Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

the trick is difficult to pull off in Ventura County, where officials said that if your children test positive and you have only one bathroom, they will take your children and isolate them.

I suppose then you are saying don't let them find out your children are sick. That certainly sounds prudent. Maybe go to a nearby county when they need medical care, one that doesn't have officials who speak like that.

Nevertheless, you have failed to deal squarely with the hypothetical.

-----> Your children have been tested and county officials say they have the cold, the covid cold, and you have only one bathroom, so they are on their way to get the children.

The children are supposed to test positive. The schools should have stayed open so they could get it over quickly. After they are no longer infectious they are no longer a threat to those who are vulnerable to severe symptoms and death. Once herd immunity is acquired the virus having no place to go is eliminated. General immunity of a population acquired and reacquired over years, decades and centuries means the flu bug has no more power to literally wipe out entire populations as happened to the previously unexposed centuries ago.

I was thinking more broadly than merely children testing positive. But the rationale for that is based on the ignorance that shut down the economy. There's a fraternity here in Tucson. Two frat boys tested positive so they were immediately quarantined in a safe house rented for that. Don't let the others get it. They should all get it. Go home two months later and hug grandma.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The children are supposed to test positive. The schools should have stayed open so they could get it over quickly. After they are no longer infectious they are no longer a threat to those who are vulnerable to severe symptoms and death. Once herd immunity is acquired the virus having no place to go is eliminated. General immunity of a population acquired and reacquired over years, decades and centuries means the flu bug has no more power to literally wipe out entire populations as happened to the previously unexposed centuries ago.

I was thinking more broadly than merely children testing positive. But the rationale for that is based on the ignorance that shut down the economy. There's a fraternity here in Tucson. Two frat boys tested positive so they were immediately quarantined in a safe house rented for that. Don't let the others get it. They should all get it. Go home two months later and hug grandma.

--Brant

They heard you out and responded, "fascinating."

Now they are pushing you aside and moving toward your children … 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

I'd never get a flu shot. The virus mutates too much too quickly.

This is anecdotal but I used to get the flu every year or every two years. Some years it was very bad, But then I started receiving the flu shot and if I heard a different flu bug strain was out there I got that shot too. I use the VA for the first shot and then CVS or Walgreen's pharmacy for the second shot. I have not had the flu in 15 years. Once I had some swelling at the injection site perhaps because of the double dose. I have not had a cold in 7 years. I have mentioned before that if I know there is a vaccine for something, I get the shots. Pneumonia and shingles come to mind. A little discomfort and I am immune for a year or more. Nothing has gone wrong. It works.   edit. And two years ago I started getting the "senior" flu shot dose which is more powerful. If I heard there was a coronavirus shot available, I would get it, after the trials.          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should get the shingles vac.

Shingles can be the rest of your life debilitating.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I should get the shingles vac.

Shingles can be the rest of your life debilitating.

--Brant

My grandmother and mother in law both had very bad cases of the shingles. My grandmother cried and said it felt like she was on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[...] why I even bother to run a goddam discussion forum.

So we can progress to musings about shingles?

Never mind what Gates and the ChiComs have been up to:

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bill Gates adds a twist. He has a nonprofit foundation to do the artifice stuff and a for-profit trust specifically set up to manage the funds of the nonprofit foundation. In other words, through a series of maneuvers, his donations come right back to him, generally enhanced by profits due to the funds from the different governments he picks up along the way. As to creating the problem in the case of the coronavirus, he had the Chinese government do that part.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A couple of recent videos.

1. Polly.

(Here is the Bitchute link in case the embedded YouTube video below ever gets taken down: The Global Health Mafia Protection Racket.)

The documentation in this video is impeccable. I have even seen this video appear in O-Land places on the Internet (like in the #UnlockHumanity group). Because of the impeccable documentation, the comments are not derogatory and mocking--which is typical of what I have seen before--but, instead, can be characterized as, "Woah..."

There simple is no way to ignore what she presented seeing that it is all over the Internet on the relevant sites of institutions, even in charter documents.

 

2. Corbett.

(Here is the Bitchute link in case the embedded YouTube video below ever gets taken down: Bill Gates' Plan to Vaccinate the World.)

 

 

Also, I plan to read the following book simply because Polly talked favorably about the author in the first video above and the wrong people are blasting her book (and her) all over the place (however, Amazon is selling the shit out of it 🙂 )Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science by Judy Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively, with a Forward by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr..

 

The people being exposed are morally repulsive to me. And this gets complicated because they are also geniuses in their respective fields. Despite this, I do not want any one of them to be my Lord and Slave Master. They all want to be that and I will fight them.

btw - The trick being used by these people is an age-old con generally attributed to "evil capitalists." (Although, the ones who get away with it are always crony government-business partnerships, i.e., crony corporatists.)

The con goes like this.

1. You create a problem without anyone in the general public knowing about it, then spring it on people.
2. You use artifices to fund altruistic-like organizations (NGO's, research organizations, etc.) to study the problem, find solutions and make recommendations for the good of all.
3. Using a different public structure, you sell the general public the solution to the problem--the one you created--and make a killing.

Bill Gates adds a twist. He has a nonprofit foundation to do the artifice stuff and a for-profit trust specifically set up to manage the funds of the nonprofit foundation. In other words, through a series of maneuvers, his donations come right back to him, generally enhanced by profits due to the funds from the different governments he picks up along the way. As to creating the problem in the case of the coronavirus, he had the Chinese government do that part.

Michael

Michael,

I watched the interview, am reading the book. There is a fact checking article in Science that goes over many of Mikovits claims. One that wasn't is her claim how in 1999 “My job was to teach Ebola how to affect human cells without killing them. Ebola couldn’t affect human cells until we took it into the laboratory.” This is the worst of it. I dont know how she expects a reader to parse through her claims and really its her responsibility to make a case thats passes the smell test. Its really her penchant to speak freely that goes off the rails. Mikovits says she worked at USAMRIID where investigators 10 yrs earlier worked on the only human resistant Ebola. I cant noodle the reasoning for why there would have been an official lab test to find how to make Ebola more hot for humans when it was already found to have occurred naturally. And it was earlier than that Nixon proclaimed biological weapons were not to be used (first) by the US. So I have to ask why would anyone working for the government pursue a weaponized form of Ebola.  Hot Zone by Preston shows how Ebola Reston was discovered in 1989 (see article) in macaques at Hazelton Research bought from Ferlite Farms in Manila and is the only human resistant strain. Other strains of Ebola are known killers of our species and first found in '76. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/12/01/deadly-ebola-virus-found-in-va-laboratory-monkey/d6d94b90-b44e-4fa6-a9d0-d67cc0970aca/ 

I lived probably 10 miles from Reston in Springfield in '89. Never heard a whisper of it. Its one of these biological nightmares Preston writes so well about. He wrote about the Iraqis having made tons of small pox but as Bush went in with UN invesitigators no WMD's were ever found. Where oh where did the small pox go? He wrote about this in the Cobra Event. Covid has nothing on these lethal weapons.

Yes, its (Plague of Corrumption) compelling. She made this reference in how Kuan Teh-Jeang, the editor in chief of Retrovirology, 2nd in command to Fauci came to the realization that he was being duped over an in house SMRV scientific argument. Teh died after "jumping"? from a 4th floor garage at NIAID. "These arguments take place on the very edge of scientific knowledge, so when a well-educated person makes a claim and seems to have some reasonable evidence, it’s easy to believe them." She's known multiple scientists who died mysteriously under circumstances that she likens to Vince Foster who she says her step brother was first to find in the GW park. Id like to go after that claim. She says the note left by Teh was confiscated by the NIH police. Ill bet that has your attention!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

So we can progress to musings about shingles?

It was helpful advise to a OL contributor, Ellen, and pertinent to any thread about viruses. I don't know why you are in a . . .  fret or tizzy, or angry.

I wonder again, do any contributors know someone who has the coronavirus? I still don't. Our granddaughter is visiting us today and she is writing stories on the computer. I just find it odd that there are 3000 cases of coronavirus next door in Sussex County Delaware where she lives, (I used to live in Selbyville DE, just across the border) but I don't know anyone personally with the virus.

I threw caution aside and went to Outback Steak House yesterday afternoon, and got us steak dinners with a crab cake, lobster, baked potatoes with sour cream, really good bread, and a Bloomin' Onion. We called it in but I could not find a close parking space. They were that busy just with take-out. I had to walk up and tell them I was there. 15 minutes later a nice lady walked out with bags and brought them to where I told her I was parked. I gave her twenty bucks. We wore masks. I washed my hands when I got home. Twice. Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TF,

I have a few comments on what you said. But I want to preface it with a perspective. I am not a scientist, but I also do not believe scientists are superhuman and moral giants. They are human beings just like the rest of us. That means dealing with things like money, sex, power, fame and so on. The day I believe scientists are unwilling to sell out their integrity for these things is the day I am willing to bow down before technocratic dictatorship and call it God--which will be never.

So I can't address some of the more technical stuff you talked about, like your comments on ebola, without doing a ton of research. I certainly don't trust the articles that come in the news or even publications like Science to tell the truth. In my view, every word coming from publications these days where the elitist ruling class is involved needs to be triple and quadruple checked, and even then, the opposite views need to be run down and treated the same. (The life of a steer on the human cattle farm that refuses to be part of the herd is difficult. Especially if the steer has even half a brain. 🙂 )

Now your comments.

5 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Its really her penchant to speak freely that goes off the rails.

For whom and in what context? Do you mean she should be denied her first amendment rights? Or do you mean we should only listen to her or her establishment critics to tell us what to think?

I'm not being facetious or hostile here. I want to highlight a habit I have developed. I don't accept anything I read on faith. Nor do I expect any source I read to be 100% correct on anything for whatever reason. That means I can look at both establishment scientists and Alex Jones or even David Icke (to go to the extreme) and take something any one of them says seriously if, in my own independent judgment, they are correct. It is my mind, not theirs. And I want access to all voices, even ones that some feel go off the rails for speaking too freely.

I believe the people in the science world want to shut down Mikovits for stupid reasons that have nothing to do with science. And they mostly use bait-and-switch to sell their message. They attack Mikovits as if she is polluting science or something. But the real problem is power. She actually is attacking their power and she means it.

The way this is normally portrayed is that the evil corporations are the ones who want all the money and power and the scientists (and doctors), even the establishment ones who attack the "apostate," are bullied by this cartel of giant corporations in cahoots with the government it bought. But there are just as many scientists who, personally, are corrupt for those same base human reasons.

An example of this framing comes from Robert Kennedy Jr. in his forward to her book, Plague of Corruption. This resonates with me a lot, but it also leaves the establishment individual scientist power-mongers an out so they can continue to present themselves as morally clean and not filthy. In other words, they are victims of a mistake or bullying by others, not intentional perpetrators of evil courses of action chosen for their own money and power. I say a pox on all of them. Here is what Robert Kennedy Jr. said:

Quote

The persecution of scientists and doctors who dare to challenge contemporary orthodoxies did not take a rest after Galileo: it has always been, and remains today, an occupational hazard. Henrik Ibsen’s 1882 play An Enemy of the People is a parable for the pitfall of scientific integrity. Ibsen tells the story of a doctor in southern Norway who discovers that his town’s popular and lucrative public baths were actually sickening the visitors who flocked to them for rejuvenation. Discharges from local tanneries had infected the spas with lethal bacteria. When the doctor goes public with the information, local merchants, joined by government officials, their allies in the “liberal-minded independent press,” and other financially interested parties move to muzzle him. The medical establishment pulls his medical license, the townsfolk vilify and brand him “an enemy of the people.”

Ibsen’s fictional doctor experienced what social scientists call the “Semmelweis reflex.” This term describes the knee-jerk revulsion with which the press, the medical and scientific community, and allied financial interests greet new scientific evidence that contradicts an established scientific paradigm. The reflex can be particularly fierce in cases where new scientific information suggests that established medical practices are actually harming public health.

The real-life plight of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, inspired the term and Ibsen’s play. In 1847, Dr. Semmelweis was an assistant professor at Vienna’s General Hospital maternity clinic, where around 10 percent of women died from puerperal “birth bed” fever. Based on his pet theory that cleanliness could mitigate transmission of disease-causing “particles,” Semmelweis introduced the practice of mandatory hand washing for interns between performing autopsies and delivering babies. The rate of fatal puerperal fever immediately dropped to around 1 percent. Semmelweis published these findings.

Rather than building a statue to Semmelweis, the medical community, unwilling to admit culpability in the injury of so many patients, expelled the doctor from the medical profession. His former colleagues tricked Dr. Semmelweis into visiting a mental institution in 1865, then committed him against his will. Semmelweis died mysteriously two weeks later. A decade afterward, Louis Pasteur’s germ theory and Joseph Lister’s work on hospital sanitation vindicated Semmelweis’s ideas.

Modern analogs abound.

Then Kennedy goes on to list several examples. Regardless of what one holds re the science in particular cases he mentioned, they all suffered persecution from the elitist establishment because said elitist establishment believed these "apostates" had a "penchant to speak freely that went off the rails."

Reason-wise, we can always debunk bad science with good science. Implementation-wise, we cannot debunk a gang of thugs in white coats who have near-exclusive access to the source of funding, the media, military forces, and secret police.

So I say, the more voices, the merrier. Even David Icke. I guarantee you, if and when Mikovits is wrong, she has not talked more shit than the climate scientists who settled the science, for a great example. And those corrupt souls still have their reputations. Mikovits is struggling with hers.

5 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

I cant noodle the reasoning for why there would have been an official lab test to find how to make Ebola more hot for humans when it was already found to have occurred naturally.

Do you mean you believe the government is run based on reason? That there are no stupid people in the covert divisions of the government? And if there are, the government is such a well-oiled organization, it would weed out the stupid people before they could do something stupid? 🙂 

5 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

There is a fact checking article in Science that goes over many of Mikovits claims.

I didn't want to address this, but the more I think about it, the more I want to add another excerpt from the Forward by Robert Kennedy Jr.

Quote

The medical community had dealt with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which strikes mostly women, in bad faith since its appearance in the mid-1980s. The medical establishment derided ME/CFS as “yuppie flu” and attributed it to the inherent psychological fragility of career women pursuing professions in high-pressure corporate ecosystems. Mikovits found evidence for the retrovirus in approximately 67 percent of women afflicted with ME/CFS, and in a little less than 4 percent of the healthy population.

On October 8, 2009, Mikovits and Ruscetti published their explosive findings in the journal Science, describing the first-ever isolation of the recently discovered retrovirus XMRV, and its association to ME/CFS. Her revelation about ME/CFS immediately triggered angry reactions from jealous cancer power centers, stubbornly resistant to science that attributed cancer and neuroimmune diseases to viruses.

The blowback grew even grimmer when Mikovits’ subsequent research suggested that the new retrovirus, originally found in mice, had somehow jumped into humans via contaminated vaccines.

Even more troubling to the medical establishment, Dr. Mikovits’ research revealed that many of the female patients afflicted with XMRV had children with autism. Suspecting XMRV might be passed from mother to child, as with HIV, Mikovits tested seventeen of the children. Fourteen showed evidence of the virus. Those findings dovetailed with parental reports of autistic regression following vaccination. Subsequent studies linked XMRV to epidemics in leukemia, prostate cancer, autoimmune disease, and the explosion of Alzheimer’s disease.

Worse yet, research also found widespread XMRV contamination in the blood supply and blood products. Based on her research and the findings of others, it seemed that anywhere from 3 to 8 percent of the population now carry the virus—XMRV has become part of human ecology, passed from mother to child in vitro or through breast milk. Mikovits’ data suggest that more than ten million Americans are harboring this virus like a ticking time bomb—a potential threat far greater than the HIV-AIDS epidemic.

In January of 2011, HIV-AIDS expert Ben Berkhout published these explosive revelations in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology. He included Mikovits’ evidence that mouse tissue used in vaccine production was the likely vector for human contamination. Unbeknownst to Judy, her co-author on this book, Kent Heckenlively, had already independently discovered published medical research showing that the first recorded outbreak of ME/CFS was among 198 doctors and nurses at the Los Angeles County Hospital in 1934–1935, following their injection with an experimental polio vaccine grown in mouse brain tissue.

Mikovits’ evidence threatened financial catastrophe for the world’s pharmaceutical companies because of their negligent use of animal cell cultures to produce vaccines and other pharmaceutical products. Her findings put at risk billions of dollars of revenues from an entire branch of medicine called “biologics,” which depends on animal tissue and products.

Pharmaceutical companies and their captive regulators unleashed a furious broadside against Mikovits and Ruscetti, besieging them from every stronghold.

The journal Science feverishly pressed Mikovits to retract her October 2009 article. In September of 2011, the Whittemore Peterson Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno, fired Judy from her faculty job. Judy and her family noticed menacing-looking men following her in pickup trucks and other incidents indicating she was under surveillance. In one incident, burley thugs surrounded her home and forced her to flee in a boat. After she escaped, they barged into her home, claiming to work for the government. In November, Ventura Police arrested Judy without a warrant and held her in jail for five days without bail. The police searched her house from top to bottom, strewing her papers everywhere. That same day, cops raided the home of her friend, Lilly, and forced her to sit in a chair for several hours while they ransacked the building. NIH officials told Nevada police that Dr. Mikovits had illegally taken her research notebooks from their lab. This was a fabricated charge. As the principal investigator on two government grants, it was Dr. Mikovits’ obligation to retain all of her research papers . . . Furthermore, Judy had left all of the notebooks in her university office on September 29. That same day, someone illegally burglarized Judy’s office, removed her notebooks, and then somehow planted them in a closet of her home, apparently to incriminate her. Weeks later, as Judy languished in a cell, her husband, David, found the journals neatly packed in a linen beach bag in an obscure closet in her Southern California home. David frantically took them to the jail after midnight and then handed them over to Ventura Police.

While she was in jail, Judy’s former boss told her husband and Dr. Ruscetti that if she just signed an apology admitting her paper was wrong, the police would release her from confinement and she could salvage her science career. Judy refused. No prosecutor has ever filed charges against her, but the pharmaceutical cartel and its captive scientific journals launched a campaign of vilification against her. Less than two years earlier, the journal Science had celebrated her. Now, the same journal published her mug shot and retracted her paper.

So much for the integrity of the journal Science.

On a lighter note:

5 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

I lived probably 10 miles from Reston...

In high school, I went to summer music camp in Reston. Lady Bird Johnson attended our concerts.

🙂

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

Well, I guess I should expect nothing less from you. Meaning a broad, specific answer to my post. Thx. My time is limited, really. Im not a scientist either, and I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Thats a joke. Do you remember it? As if I slept so well that now Im a know it all.

Where to start....

ts really her penchant to speak freely that goes off the rails.

"For whom and in what context? Do you mean she should be denied her first amendment rights? Or do you mean we should only listen to her or her establishment critics to tell us what to think?"

Hows this instead? "Its really her mannerism for speaking glibly and for not keeping to specificity and that makes her seem as if shes not squarely on the rails." Have you ever heard the expression, running ones mouth? In the sense that people inarticulately spout off while others are looking for proofs. The interview didn't do justice to her claims of being railroaded but I know when I hear something worth looking at. So I had to look further and deeper because for me there was a story there and I felt sincerity.

I like that you say and want to know what I meant. After I saw her interview, researched her interviewer and then heard MSM and FB hostilities come out against her without an ounce of information other than what I found on Wikipedia I wanted to take a deep dive into the rabbit hole of the web and see what I could discover on my own knowing all the while points of view and agendas differ and I would take them into account as noise and try to discern where Mikovits was coming from and what she is trying to say in a way that I can understand myself. Yes, Semmelweiss reflex, I read references other than Kennedys, and found a "good" rabbit hole and one whose perspective provides a way of seeing through to the things was looking at.

There is what Mikovit's claims to have happened in the lab and I can see her patent on the discovery of XMRV's. And I can understand her points of contention with the VP62 clone that had the claims she made spiral out of context to the point that Science did what it did. But she hasnt wavered. She lost her PHD dissertation and all lab papers. I'm half way through her book and am asking myself is there any there/there. There are many tributaries. I find that often people allude to other things when telling their main story and I look to those to determine for myself whether the main story line is something I want to pursue. 

I was reading Prestons books and along with other sourcing found the Ebola story very fun. I recalled Mikovits saying something about Ebola, then found her saying it and found it puzzling. As most things are at times I suppose there could be an explanation for what she really meant. Again, when she rips off a verbal talking point she apparently doesn't view it as important as I do to her story. So, every step along the way I'm careful not to get pulled in where she seems to be building credibility so I look for holes. I had read an enormous amount of related and unrelated stuff and still cant square her Ebola comment as I said.

In re to her claim, her step brother, Kevin, she said was the US Park Police officer to find Vince Fosters body. It was a clever thing to say as she worked it into her story and perhaps true but I had to look. What I found was a Kevin Fornshill, a USPP officer was there and has a presumed Ken (her stepfather she says) Fornshill with a Mikovits family member. Again not proof but Im leaning into to it now.

I mentioned the Science fact check just to be helpful as a go to because those elements are germane. Use at your own risk. 😉

There are real gems in the book. I'm unsure as to the amount I can put here and wont do it again if I can understand what the standards are.

"On July 26, 1961, the New York Times reported that Merck and Parke-Davis were withdrawing their Salk vaccines. The article said nothing about cancer. The Times ran the story next to an account about overdue library fines on page 33. While two drug companies, Merck and Parke-Davis, recalled their polio vaccine in 1961, NIH officials refused to pursue a total recall of the rest of the supply, fearing reputational injury to the vaccine program if Americans learned that PHS had infected them with a cancer-producing virus. As a result, millions of unsuspecting Americans received carcinogenic vaccines between 1961 and 1963. The Public Health Service then concealed that “secret” for forty years. In total, ninety-eight million Americans received shots potentially containing the cancer-producing virus, which is now part of the human genome. In 1996, government researchers identified SV-40 in 23 percent of the blood specimens and 45 percent of the sperm specimens collected from healthy adults. Six percent of the children born between 1980 and 1995 are infected. Public health officials gave millions of people the vaccine for years after they knew it was infected. They contaminated humanity with a monkey virus and refused to admit what they’d done. Today, SV-40 is used in research laboratories throughout the world because it is so reliably carcinogenic. Researchers use it to produce a wide variety of bone and soft-tissue cancers including mesothelioma and brain tumors in animals. These cancers have exploded in the baby boom generation, which received the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963. Skin cancers are up by 70 percent, lymphoma and prostate by 66 percent, and brain cancer by 34 percent. Prior to 1950, mesothelioma was rare in humans. Today, doctors diagnose nearly 3,000 Americans with mesotheliomas every year; 60 percent of the tumors that were tested contained SV-40. Today, scientists find SV-40 in a wide range of deadly tumors, including between 33 percent and 90 percent of brain tumors, eight of eight ependymomas, and nearly half of the bone tumors tested. In successive measures, NIH forbade Bernice Eddy from speaking publicly or attending scholarly conferences, held up her papers, removed her from vaccine research altogether, and eventually destroyed her animals and took away access to her labs. Her treatment continues to mark an enduring scandal with the scientific community, yet NIH’s Bernice Eddy playbook has become a standardized template for Federal vaccine regulators in their treatment of dissident vaccine scientists who seek to tell the truth about vaccines."

Heckenlively, Kent. Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science (Children’s Health Defense) (pp. 16-17). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

No problem, right? Maybe yours is the public Kindle preview. Mine is from the purchased book.

It got me to thinking, there's a reason to get my dna tested knowing that I was involved in these timeframes with multiple vaccines over the years. Not in the way 23andme or Ancestry.com does it but in a way that delves deeper with health specific genetic pre-disposition charted and cataloged. 

There are all kinds of things to find in the vein of Mikovits story, some relevant to me, others relevant to the hysteria that vaccines are our only hope. There were more than one mysterious death so it has elements that so often cannot be solved adding to the overview she talks about with scientists and Big Pharma in lock step. So many holes, so few rabbits. 

Always knew you were a Va boy! ha ha Not me, although I've live in Va since I were 14. I was an Army brat of a snake eater and have the scars to prove it. Boy I hope that covers it. 😉

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember getting a polio shot as a kid and then some time later, another polio shot. It may have been because the first shot was not affective. I remember other kids getting polio but it has been some time since I saw anyone in "polio braces" and that is a damn good thing. My wife knows someone in their 60's who had polio and still walks with a limp. It was scary stuff back in the late fifties. A few of my high school classmates have died but I don't remember cancer being a prominent cause. I have not had cancer, though I had some "sun spots" removed/frozen from my noggin' and they were called pre-cancerous. The freezing burns, but I am sure this is all trivia.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

I remember getting a polio shot as a kid and then some time later, another polio shot. It may have been because the first shot was not affective. I remember other kids getting polio but it has been some time since I saw anyone in "polio braces" and that is a damn good thing. My wife knows someone in their 60's who had polio and still walks with a limp. It was scary stuff back in the late fifties. A few of my high school classmates have died but I don't remember cancer being a prominent cause. I have not had cancer, though I had some "sun spots" removed/frozen from my noggin' and they were called pre-cancerous. The freezing burns, but I am sure this is all trivia.    

I remember a polio shot as a kid too, that was in Northern Rhodesia, Zambia now. My close friend had had it and wore a brace for his withered leg. I can still bring back the metal and leather creak as he limped along. Never had a flu shot, and don't recall having flu in 15 years, perhaps due to a strong immune system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-posted from Unz.com

I’m not a diehard China skeptic but I do hate totalitarianism. Instead of succumbing to martial law or waiting for a dangerous rushed-to-market vaccine (see Paul Craig Roberts on that), concentrate on curing, or ameliorating the effects of, the disease.

Faucci and co-conspirators should be tried for murder for willfully ignoring strong evidence that  Zinc (e.g. Zinc Sulfate)  +  Hydroxychloroquine  +  Vitamin D  +  Vitamin C  cure the disease.

About the first two see this.

About the first see this and this.

About the third and fourth see this.  They also recommend anti-inflammatories.
 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried for murder? You just lost most of your "audience." I take vitamin D, 81 mg aspirin, and drink orange juice. I don't have the corny virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, anthony said:

Zinc is great stuff, that and magnesium taken every day.

I have not had a doctor recommend supplements except for an occasional multivitamin and Vitamin D, 2000IU daily. I remember reading the libertarian authors of "Life Extension" maybe in the early nineties and they hawked all sorts of minerals and vitamins but much of that has been debunked and the lady (Sandy Shaw?) got cancer and her demise may have been hastened by vitamin E supplements. I remember also getting a recommendation for a baby aspirin as I mentioned but the last time I asked about it at the VA they thought I was wasting my time. So if my occasional multi vitamin has zinc and magnesium I will continue to take a Centrum multi-vitamin. In less you're a young woman or someone with anemia, iron supplements are NOT recommended. So, stay away from iron and vitamin E. Beware of all sites that want to sell you something because they don't give a hoot if they are harming you.    

edit. Sandy Shaw is alive! Free radicals didn't do her in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had to be somebody in Brazil to ask this.

(I know of it because Eduardo Bolsonaro liked it and it appeared in my feed. I follow both Jair Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil and Eduardo. btw - Loiola is a medical doctor.)

Translated:

If masks WORK, why force businesses to close down?

If masks DON'T work, why force us to use them?

That's a good couple of questions.

🙂

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started thinking about Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw’s book “Life Extension,” and all claims that “supplements” will improve your life, like that ad for Superbeets. Is a claim a scientific fact? What constitutes “proof?” Could you be harming or shortening your life by taking supplements?  Peter

Notes. From: Ralph Hertle To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Defn. of Scientific Experiment Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:10:48 -0500 OWL: On scientific experiments: I suggest that the purpose, and not the function, of an experiment is to isolate the phenomena, causes and principles of interest, and to remove from consideration all factors that are not integral with the causes, etc., that are of interest. The principles, etc., that function may be directly observed, evaluated, identified and measured by means of the operation or functioning of the experiment. (It is interesting that the terms, operation and functioning, of existents and causes, are frequently found in Aristotle's scientific writings.) An experiment is a demonstration in physical reality or in ideas pertaining to same, of actual or hypothesized principles regarding the functioning of metaphysical or epistemological existents.

A scientific experiment, and I think that the qualification scientific is necessary, may be differentiated from a demonstration, which is the genus, in that the all the factors involved are placed in and function within a planned logical structure, procedure of events, and system of proof, that governs the type and quality of results, and which may prove or measure the existence of the principles or properties being observed. That sentence needs some work, however, the gist of a definition of the concept of scientific experiment is there. Scientific experiments may have subsidiary purposes, e.g., to show the principle or cause of a process, or to evaluate, discover, identify or measure the properties of the selected existents. A scientific experiment is a demonstration, which has a controlled logical causal structure, which control provides for the isolation or selected of facts to be observed for the purpose of the discovery, identification and validation of the causes of those facts. Perhaps someone else has another way of conceptualizing a definition for scientific experiment. Ralph Hertle

From: Michael Hardy To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: A rounded view of Aristotle Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:12:09 -0500 (EST)

David Friedman wrote: >if Newton's success was due to his discovery of a philosophically correct approach to discovering truth, isn't it somewhat surprising that he devoted considerable efforts to mysticism, alchemy, et. al.?

Was something philosophically incorrect about Newton's work on alchemy?  Admittedly I am not familiar with it, but "work on alchemy" could just mean experimental work on the ways in which new substances are formed from old.  In Newton's day, wouldn't that have been called "alchemy"? Perhaps Newton's most important discovery was that the *same* physical laws can simultaneously explain the behavior of heavenly and earthly bodies.  Notice the non-experimental nature of all empirical observations of the former.  What is the philosophical significance of that? Mike Hardy

From: Shawn Klein To: objectivism Subject: Re: OWL: A rounded view of Aristotle Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:41:43 -0500

I think a major part of Aristotle's lack of experimenting is due to his cultural context, as John Enright pointed out.  I don't think, though I am by no means an expert in these aspects of Aristotle's philosophy, that this lack of experimentation was an outgrowth or corollary of his philosophy.  He did, to the best of my knowledge, explore his world; he got out of his proverbial armchair and do some get-your-hands-dirty philosophy.  No, he didn't experiment or develop a theory of experiment but I think he could have and would have in the right intellectual context.

If I may be allowed a plug, an interesting discussion of Aristotle and science is at

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/sdwake_aristotle-scientist.asp

Shawn Klein

From: "John Enright" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Dissection & Experimentation Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:38:23 -0600

Ross Barlow mentions Descartes' dissecting of a calf's eye, as indicating Descartes' attitude toward experimentation.  I feel compelled to mention in this context that Aristotle, who came from a medical family, was a skilled dissector. But I'm not sure whether dissection is properly called experimentation or not. The root sense of experiment is that of making a trial of some proposition.  The more advanced sense involves making this trial under "controlled conditions."  The controlled conditions are typically designed to eliminate all sorts of confounding factors and to allow for reliable measurement. John Enright

From: Ram Tobolski To: OWL Subject: OWL: Concepts of Science: Movement, and the Paradox of the Arrow Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:57:07 +0200

In a previous post (2/28) I argued that scientific concepts are not, in general, abstracted from things that we perceive. I gave the example of the concept of electron. The concepts of science are supposed to explain what we experience, and they have to be justified by what we experience. But they are not abstracted from experience. The concepts of science, or many of them, refer to things that we do not meet in experience. To understand these concepts we have to use imagination - and I mean conceptual imagination, not perceptual imagination. Not to imagine things which are perceivable, but to imagine things which are not perceivable, but which logically explain things which are perceivable.

I've also mentioned the modern concept of momentary speed. I'm not sure how many of you are aware of how strange this concept is. By a moment I do not mean here a short period of time, as in ordinary speech, but a "point" of time, which has no duration at all, and is indivisible. But if a moment has no duration, how can we make sense of momentary speed? When I take a still picture, I capture a moment. And indeed the picture is still, that is unmoving. How can there be speed in a moment?

The problem is not a new discovery. It was already known to Zeno of Elea (5th century BCE), who conceived of the famous paradoxes of movement. The relevant paradox to our concern here in the paradox of the arrow. Zeno argued: If we look at one moment within the flight of an arrow, the arrow is not moving in that moment. Therefore it is resting then. Therefore the arrow is both moving and resting, which is a paradox.

Most of what we know about Zeno's paradoxes comes from Aristotle, who discusses them in his Physics. What was Aristotle' response to the paradox of the arrow? Here is what he wrote (Physics book VI section 9, pages 239b5-239b8):

"Zeno's reasoning is invalid. He claims that if it is always true that a thing is at rest when it is opposite to something equal to itself, and if a moving object is always in the now, then a moving arrow is motionless. But this is false, because time is not composed of indivisible nows, and neither is any other magnitude."

In other words, moments ("nows") do not exist. And furthermore, extensionless points do not exist, in any context!

This saved Aristotle's system from Zeno's paradoxes. But the cost was, it seems to be, overwhelming. The significance of Aristotle's conclusion is that in any dimension a thing can be either in some state, or in change, but not both. And that you can never refer to the state of a thing during a change. For example: if you drop a stone to the floor, and the fall took two seconds, it is senseless, by Aristotle's logic, to ask where was the stone after one second! To speak like that would assume, that the stone would be at some _point_ in space after one second. But for Aristotle, as we saw points do not exist. And we can see again why: If the stone were at some point after one second, it would be both moving and resting at this point, as argued by Zeno, and the paradox would obtain.

The rejection of Aristotle's view about the non-existence of points was at the heart of the birth of modern science, as we can see in the writing of key figures like Galileo, Descartes and Newton. This did not come for free: The concepts of physics came again under the strain of Zeno's paradox of the arrow. I'm not aware whether the paradox has been satisfactory solved by now.

The concept of point is another example of a concept which is not abstracted from perceived objects. Furthermore, it involves us in strange paradoxes. Nevertheless, modern science is inconceivable without this concept of the point. What does all this imply about epistemology? What do you think? Ram

From: "David Potts" To: "OWL" Subject: OWL: Re: Concepts of Science: Movement, and the Paradox of the Arrow Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 19:39:27 -0600

Ram writes: >Here is what he [sc. Aristotle] wrote (Physics book VI section 9, pages 239b5-239b8):  "Zeno's reasoning is invalid. He claims that if it is always true that a thing is at rest when it is opposite to something equal to itself, and if a moving object is always in the now, then a moving arrow is motionless. But this is false, because time is not composed of indivisible nows, and neither is any other magnitude." In other words, moments ("nows") do not exist. And furthermore, extensionless points do not exist, in any context!

I have already commented on this business of Aristotle and momentary speed, and I have nothing new to say about it. But I can make a brief remark on this inference of Ram's, which seems to be the key one in his post.

I do not think that the correct way to interpret Aristotle's often repeated claims that "time is not composed of individual nows" and a magnitude is not composed of points is to say that moments and points do not exist. Aristotle certainly believed that moments and points do exist. His point was rather that spans of time and magnitudes of space are not _composed_ of indivisible nows or extensionless points.

I don't know if this point seems strange to readers or not. (To me it seems perfectly natural and true.) Let's run this discussion on the case of lines and points; everything said about them applies similarly to spans of time and indivisible moments.

If you tried to build a line by placing points next to one another, how long would it take? The answer is, _forever_! In fact, you could never even get started. For points don't take up any space (even in only one dimension). That is what it is to say that points are extensionless. Again, suppose you began dividing a line repeatedly into smaller and smaller segments. How long before you reach points? Obviously, as before, you _never_ do.

Of course, if you include "enough" points, by numbering your line with the irrational as well as the rational numbers, there will be a point for every possible location on the line. Nevertheless, it is still impossible for any two of these points to be touching. But the segments of a line do touch.

Therefore lines are not composed of points. (Maybe that's what our elementary school teachers told some of us, but they lied!) They are composed of smaller line segments (if anything). However, none of this means or implies in any way that points can't be on a line or that points do not exist. Obviously they can and do.

The same goes for planes and solids, btw. How many planes do you have to stack up to make an inch high solid? Silly rabbit! There's no number that could do it; planes aren't "really thin," they have _no thickness_. -David Potts  Brookfield, IL

From: "DaN" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: In reply to Concepts of Science: Movement, and the Paradox of the Arrow Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:10:13 -0500

FROM: Dan Gibson. To begin with, Ram answered his own argument, concepts are not percepts. Scientific _concepts_ aren't perceived, they are _conceived_ from perceptual data that has been compared, contrasted, and integrated.  The perceptual facilities serve the function of a data bus, transmitting data from either the senses directly, or first through a translator/apparatus (various sensors), to the conceptual faculties for integration into concepts.

Next, there isn't any speed during a moment.  Speed is a relationship, it needs two points to exists.  In order to derive a "momentary speed", reference would need to be made to a previous moment. i.e. two snapshots, with location data and time data, then and only then can a speed be derived.

To clarify the arrow paradox, both concepts of motion and rest depend on the elapse of time.  Zeno removed time from the motion concept, but granted it to rest.  Motion is a change of location over a period of time, rest is no change in location over a period of time.  He just wasn't being thorough. Nows do exist, but such concepts that involve time, do not, they occur. Points exist, lines occur.

This concept of existents and occurrences, I have been pondering for a little while, and I'm still working it out.  The essence is that things that involve time or require more than one object, occur, those that do not, exist. DaN Gibson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mark said:

Cross-posted from Unz.com

I’m not a diehard China skeptic but I do hate totalitarianism. Instead of succumbing to martial law or waiting for a dangerous rushed-to-market vaccine (see Paul Craig Roberts on that), concentrate on curing, or ameliorating the effects of, the disease.

Faucci and co-conspirators should be tried for murder for willfully ignoring strong evidence that  Zinc (e.g. Zinc Sulfate)  +  Hydroxychloroquine  +  Vitamin D  +  Vitamin C  cure the disease.

About the first two see this.

About the first see this and this.

About the third and fourth see this.  They also recommend anti-inflammatories.
 

 

 

Good stuff, Mark. Ever the detective and with good instincts. I heard scuttlebutt of the Military World Games in Wuhan in Nov '19. If biological warfare was accomplished despite the Nixonian Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs in '69 would the obvious occur to anyone re Trump being late on Level 4 travel guidance. Boy, nothing has to be logical to prove malfeasance but youve got to wonder if you pursue this line did Trump bring this on knowing the potentiality of "infecting" the US? There were 2 direct flights from Wuhan to SF everyday so said David Hansen. So the weeks after China discovered the virus on the 14th or so it took until the 31st for Trump to lock down, and it wasnt a total lock down since Americans returned and some Chinese leaked. But if I believe the premise of the bio weapon argument isnt ^^ part of the equation and that prevents taking the hook, line and sinker? Very good plausible deniability. I suppose one doesn't have to be a writer of fiction anymore to be imaginative because the writer does a good job of talking himself into a rational argument. Referencing this by the same author on Unz Review: American Pravda: Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOD Announcement:

"IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DOD Awards $138 Million Contract, Enabling Prefilled Syringes for Future COVID-19 Vaccine
MAY 12, 2020"

 

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2184808/dod-awards-138-million-contract-enabling-prefilled-syringes-for-future-covid-19/source/GovDelivery/

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in the Army in South Korea, everyone was issued a syringe / EpiPen in case of a gas attack from the North. If I remember, you did something to it *snap it* and then stick yourself in the upper thigh.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A timeline graph I saw showed the peak of the coronavirus from July to August 2020. Whir, whir! Nascar is starting up with no fans and the drivers must wear a mask, UNLESS they have their helmets on. Imagine racing with a mask and breathing hard, wheeze, wheeze.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...