anthony

Members
  • Posts

    7,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

anthony last won the day on September 8

anthony had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About anthony

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    A. GARLAND
  • Description
    My all-time quote: "Man is a being of self-made soul."
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

19,961 profile views

anthony's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges

219

Reputation

  1. Oh wow. More from that UK website: Blunders of pandemic proportions | Total Health WWW.TOTALHEALTH.CO.UK ... Swine Flu, Bird Flu, COVID, Variants "We shouldn’t forget that this is not the first time a spectre of devastating pandemic has grabbed...
  2. This article looks interesting, a brief mention of Dr. Malone among others. Are people getting full facts on COVID vaccine risks? | Total Health WWW.TOTALHEALTH.CO.UK The original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology currently used to create the vaccines is Dr Robert...
  3. Peter, You miss the point. You have properly and self-interestedly done what I might have eventually decided, given the increasing age factor alone. *Everybody* taking the vaccine, without need, without individual health considerations, because it is 'for the common good', and especially - because many healthy people and kids are being forced into it, only so they may be allowed to function, work and get around - THAT is Boo Hiss. Mass vaccinations during a pandemic, supposedly to create 'instant' herd immunity are not even virologically sound. The collective effects will be disastrous, if you only believe half of Malone. There's a vicious cycle in play, as I read it - mutations of the virus will necessitate further shots, more shots will cause more virulent mutations trying to overpower the new shots - etc. etc. all the while reducing each individual's natural antibodies in the whole population.
  4. What are They so mad about, anyway?! The minute threat to the vaccinated by the un-vaccinated? From the horse's mouth: Vaccine Tracker: What risk do unvaccinated people pose to the public? WWW.WNDU.COM If you are fully vaccinated, are you fully protected from those who aren't vaccinated?
  5. "...until quite a while after..." is significant, Dglgmut. Time will tell. This has clearly been an extremely brief sampling period for vaccine efficacy and deleterious side effects. Can anyone logically expect the (statistically minor, right) rate of reported side effects - 1. to vanish to zero 2. to remain constant 3. to increase ... given a longer period? Factoring in further booster jabs? The rational money has to be on 3. i.e., Causality and multiplying effects in human bodies in time. So the absolute certain omniscience displayed by experts is fantastical, quasi-religious. They protesteth too much. In the mean time, may each make his/her own risk/benefit decisions, please? Could be some healthy, young ones don't want to become a needless vaccine statistic. (Oh, too bad, you fell into that x % which was going to suffer abc - sorry!)
  6. The position many share, I believe. Most so-called "anti's" can be wholly in favor of vaccinations, in principle and practical benefits - and can still think rationally, without contradiction: not for me, not yet, perhaps in a year or two. I'm presently healthy, a high antibody count, or natural immunity, etc. Who benefits? I notice many people struggling, guiltily, with a vague idea we know as ¬rational self-interest¬ in regard to vaccinations which they have found is instantly attacked as being "selfish". True. Should one dutifully consider the universal good above one's own? Or does one dare consider one's life and body, first? (Here, the ethics around the pandemic handling and subsequent lock downs, vaccinating, lock outs, is where I'd expected Objectivist scholars to show their mettle, but there have only been middle of the road platitudes focused on rights and means, alone, that I have seen). "Assigning scapegoat status to people rather than to things like viruses". Absolutely! Let's punish the humans rather than the virus - or, 'attack' the virus by way of people who, potentially, possibly, carry it. That one word which threw everyone into panic and into automatic, sacrificial policies: Communicable.
  7. Yes, one would expect a temporary spike in cases. I'm the last one to grant the inhumane "lock down" policy the least credit. Researched impartially, I still have not found a convincing prevention of fatalities through locking down. A reduction in transmission rate (so "flattening the curve") one would expect, but I can't see the desired effects. Several countries, like in the EU, were as draconian as Australia and suffered large mortality.. Comparisons between US states, in deaths per 100K, have showed roughly equal numbers, with the relaxed policies of an e.g. Florida (with a more aging population), being (at one time, anyway) somewhat better than another with lockdowns enforced. I'm sure the Australian Gvt. would like to take the kudos by its pro-active enforcement for the remarkably low numbers. I heard of Aussies being self-congratulatory for the gvt. 'caring for our lives'. Unjustified, largely, I think. There are too many factors, like the over all fitness of a population, lower obesity, the climate, its extremely low average pop. density, more outdoors living etc., which favor Australians (and NZ'ers). In line with the logical, "targeted" method, all they need doing, is immediately drop the lockdown for the great majority - but - keep the elderly/etc/etc.. self-isolated and protected until getting vaccinated, if they so choose - and fatalities would/should remain low. But, instead: those Nanny bureaucrats would rather single out the "selfish anti- vaxxers" for vilification and punish them with economic, and other, Lock-Outs, if remaining vaccine non-compliant.
  8. Exactly, MSK, plot and characterisation that's gone mushy. Where's the hero? Where's the villain? Who's the oppressor, who's the victim?
  9. Right! I've been thinking about that very thing - one generation away... Also struck me again, that what begins as dependency on the nanny state, from whom all blessings flow, is just a short hop from tyranny. Give any Gvt. powers (in an emergency, say, or by the people relinquishing personal responsibility) and they'll take it with both hands and seldom give it back. I mean, the usual crew, Stalin, Hitler etc., didn't ¬know¬ they were "evil dictators". As far as they were concerned, they had the noblest of intentions for their people. "Let us take care of you", the signal to run as fast as we can.
  10. The typical Dundee-stereotype was quite valid up till about 20years ago. The humorous, rough n ready, outspoken, laid back Aussie, travelling the world, I knew and worked with some, individualistic and self-reliant. I've been noticing a cultural shift over there by way of family and friend connections. My daughter married one. There is that traditional trust in the Gvt (as Connolly noted) - but which has become more about obedience to an increasingly Nanny state which will "take care of us". I hear of neighbors snitching others to the police for slightest infractions. On top of that, there's been a growth in super-wealth and the sophistication of Aussies, congregated in the major cities. Appears, they feel rather superior to a classic, working class "yobbo" like Dundee (many of whom will still certainly be found up north and in the interior) and are turning somewhat leftie (my daughter's husband) to very Leftist. A general summary - the new Australian elitism, plus leftism, plus a nanny Gvt. recently assuming dictatorial powers. (It's for your own good!).
  11. From a Facebook page, support from Canadian doctors: "A Letter to the Unvaccinated By Dr. Angela Durante, Prof Denis Rancourt, and et al. Ontario Canada Civil Liberties Association August 2021 Open Letter to the global Unvaccinated You are not alone! As of 28 July 2021, 29% of Canadians have not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 14% have received one shot. In the US and in the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s lab” according to Pfizer, one third of people remain completely unvaccinated. Politicians and the media have taken a uniform view, scapegoating the unvaccinated for the troubles that have ensued after eighteen months of fearmongering and lockdowns. It’s time to set the record straight. It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school. You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown as the adverse event reporting is delayed, incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions. You are being targeted by mainstream media, government social engineering campaigns, unjust rules and policies, collaborating employers, and the social-media mob. You are being told that you are now the problem and that the world cannot get back to normal unless you get vaccinated. You are being viciously scapegoated by propaganda and pressured by others around you. Remember; there is nothing wrong with you. You are inaccurately accused of being a factory for new SARS-CoV-2 variants, when in fact, according to leading scientists, your natural immune system generates immunity to multiple components of the virus. This will promote your protection against a vast range of viral variants and abrogates further spread to anyone else. You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. All the peer-reviewed studies of short-term safety and short-term efficacy have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by these for-profit corporations; and none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies. You are right to question the preliminary vaccine trial results. The claimed high values of relative efficacy rely on small numbers of tenuously determined “infections.” The studies were also not blind, where people giving the injections admittedly knew or could deduce whether they were injecting the experimental vaccine or the placebo. This is not acceptable scientific methodology for vaccine trials. You are correct in your calls for a diversity of scientific opinions. Like in nature, we need a polyculture of information and its interpretations. And we don’t have that right now. Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency and accountability to emerge. You are right to ask, ‘What comes next when we give away authority over our own bodies?’ Do not be intimidated. You are showing resilience, integrity and grit. You are coming together in your communities, making plans to help one another and standing for scientific accountability and free speech, which are required for society to thrive. We are among many who stand with you. Angela Durante, PhD Denis Rancourt, PhD Claus Rinner, PhD Laurent Leduc, PhD Donald Welsh, PhD John Zwaagstra, PhD Jan Vrbik, PhD Valentina Capurri, PhD" 5
  12. Australia Deaths by Covid 1 053 How many Australians died in road accidents 2020? 1,472 fatalities There were 1,472 fatalities in reported road accidents in 2020, a decrease of 16% from the previous year. 24 Jun 2021
  13. Thing is, has become clear, those tame, mainstream scientists knew back then that there was no 'defeating' this virus nor containing its spread. It seems a matter of keeping a lid on that knowledge from populations whom they believed couldn't handle the reality: that many would not avoid catching Covid at some stage - despite the measures forced on us. "Noble lies". Instead of belaboring the essential point, that it would be harmless to the great majority - therefore, "target" those with immune deficiency and any severe cases for full protection - while they, the able majority would safely gain natural immunity and their lives could continue. But they took the anti-freedom and anti-science route (with the approval of some people). Which persists today with immoral vaxx mandates. Covid 19 was always going to be rough, but the scientists and governments, influenced by social metaphysics and media fearmongering, made a bad situation much worse. What did lay persons know of the science of virology, at that point? Mostly we had to trust the experts. They let us down, except for the ethical and truthful scientists who were silenced. Damage control - should have been the operating principle right until now. Limit the losses of lives and to freedoms. "Save the women and children". In this case, it meant concentrating on our weak, elderly (etc.) to put into the life rafts (self-isolation, later, vaccines - if they wanted). A reasonable assumption I hear is that this way, many lives could have been saved, especially with medical supplements that were officially denied them. Additionally, vaccine passports (now inevitable), would now be moot. Sorry for sounding off, this wasteful sacrifice of lives and ~life~ horrifies me.
  14. Peter, The output of more vaccinologists and immunologists has persuaded me: Accept the child being "a spreader". If, as I gather from several reputable sources, natural immunity by far out-performs artificial, (innoculated) immunity, and a child is statistically 99.99xx% safe, there is nothing to fear. The kids could have been spreading natural immunity around themselves and (healthy) adults from the pandemic's beginning. (The one epidemiologist stated 18 months ago, keep the schools open and allow the spread. No lockdowns needed, no distancing. Do NOT flatten the curve, he cautioned. My 'intuition' agreed). WITH the crucial proviso that the "vulnerable cohort" were self-isolated, quarantined and otherwise rigorously protected. Today, that undoubtedly indicates vaccinations for all who've any risk, well above any others. And needless for the younger without comorbidities, especially excluding children. Listen to Navarro and Malone. It ought to have been a "targeted" policy, back then (identify and assess the immunity/vulnerability of a populace, down to individuals), and remains the case more now. What has caused untold damage by lockdowns and -recently - all sorts of vaccine/viral/Delta/booster complications from vaxxes, has been the wrongful, blanketed, collective tactic: one-size-fits-all. Forcing vaccines uniformly on people for the universal 'good', presently, is the logical result of the initial, anti-scientific, sacrificial-collectivist policy. I am highly convinced by all that, but of course am not qualified to give medical advice on specific interactions. Imo, I wouldn't test children, until - rarely- one became sick; that, with almost 2 years of masking (etc.) seems like unnecessary trauma we've brought on them. (I have not had any tests myself, btw, have not had cause so far).