Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I wonder which of the two wasn't commie enough for the other.

My guess was that privileged Bill had dessert on the side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2021 at 5:39 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Double heh.

:evil:

Michael


Here is something very interesting regarding Bill Gates' landholdings:

 

Bill Gates’ divorce could end secret life as biggest US farmland owner


From the article:

Quote

By Lee Brown    May 4, 2021 1:57 pm | updated

 

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’ divorce from wife Melinda could break up his relatively unknown standing as the biggest owner of farmland in America.

While he made his $130 billion fortune through tech, Gates also owns nearly 270,000 acres (422 square miles) of land across more than a dozen states, according to a January investigation by The Land Report of the largely hidden investments.

The vast majority — some 242,000 acres (378 square miles) — is farmland, at least 50,000 acres more than the family with the next-largest holdings, the outlet said.

“Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has an alter ego: Farmer Bill, the guy who owns more farmland than anyone else in America,” wrote the mag’s editor, Eric O’Keefe.


The article includes a map of Gates' landholdings.


It also includes the text of the

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 
Statement on Creation of Nonprofit. 
Agricultural Research Institute   
(dated January 21, 2020)

A footer line at the bottom of the statement says:

"Gates Ag One aims to provide smallholder farmers in developing countries with access to the affordable tools and innovations they need. Gates Foundation"
 

Any connection, hmmm, to the ChiComs' desire to acquire the U.S. as farmland?

Another part of the Gates' landholdings:

"As well as farmland, the former couple is understood to have bought a “significant stake” in 2017 in 24,800 acres of transitional land on the western edge of Phoenix that has been earmarked for a “brand-new metropolis” with up to 80,000 homes, the report noted."
 

Ellen

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

 

Quote

 

Dr. Madej said in a recent interview with The New American:

“The Supreme Court ruled that if there is anything synthetic, not from nature, inside of our genome, then whoever owns the patent on those synthetic parts now owns part or all of you as a human. That means Bill and Melinda Gates et al., The Department of Defense, et al. can literally own a human being. If this synthetic code is taken up into your genome, by law, you could be owned overnight.”

Man-made bacteria and genetically-modified mice are patentable

The case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court heard a patent case involving naturally-occurring processes and/or organisms. Dr. Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty invented a species of oil-eating bacteria while working at General Electric in 1971. His invention streamlined the process of cleaning up oil spills.

He filed a first-of-its-kind patent for the new genetically-modified bacteria species. The United Kingdom granted the patent already. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the patent because it determined the invention was a living organism. The U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (now the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) reversed the decision. It ruled that just because micro-organism are alive doesn’t mean they cannot be patented.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 5-4 decision, affirmed. It ruled, in part:

Living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952. The fact that the organism sought to be patented is alive is no bar to patentability.

The case paved the way for biotechnology companies and universities. The OncoMouse, patented by Harvard in 1988, was the first mammal ever patented. Harvard scientists genetically-modified mice to be predisposed to cancer (thus the “onco” prefix) so other scientists could study the disease.

 

https://www.eutimes.net/2021/04/us-supreme-court-says-pfizer-moderna-may-own-your-genes-once-youre-injected/

Link to comment
Share on other sites



‘Look, I’m Safe to Be Around’ – New Covid Wristbands Are a Way to Prove You’ve Been Fully Vaccinated

 

Quote

Immunaband company introduced new blue silicone wristbands that will carry your Covid vax card information. The company is hoping this will catch on and that Americans will rush to purchase their wristband to let others know you’ve been vaccinated.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered how "hot singles" will comingle, without getting Covid. Maybe they will create one for other diseases too. It's about time!

edit. I mean jeez, a Covid “rubber” would need to be like a diving helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

"Like a lamb to the slaughter."

Ellen

“Good-bye Clarice. Will you let me know if ever the lambs stop screaming?"

"Yes." Pembry was taking her arm. It was go or fight him. "Yes," she said. "I'll tell you."

Do you promise?"

"Yes.” ― Thomas Harris, The Silence of the Lambs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the governments of the world are now so sophisticated in their interpretation of the store of human knowledge that all disease and transmission thereof will cease , the only thing standing in the way of humanity’s triumph over disease is insolence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tmj said:

the only thing standing in the way of humanity’s triumph over disease is insolence.

And being human creatures of this planet. I think we have done a good job with the naturally occurring diseases but we are struggling with bio engineered disease and maybe we always will . . . unless we can find a "universal boost your immunity to everything' treatment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Immunaband company introduced new blue silicone wristbands that will carry your Covid vax card information.

Or we could have implanted Biden Chips that show we obeyed and got the shots. I may have mentioned this, but when you go into the VA you put your forehead up to a reader and it tells everyone your temperature. You see an actual picture of yourself as you put your forehead up to it. But do those "eye readers and identity verifiers" actually exist? You see them in SciFi all the time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tmj,

That guy thinks that if you inject a liquid into a muscle it won't get into the bloodstream.  It isn't true.  Blood goes everywhere, it has to in order to provide nourishment and take away exhaust.  If a coral snake (red touch yellow, kill a fellow) bites you, you're in trouble no matter where it bit.  I mention this in the article's comment section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark

My concern when reading the first article/study was that production of S protein via the mRNA incursion would release the spike protein throughout the circulatory system , flood the blood with free roaming protein similar/identical to  the virus's spike protein and that given the Salk study make people vulnerable to the tissue damage seen in the Syrian hamsters.

The second article , and apparently changes to the Salk posting of the study, imply that the mRNA vaccines (and I think the J&J) work to induce the spike protein production/expression but that the protein remains 'anchored' to the cell in which in was produced. So that as long as  the cells targeted for production and expression aren't 'free roaming' , meaning the potential for arterial and venous tissue damage is lessened ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark said:

tmj,

That guy thinks that if you inject a liquid into a muscle it won't get into the bloodstream.  It isn't true.  Blood goes everywhere, it has to in order to provide nourishment and take away exhaust.  If a coral snake (red touch yellow, kill a fellow) bites you, you're in trouble no matter where it bit.  I mention this in the article's comment section.

My understanding is that a coral snake has to bite the flesh between the fingers to get enough purchase to inject its venom.

--Brant

Boy Scout lore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2021 at 12:18 PM, tmj said:

All the governments of the world are now so sophisticated in their interpretation of the store of human knowledge that all disease and transmission thereof will cease , the only thing standing in the way of humanity’s triumph over disease is insolence.

This triggered a look to see if anything on the recent research letter (SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2) had appeared at the Respectful Insolence blog.

Sure enough, 'About that Salk Institute paper on the “deadly” COVID-19 spike protein' went up on the 5th of May. It's a fairly lengthy piece, but worth it if you like a stiff argument that engages claims. 

Coronaviruspic.jpg?resize=1400,933&ssl=1

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thud

That's the sound of a huge pile of technical material that is indigestible to layreaders hitting the table in order to prove how stupid they are. Or to trick those who read some of it to debate minutia in order to gotcha them on a triviality or paradox and prove how stupid they are.

All of this is to hide the fact that the thuddists always sidestep and ignore basic common sense issues that laypeople are concerned with. For example, if science is only on one side of the issue (as thuddists always claim), why do so many scientists disagree with the "science" side?

As Rand would say, blank-out. But she left out what often follows: thud.

It's called argumentum ad thudam.

:)

Those who have been around a while will get this: argumentum ad thudam is essentially a variation on the tasty octopus instead of ice-cream tactic. Here's a pretty picture to jazz up the tangent.

image.png

:)

Michael

  • Upvote 1
  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first posted a link to a paper( or letter, not robust enough to be considered a 'full' paper) that describes findings that show possible damage to mammalian tissue when exposed to the infamous spike protein. As far I understood the paper, it described exposure to only the spike protein by means of 'building' a virus particle of which only the exterior had SARS Covid 2 spike protein , the rest of the particle was inert 'faux' virus and the claim was damage was detected and that the damage was correlated with the presence of the spike protein by itself. The hubbub around the claim is , if true, would a profusion of spike protein be just as dangerous as a natural infection from the 'wild' virus. Since the mRNA 'vaccines' for Covid work by forcing cells to express the spike protein , would that make the 'vaccines' unsafe?

I later posted a link to an article that looked at the study and basically explained that the expression of the spike protein produced by the jab is not the same as a viral infection in that the 'spikes' are designed to be expressed in such a way that they remain 'anchored' to the exterior of the cells that were programmed for protein expression and that very little if any of the protein would end up in the bloodstream and therefore would not contact the same tissue type that showed damage in the Syrian hamster study.

William's link confirmed what I suspected , anti-vaxxers are dumb, insolently so. Though I'm still on the fence if anyone questioning the efficacy of these 'vaccines' is an anti-vaxxer .

Btw, I heard the hamsters are really pissed that the human trials weren't finished before this study.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an indication of which side of a proverbial fence I sit, until the rain of the other day I had a sign taped to my rear window that said: NOT THIS DISEASE NOT THESE OFFICIALS NOT THESE VACCINES (Bret Weinstein said the phrase and I printed it out )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tmj said:

I first posted a link to a paper( or letter, not robust enough to be considered a 'full' paper) that describes findings that show possible damage to mammalian tissue when exposed to the infamous spike protein. As far I understood the paper, it described exposure to only the spike protein by means of 'building' a virus particle of which only the exterior had SARS Covid 2 spike protein , the rest of the particle was inert 'faux' virus and the claim was damage was detected and that the damage was correlated with the presence of the spike protein by itself. The hubbub around the claim is , if true, would a profusion of spike protein be just as dangerous as a natural infection from the 'wild' virus. Since the mRNA 'vaccines' for Covid work by forcing cells to express the spike protein , would that make the 'vaccines' unsafe?

I later posted a link to an article that looked at the study and basically explained that the expression of the spike protein produced by the jab is not the same as a viral infection in that the 'spikes' are designed to be expressed in such a way that they remain 'anchored' to the exterior of the cells that were programmed for protein expression and that very little if any of the protein would end up in the bloodstream and therefore would not contact the same tissue type that showed damage in the Syrian hamster study.

William's link confirmed what I suspected , anti-vaxxers are dumb, insolently so. Though I'm still on the fence if anyone questioning the efficacy of these 'vaccines' is an anti-vaxxer .

Btw, I heard the hamsters are really pissed that the human trials weren't finished before this study.

I have just had my first vax, and if you want dumb, I haven't even checked which kind it was. A little knowledge would be dangerous in my hands, no doubt. 

I have not got the capacity to analyze medical data properly and I am truly grateful that you, William and others do. 

Tangentially (very) to this, I remember that that esteemed law scholar Kim Kardashian appealed to the public with a public broadcasting of her medical assessment,via X-ray, of whether she had implants in an area of, apparently, public importance. She proved she did not!  All was transparent, in multum et parva , on prime time, and though I did not see the show myself everyone says it was proved.

Just hope history will not prove me wrong and especially not onTV or anywhere embarrassing, but I think I am already too old to die of long term side effects anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tmj said:

William's link confirmed what I suspected , anti-vaxxers are dumb, insolently so. Though I'm still on the fence if anyone questioning the efficacy of these 'vaccines' is an anti-vaxxer .

I'll presume some facetiousness in the first sentence.  Re the second, does the article William posted claim that only anti-vaxxers are leery of the "vaccines"?  False claim, if so.  For instance, neither I nor any of the skeptical scientists (and a few doctors) I know directly or via my husband is an anti-vaxxer.

(I haven’t had time to read the material either you or William linked to and don’t expect to get time until later this week.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

It's called argumentum ad thudam.

:)

Those who have been around a while will get this: argumentum ad thudam is essentially a variation on the tasty octopus instead of ice-cream tactic. Here's a pretty picture to jazz up the tangent.

image.png

:)

Michael

I love tasty steamed octopus as substitute for ice cream. My favorite.

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