Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, tmj said:

How do you think he would feel about marine maternity-ware and the current Navy logo ?

I don't know tmj. I will have to look it up. My Dad retired from the Navy around 1967 or 1968 and I was in the Army from 67' to 69'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, tmj said:

How do you think he would feel about marine maternity-ware and the current Navy logo ?

I went to a site called SGT GRIT and looked at Marine clothing for women but I did not see any maternity wear.  What does it look like?

The Navy logo of a bald eagle wearing an American flag and holding an anchor is very good.  

edit. On the “Your Marine Corps” site, I found some maternity wear for Marines and the camouflage looked the best. But to me, some of the dress uniforms looked “boxy.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

... I'm suspecting that the mRNA crew are trying to push J&J out of the competition.

I think President Trump agrees with you.

Trump accuses Biden of 'conspiring with Pfizer' to pause J&J shots for 'political reasons' and says the vaccine's reputation is 'permanently challenged'

Quote

The Food and Drug Administration recommended Tuesday that states pause distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after receiving reports that six people experienced rare blood clots. At this point, more than 6.8 million one-dose vaccines have been injected.

Of the six cases, one person died and another is in critical condition.

Trump says the pause, however, is evidence of the FDA working in cahoots with Pfizer.

'Remember, it was the FDA working with Pfizer, who announced the vaccine approval two days before the 2020 Presidential Election,' Trump wrote in his statement. 'They didn't like me very much because I pushed them extremely hard.' 

'The FDA, especially with long time bureaucrats within, has to be controlled. They should not be able to do such damage for possibly political reasons, or maybe because their friends at Pfizer have suggested it. They'll do things like this to make themselves look important,' he continued.

The press release.

image.png

All that really does smell more like money than health.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think President Trump agrees with you.

Semi.  I am not happy with Trump's actions and degree of knowledge in regard to the push for vaccines.

In the Daily Mail article, Trump is reported as having made a statement which doesn’t appear in the press release.

"He said that the public pause will lead to more hesitancy toward people getting vaccinated against coronavirus in general."

I'm in favor of hesitancy toward getting vaccinated against coronavirus in general - although of the three American ones, I'd say go with the J&J, which is a real vaccine.

The Daily Mail piece, btw, misquotes Trump's "two days after" the 2020 Presidential Election as "two days before."

Ellen 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Semi.  I am not happy with Trump's actions and degree of knowledge in regard to the push for vaccines.

In the Daily Mail article, Trump is reported as having made a statement which doesn’t appear in the press release.

"He said that the public pause will lead to more hesitancy toward people getting vaccinated against coronavirus in general.

I'm in favor of hesitancy toward getting vaccinated against coronavirus in general - although of the three American ones, I'd say go with the J&J, which is a real vaccine.

The Daily Mail piece, btw, misquotes Trump's "two days after" the 2020 Presidential Election as "two days before."

Ellen 

 

Ellen,

I agree.

I, too, am not happy with President Trump's posture about vaccines. I think he is far to emotionally engaged with his own core story (high quality, under budget, finished way before the deadline) to see as clearly as he does other things. 

He did some of this on medications for the virus (he himself took hydroxychloroquine and the antibody thing, the name of which I don't have in my mind right now, and so on). I wish he had gone all out on medications the way he did vaccines.

The only caveat I have is if he happens to know something about future releases of bioweapons based on COVID-19. That would be a good reason to promote the vaccines as much as he does. 

I don't put much stock in this being the case, but I don't discard it, either.

Here on the outside, we only know what we know. And ALL we know about what is going on behind the scenes comes from the media (mainstream and alt), or people who claim to have insider knowledge.

Regardless, when I see gobs of money and power involved, I don't expect to see the angel side of human nature with respect to those who have--or are trying to get--their grubby mitts on it.

So I am certain money and power are principal factors in all this, not health.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days ago someone posted a link to a talk by Geert Vanden Bossche, a Belgian vaccine researcher.  I watched it straight through because I am on the lookout for persuasive videos with which to help convince my friends to avoid the non-vaccines.

This video wasn’t one of them.  If he had said: “Even if we grant the short term efficacy and safety of the European experimental “vaccines,” giving them en masse when the virus is everywhere will lead to disaster. (And go on to argue that it destroys ones natural immune response.)” But he doesn’t grant, he claims outright that the European vaccines are safe and effective, invented by “brilliant” people, etc., which isn’t true.  (It may or may not be relevant but he is funded by the Gates Foundation.)

And I don’t follow his argument about the natural immune response either.   Still and all he sounds sincere and is putting his reputation on the line.  His ultimate conclusion is: don’t vaccinate during a pandemic.  But there are too many problems with his argument for him to be of use to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Yeadon, a microbiologist and former Vice President of Allergy and Respiratory Research at Pfizer Global, in a telephone interview reported in the LifeSite News article “Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death”:

I think the end game is going to be, “everyone receives a vaccine”… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

When they do that, every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be “vaccinated,” or not … And whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.

For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database with], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.

...  crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk ... that they could be necessary for you to get into enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house ... without the appropriate privilege on your app.

But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it [is possible] means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.
...
[We, that is, they] invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time .. and ... embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources, then people are now familiar with this idea that this virus mutates, which it does, and that it produces variants, which is true [as well], which could escape your immune system, and that [last] is a lie.

But, nevertheless, we’re going to tell you it’s true, and then when we tell you that it’s true and we say “but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,” you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: “Bing!” it will come up and say “Dr. Yeadon, time for your top-up vaccine. And, by the way,” it will say “your existing immune privileges remain valid for four weeks. But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an ‘out person,’ and you don’t want that, do you?” So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mark said:

Michael Yeadon, a microbiologist and former Vice President of Allergy and Respiratory Research at Pfizer Global, in a telephone interview reported in the LifeSite News article “Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death”:

Further quotes from Yeadon:

Quote

“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people

“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason. 

“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”

[....]

‘Why is my government lying to me?’ Because ‘they are going to kill you.’

“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal. 

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

I advise reading the whole article - and thank you, Mark, for linking to and quoting from it.

What Yeadon says is the plan is just what I think, too.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I advise reading the whole article...

Ellen (and Mark),

To further entice reader to take a look-see, here is the first paragraph of the article:

Quote

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews in a telephone interview. 

So this is NOT just part of the yelling out in the culture. This is from a technical and scientific authority of the highest level as presented and accredited by the vaccine industry itself.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the lens of persuasion and propaganda (which I know a lot about), rather than science (which I know little about), the following passages from the Yeadon article jumped out at me.

Quote

“... what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’...

. . .

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

. . .

People can’t deal with this level of evil, but Soviets, Hitler, Mao show its possibility

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us.

. . .

The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are.

“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.

“And the people going along with it, I think they would probably say, ‘I was only following orders,’ which we have heard before. 

“But I know, because I have talked to lots of people, and some of them have said ‘I don’t want to believe that you are right, so I’m going to just put it away because if it is true, I can’t handle it.’

. . .

“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail. 

“So, we need philosophers, people who understand logic, religion, something like that, [they have] got to wrestle with this, and start talking in a language people will understand. Because if we leave it with scientists, people like me, even though I’m well-intentioned, I’m a gabbling alien as far as most people in the street are concerned.

The persuasion message that needs to be hammered home over and over is that winning a few wars last century did not eliminate evil people from the human race, not even those who get their hands on massive power like the Soviets, Hitler, Mao, etc. did a few short decades ago.

Victories against those monsters did not cure evil. Why would we think that? Evil people are still among us.

And they now have their hands on bioweapons.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Evil people are still among us.

And they now have their hands on bioweapons.

Oh, youse guys. How long do I have to live? It sounds like the zombie apocalypse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Read the article.

It's not saying people who took the vaccine are going to die.

:)

As concerns you, the problem will be the top-up booster vaccines. There is still time to learn about them. So read the article.

 

On another point, did Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. exist?

Or is that just myth?

And if they were real, how did the human race cure itself of evil people like that?

Spiritual enlightenment? 

:) 

A vaccine?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Pretty condescending, coming from a naive government bootlicker.

You are very hard on naive government bootlickers.  We have feelings too, you know.

You may have mentioned this somewhere but I  haven't seen it . Not about the vaccines or whatever they are, I truly know so little on the subject that I will never be  qualified to comment.  Believe me or not, I have no opinion on the Covid vaccines and tend to believe the last p ersuasive sounding article I read.

What I wonder about is how you feel about masking and social dist., also MSK and Ellen if she is still speaking to me. I don't know anything about the conditions  where you all live and I am just curious.This is not political to me at all and I won't comment on your answers. I hate the mask because I can hardly breathe in it so I must minimize whenI have to use it, which is easy to do here because nearly everybody is in my bubble.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Pretty condescending, coming from a naive government bootlicker.

Why did you give Peter's post a "Like"?

Just curious.  I wonder if maybe you goofed and meant to "Like" the post by Michael which Peter quoted.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Why did you give Peter's post a "Like"?

Just curious.  I wonder if maybe you goofed and meant to "Like" the post by Michael which Peter quoted.

Ellen

That was unintentional on my part; corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Pretty condescending, coming from a naive government bootlicker.

Did you mean to say "patriot?" That was not condescending either ThatGuy. I was making a point without being harmful and attempting to be benevolently humorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listen to what my doctor, the VA, and mainstream medical articles tell me. I sometimes look at articles that disagree with their conclusions but I rarely if ever, read Alt science conspiracy theories. It is a matter of Epistemology and the Scientific Method. Peter

Leonard Peikoff in OPAR on page 175 writes: The modern definition of  "absolute" represents the rejection of a rational metaphysics and epistemology. It is the inversion of a crucial truth: *relationships are not the enemy of absolutism; they are what makes it possible.* We prove a conclusion on the basis of facts logically related to it and then integrate it into the sum of our knowledge. That process is what enables us to say: "Everything points to this conclusion; the total context demands it; within these conditions, it is unshakeable." About an isolated revelation, by contrast, we would never be secure. Since we would know nothing that *makes* it so, we could count on nothing to keep it so, either. Contextualism does not mean relativism. It means the opposite. The fact of context does not weaken human conclusions or make them vulnerable to overthrow. On the contrary, context is precisely what makes a (properly specified) conclusion invulnerable." end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you “know?” Tempering the previous message with a Peikoff quote we will now hear from the Brilliant and Curious, George H. Smith on page 77 of, "Why Atheism:" "We might say that these and other scientific theories (Aristotelian physics, Neo-Platonic metaphysics, or Ptolemaic astronomy) - which have not been merely revised, but completely *discarded* - were justified beliefs for medieval thinkers, given the apparent evidence in their favor and their overall coherence with the medieval worldview. But they were false nonetheless, absolutely and unequivocally, however justified they may have been at one time. They were not somehow "contextually" true, much less "immutably" so . . . . Thus when confronted with the historical transition to modern science, the Randian contextualist might argue that the medieval cosmology does not qualify as even contextually true, because it is not based on logical cognition and authentic evidence. Modern Science, therefore, was not a revision of medieval science, because the latter was not legitimate science at all.

This or any similar reply will not solve the incipient relativism of Randian contextualism, even if we accept the preceding characterization of the medieval cosmology at face value (which we should not). The Randian contextualist cannot pick and choose his contextual and immutable truths, depending on whether they approximate modern beliefs, for this would unfairly subject medieval thinkers to the same standards of infallibility and omniscience against which the Randians so vigorously (and rightfully) protest.

A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and ones context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ." end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Peter said:

I listen to what my doctor, the VA, and mainstream medical articles tell me. I sometimes look at articles that disagree with their conclusions but I rarely if ever, read Alt science conspiracy theories. It is a matter of Epistemology and the Scientific Method. Peter

It is a matter of being an idiot.

Your doctor likely just trusts what medical authorities tell him or her, like lots of doctors do.  I don’t know what’s going on with the VA.  Mainstream medical journalism has gotten to be in as bad a state as mainstream climatology.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

It is a matter of being an idiot.

Your doctor likely just trusts what medical authorities tell him or her, like lots of doctors do

How do you "know" this? Is it from something you read? If so show everyone your medical and researchers degrees to "prove" how right you are about  . .  . everything. To call someone an idiot for taking a doctors advice is not objective and I am not just talking about tact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mengele was a doctor, too, as were the doctors involved in the Tuskagee experiments that were done on naive, unsuspecting soldiers...

"Mother, should I trust the government?" - Pink Floyd

"Stop saying you did your research before you got the injection...You ARE the research."

And for those who say "But the CIA/FBI/Government saviors would have arrested Fauci already if....":

"To really understand the heinous nature of the Tuskegee Experiment requires some societal context, a lot of history, and a realization of just how many times government agencies were given a chance to stop this human experimentation but didn’t. "



40 Years of Human Experimentation in America: The Tuskegee Study

Starting in 1932, 600 African American men from Macon County, Alabama were enlisted to partake in a scientific experiment on syphilis. The “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,” was conducted by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and involved blood tests, x-rays, spinal taps and autopsies of the subjects.

The goal was to “observe the natural history of untreated syphilis” in black populations. But the subjects were unaware of this and were simply told they were receiving treatment for bad blood. Actually, they received no treatment at all. Even after penicillin was discovered as a safe and reliable cure for syphilis, the majority of men did not receive it.

To really understand the heinous nature of the Tuskegee Experiment requires some societal context, a lot of history, and a realization of just how many times government agencies were given a chance to stop this human experimentation but didn’t.


https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history/40-years-human-experimentation-america-tuskegee-study

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now