and slander so far. Not to mention he falsely asserts that any of these unnamed experts and institutions could do anything to contain the spread of a coronovirus in the first place. Remember, stopping the spread was one of those inconvenient lies they had to walk back. This is blatant worship of authority and asserting their altruism which is absurd in the face of everything that's happened in the past 3 years.

12th paragraph:

Quote

It’s a very worrisome, paranoid evolution of anti-vax sentiment,” Ofer Levy, a doctor who works on vaccine programs and studies public attitudes towards vaccinations in general, told The Daily Beast.

Another random appeal to authority reinforcing slander and labels without offering any proof to disprove batch toxicity correlations.

13th paragraph:

Quote

At some times, he argues this proves governments and big pharma players worldwide are engaged in one big experiment, figuring out which toxic slurries lead to specific levels of death and injury in key demographics. At others, he suggests placebos just serve to obscure the effects of scattered toxic batches.”

You don’t have to agree with Paardekooper's characterizations or speculations to find batch dependent toxicity an interesting and relevant phenomenon as well as many of the other issues referenced in the site relative to COVID and global health initiatives.

14th paragraph:

Quote

Either way, he argues that it’s likely a nebulous they are using selectively toxic batches to quietly kill off undesirable groups, and to leave others so permanently weakened that they can no longer resist the rise of tyranny and are utterly dependent on pharmaceuticals. (None of this is remotely true.)

An equally unproven assertion without evidence by the hit piece author. So far, the worst you can say is that Paardekooper frequently makes inferences and speculates why the batch correlations occur based on the totality of his combined and compiled research. It doesn’t change the legitimacy of the data or the presentation of the data in charts and graphs.

15th paragraph:

Quote

Notably, on Jan. 15, Paardekooper posted a video to a social-media channel connected to his site explaining, “with a sense of some urgency,” that after a recent round of number crunching, he realized that “the vaccines being distributed to the red states [in America are] more toxic than the vaccines being distributed towards the blue states.” This, he falsely suggests, can only mean that America is attempting to cripple and/or kill off its conservative populations.”

So far the only thing I found to be a fair characterization by the hit piece author thus far. I don’t find the red/blue distribution skewing too compelling and I certainly wouldn’t have stood on that evidence to make these claims. It doesn't discount the entire compilation of studies, charts, graphs, and other conveniently packaged information. It also doesn't disprove the data itself.

19th paragraph:

Quote

These arguments are, of course, all bullshit. As biostatician and epidemiologist Susan Ellenberg told The Daily Beast, they hinge upon fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations of VAERS.

Appeal to authority whose, again, standing on attacking credibility of VAERS data overall. There’s nothing to misinterpret, you can legitimately take issue about the inferences and speculation made by Paardekooper all day, but the data is the data – so far all slander and stereotyping. Telling.

19th paragraph:

Quote

The system’s own administrators stress it is not a record of proven vaccine injuries and deaths; to be clear, repeated (1) rigorous (2) analyses (3)show most of the issues recorded in the database turn out to be unrelated to vaccines—and the bulk of the rest are just minor issues.

Finally the hit piece author references some data.

(1) https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/61/6/980/451431?login=false

(3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26021988/

These are exactly the same study (lazy hit piece author) which concludes:

Quote

No concerning pattern was noted among death reports submitted to VAERS during 1997–2013. The main causes of death were consistent with the most common causes of death in the US population.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the COVID VAERS data in dispute, 2020-2023. Nothing. Why? Because all of the vaccines prior to COVID were not mRNA products that severely truncated the clinical trial process for approval. You could even argue that it takes away from the hit piece author’s bias in demeaning the credibility of VAERS overall by ignoring these extremely relevant facts.

(2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277144615_Deaths_following_vaccination_What_does_the_evidence_show

This 2015 study asserts in the abstract (as far as I got):

Quote

Vaccines are rigorously tested and monitored and are among the safest medical products we use. Millions of vaccinations are given to children and adults in the United States each year. Serious adverse reactions are rare.
…
However, making general assumptions and drawing conclusions about vaccinations causing deaths based on spontaneous reports to VAERS - some of which might be anecdotal or second-hand - or case reports in the media, is not a scientifically valid practice.

This is a 2015 study talking about actual vaccines that have gone through the entire clinical trial process for approval, something, again, the mRNA products did not do, not to mention the method of “granting protection," not immunity, is entirely novel. If you’d read any of the links you posted before, you’d know the author of this hit-piece is entirely inappropriate in making this kind of vaccine equivocation characterizing traditional vaccines with regards to VAERS vs the novel, clearly toxic, mRNA products that were rushed to the global population.

I’m going to stop here 60% through this nonsense because you obviously didn’t do your due diligence and are guilty of the same crime as the hit piece author in lazily throwing out links that don't disprove the data in question in order to slander someone you disagree with because they bring up evidence and arguments contradictory to your world view. I doubt you even bothered to parse through the link dump you made earlier either.

Should I end this with the same dishonest appeal? Nah, it doesn't matter - you don't even read the links you dump while pretending they're gold.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Vanturion
spelling

[atdlzpae]

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

I didn't find a reference. But this was an interesting article about responses to covid vaccines. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-covid-vaccine-side-effects-can-and-cant-tell-you-about-your-bodys-immune-response
And here's something about linking side effects to greater antibody response. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2797552
More about side effects for example here https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciimmunol.abj9256

Your claim was: I recall reading about strong side effects might correlate with reacting very badly to actual covid. Statistically still a safer bet.
I don't see anything in them that links the "strong side effects" and "reacting very badly to actual covid" in them. Did you read those articles?

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

Nothing is ever 100 %. That's how science works. There's a process and method to it. But the problem is that we are not trained to judge medical papers. Maybe let the medically trained people figure it out. You may live in a country that has politicised medical issues, but over here that's not the case. In general we can trust the academics.

This sounds exactly like politicised science and a very sceptical view point. This is what's interesting in these discussions. I really do wonder how these ideas get to spread so easily. You sound like there's a lot of mistrust in authorities and that's probably the key here. Are you academically trained?

I do trust the medical academics. I have almost no novel opinions about both Covid and Covid "vaccines" - all I really do is I repeat what I heard before. I just tend not to trust the ones that lied to me before.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

As for judging medical papers - I've read my share of medical papers over the last 3 years. I know how to analyze data. Can I spot the subtle problems? No. Can I sometimes spot the glaring problems? Definitely. Can I understand protocols, results and what their ramifications are? Typically yes.

You don't need to be a cook to judge a food. You don't need to be a programmer to spot bugs in programs. And you don't need a PhD to read and understand scientific papers.
We are general intelligences. We can learn new things and adapt prior understanding to other disciplines.

One example where I didn't believe the "mainstream" scientists: Wuhan Coronavirus - are you prepared?
I did warn this forum about Covid in February. Back at the time when the mainstream was dismissing it. I even suggested buying masks - you could still get them in store for a week or so.
I did suggest stocking on food, disinfecting and masking. Way before the mainstream.
So I think I tend to be early to those things. Now I'm just early with the "vaccines".

Quote

There's a scientific method and academic way of dealing with possible fraud with medical companies. If we cannot trust the academic circles to generally be honest and self-correcting, then we have a big problem. If there are problems, it varies from country to country. Depending on corruption levels etc. It's a very big claim to say medical science is corrupt world wide.

We definitely have a big problem. It's not my claim, it's the claim of academics. I see it all the time.

Just one example. Vinay Prasad is an oncologist - you'll see countless of videos where he complains about junk science. Mostly about cancer drugs, but not only.
In oncology it's so bad it's actually difficult to find a study that's well done & shows a benefit.

Quote

You may live in a country that has politicised medical issues, but over here that's not the case. In general we can trust the academics.

You're saying that Finland is different... I don't believe you.
The whole West (and not only) is extremely well connected. No matter which country does a pharmaceutical company hail from, the incentives are always the same - make as much money as possible. Ethics always come second.

As for politics... Finland did vote in mandatory Covid vaccinations for healthcare workers in 12.2021. By then we knew well that Covid "vaccines" didn't stop transmission. And that natural immunity is better than vaccinations.
Also, phase 3 trials still weren't completed, so it was essentially still a medical experiment by every sensible definition.
 

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext#cestitle160 An academic and peer reviewed research that includes VAERS data. I really hope you have done your own research properly and read through all the academic papers that are very easily available. 

Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe
I'll provide a few words of criticism about this article:

In our review and analysis of death reports to VAERS following mRNA vaccination, we found no unusual patterns in cause of death among the death reports received. Under the COVID-19 vaccine EUA regulations, health-care providers are required to report deaths and life-threatening adverse health events after COVID-19 vaccinations to VAERS regardless of their potential association with vaccination. These requirements make comparing the number of reported deaths to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines with reported deaths following other adult vaccinesdifficult because no other adult vaccines have been so widely administered under FDA EUAs.

So they are basically saying "You can't compare Covid vax deaths to other adult vaccines because other adult vaccines werent so widely administered".

I disagree. 48.4% of the adult population got vaccinated against Flu in 2018-2019 season. So the whole argument about "weren't so widely administered, so can't be compared" can go into a trash can.

As for the real data (numbers) they are just copying data from VAERS. So 4.5k deaths in the first 6 months.
What's your criticism exactly? Because I find this data in line with my knowledge. And it is outrageously higher (like 20 times at least) than influenza vaccine.

Quote

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt
What VAERS Reveals About COVID-19 Vaccines

Simply put by Talaat: “We were very lucky to have such effective vaccines so early on.”

 

1) It's an opinion piece, it doesn't contain any data.
2) VAERS is a database that's meant for safety. It doesn't contain any info about effectiveness. So... How can VAERS "reveal" that vaccine is effective?

Do you even read what you link to?

I'm not gonna bother with the rest of the links about VAERS. Pretty sure they just say that the data is "misrepresented".

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2021.1950504

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: misinformation and perceptions of vaccine safety

This study is a survey about people's opinions about the pandemic and Covid "vaccines". Doesn't contain any data about "vaccine" safety of efficiency.

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344985/

First Month of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring — United States, December 14, 2020–January 13, 2021

First month of VAERS data? It's been 2.5 years! And you already linked to a study about the first 6 months of data.
Now I believe you're just pasting links randomly without even opening them.

But still, let's look at the data: A total of 113 deaths were reported to VAERS. In the first month. So even then (multiplied by 12) it would give 1356 deaths per year. So about 4 times the influenza deaths. Still an atrocious number, even with such a limited dataset.

The signal in VAERS was there since day 1. The people in charge just decided to ignore it.

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920307819

Fearing the disease or the vaccine: The case of COVID-19

Another survey of people's opinions about Covid and "vaccine". Doesn't contain any data about "vaccine" safety of efficiency.

@UniVehje I give up. 4 links is enough. I'm not about to read through 18 studies you didn't even read & understood yourself.

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

Neither of us are medically trained and there's nothing we can discuss without citing someone else. We can just throw links at each other.

"You're not a cook, so you can't criticize other people's food" fallacy. I know how to analyze data. In fact programming is one giant data analysis and transformation.
Sure, you don't understand the science (as shown by you linking to surveys...), but don't assume that others share your ignorance. I really did spend countless hours for the last 3 years understanding the fascinating topic of Covid, vaccines and infectious diseases.

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

If you find that some of the links above have wrong information, the authors would be very happy to hear from you. Their aim is to find out truth and proving them wrong would just make them happy. That's how science gets done.

You're naive if you think that's the case. Just look at the deaths from drugs.
For example in 2020 there were reported 68,630 deaths from Opioids. Which rose to 80,411 in 2021. Jordan Peterson almost became one of those deaths himself.

Is FDA doing anything about it? Obviously not. The money rolls. Science isn't any better. Just watch that video from Vinay Prasad I linked above.

On 7/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, UniVehje said:

And I actually do try to understand! That's why I'm engaging. I'm interested in how people take sides based on politics and on issues that they cannot understand themselves without years of studying.

I do appreciate and value that!  I have to say that it gives me pleasure to engage, even if the arguments I get miss the mark.

I hope I showed that I'm completely not interested in politics here - only the truth. It's not about left vs right, Trump vs Biden or Red vs Blue. The vaccines either are safe or not and politics have nothing to do with it. My only bias is about "who lied to me". And that part points overwhelmingly towards the "mainstream".

I don't agree that you need "years of studying" to understand the science of how viruses and vaccines work. More like a few weeks. Spread out over 3 years that gives you 15 minutes per day. Needless to say my experience in reading papers now is much, much, much greater than at the beginning of 2020.

Quote

I'm also interested in the extraordinary claim of secret powers with ulterior motives manipulating vast numbers of highly intelligent people and then some laymen do their own research and figure it all out. It's just a fascinating thought when you think about it from logistical and practical point of view. Like if I would have to start a conspiracy it would seem extremely expensive and almost impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture (aka. corruption) is a well documented phenomenon. Happens all the time in all parts of the government. Is it such an outlandish claim to say that corruption happens also in the FDA, CDC and academia? And their counterparts all over the world?

Just one example:

If there is no conspiracy, everything is hunky-dory, why are the contracts between governments and Pfizer secret?
After all, it's both your and my money that went to these companies. Billions and billions of $.

These people do it all in the open and laugh in your face. After all, the choice on your ballot is RED vs BLUE. And they really don't care which color you choose, they have cronies in both camps.

Edited July 19, 2023 by atdlzpae