Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

On 5/5/2021 at 12:55 PM, Peter said:

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

Apparently Bill's hanging out with Epstein (who didn't kill himself) was a trigger.

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.

The argument that I have heard from Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is that some of the mRNA will inevitably remain outside of the cells, and we do not know what effects that can have. We also do not know how mRNA interacts with other RNA in the cell. Apparently little is known about the genome except its role in protein production (creating mRNA), which accounts for 2% of what it does.

 

If you think the virus could be a serious problem for you, then a vaccine is probably a good idea. But if you are healthy I feel the vaccine is more of a risk with how little we currently know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

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

Ellen

As to the first sentence you presume correctly and in answer to the second the header/title to the blog post reads :

"About that Salk Institute paper on the “deadly” COVID-19 spike protein

Antivaxxers have been working overtime lately to claim that the spike protein used as the antigen in COVID-19 vaccines is deadly, and they’ll cite any old tenuous evidence based on a misunderstood (by them) study to do it."

Without quoting anything specific , I got the impression the author/good doctor paints with a rather broad brush and 'sees' stupid everywhere. I'll take someone observing milkmaids and fiddling with puss and sharp sticks above these covid vaxs almost everyday of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jules I’ll check back with you in say 12 months and if your nipple count passes muster I’ll think about it.

Thanks for participating in the trial.

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics is so weird.

Has anyone noticed the sheer number of people who could not stand Trump flock to one of his big achievements? I'm talking about his Warp Speed program that made the vaccines for COVID-19 (or those alleged to be vaccines) available to the public in less than a year. Had President Trump not done that, there would be no shots for people to take. The normal bureaucracy would still be busy stealing money from the development process instead of milking the product for social control and even more gobs of money.

On the other hand, look at how many Trump supporters are wary and keeping their distance from the shot. When told that this was Trump's brainchild, they go, "Yeah... uhm..." And then they look away and change the subject.

In a weird way, it warms my heart to see how many people with Trump Derangement Syndrome and prone to the deadly Orange Man Bad virus embrace his work with such fervor.

:)

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

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

Don't be a snob. Canned octupus is also yummy and can be heated to taste on the stove. Spanish peasants love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Had President Trump not done that [Warp Speed project], there would be no shots for people to take. The normal bureaucracy would still be busy stealing money from the development process instead of milking the product for social control and even more gobs of money.

I don’t agree that there would have been a drawn-out development process.  I think that Trump's Warp Speeding push was convenient for people behind the mRNA "vaccines," and that there would have been emergency FDA approval for those irrespective of Trump.  Along with Trojan Horse potentials which I suspect will emerge, the social controllers want a caste system of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated (and that isn’t something Trump was seeking).

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, caroljane said:

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.

Your first wax? Ouch. Let me get my glasses . . . .  Oh, first vax. Congratulations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Apparently Bill's hanging out with Epstein (who didn't kill himself) was a trigger.

I never pictured Bill Gates as hanging out with pedophiles, yet I also heard a short news story along those lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I don’t agree that there would have been a drawn-out development process.  I think that Trump's Warp Speeding push was convenient for people behind the mRNA "vaccines," and that there would have been emergency FDA approval for those irrespective of Trump.  Along with Trojan Horse potentials which I suspect will emerge, the social controllers want a caste system of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated (and that isn’t something Trump was seeking).

Ellen

Ellen,

You have more faith in the ability of bureaucrats to create productively than I do. :) 

Your argument makes sense if looked at in today's context, but I just don't see it the context back then. I'm not saying the bad guys did not want a fast vaccine back then. They did. I am saying that without Trump removing regulations and hounding the crap out of the scientists and big pharma to hurry up and get 'er done, none of those people would have had the inner drive--or power--to figure out how to do so. The process was just too ingrained and lucrative to too many people to imagine changing it--and, for that matter, so were they themselves.

In my version, once they realized that the vaccine was going to happen and it was looking good in the public's eye, they took a ride on it, then usurped it to quicken their one-world oligarchical plans. That part happening so soon was a godsend to them, not a planned attack. I believe it was in the plans, but for several years down the road.

For one indication of this (granted, a small one), Kamala Harris was saying for quite a while she would not take the vaccine because she did not trust Trump. Then, from one day to the next, she stopped saying that, gave no reason why, and started promoting the shots. That sounds to me like a decision made in obedience to a backroom meeting.

 I do agree about the social caste system, both the intent of the bad guys and Trump never wanting anything like that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Canned lobster from the east coast is pretty awesome too, send me a can Carol!

Deal, if you can fly me a nice rare steak that was alive yesterday.....

puny meat and poultry are shamefully overpriced here, but oh!  Rainbow trout and crabmeat were both half price this week at The so-called Atlantic Superstore, . Life as anaquaovovegetarian is pretty tasty. Drool brother,drool!

Carolina. 

       ex-majorcan peasantess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Your argument makes sense if looked at in today's context, but I just don't see it the context back then. I'm not saying the bad guys did not want a fast vaccine back then. They did. I am saying that without Trump removing regulations and hounding the crap out of the scientists and big pharma to hurry up and get 'er done, none of those people would have had the inner drive--or power--to figure out how to do so. The process was just too ingrained and lucrative to too many people to imagine changing it--and, for that matter, so were they themselves.

In my version, once they realized that the vaccine was going to happen and it was looking good in the public's eye, they took a ride on it, then usurped it to quicken their one-world oligarchical plans. That part happening so soon was a godsend to them, not a planned attack. I believe it was in the plans, but for several years down the road.

I have a different viewpoint on the amount of advance planning.  I think that wheels were already greased for a fast approval - and that the mRNA technique had already been developed before the virus was ever released.

Maybe info on the extent of pre-planning will come to light as time goes on.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Apparently Bill's hanging out with Epstein (who didn't kill himself) was a trigger.

My bet is that she knows things about the virus plan and has enough human decency not to like what she knows.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, caroljane said:

Don't be a snob. Canned octupus is also yummy and can be heated to taste on the stove. Spanish peasants love it.

As long as it's a substitute for ice cream, I will lap it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

As long as it's a substitute for ice cream, I will lap it up.

Just don't think about what you are eating. It's odd but I would rather eat something, synthetic or re-comprised than something that is fresh road kill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is Infowars doing its thing, but damn if Alex doesn't present a ton of documentation and direct quotes (in the video) to back it up.

Smoking Gun Video: Fauci Project Manager Confesses to Creating Covid-19

Here's the video:

image.png

Here are the links given in the description of the video:

Quote

 

I decided to look at this after I saw Fauci denying everything, but slithering as rebuttal under questioning by Rand Paul, then later Rand's proof of where Fauci outright lied under oath. The headlines practically tell the whole story, but you can see the videos and more information at the links below.

Rand Paul Rips Into Dr. Fauci About Funding the Wuhan Virology Institute Lab – Arrogant Fauci Hits Back! (VIDEO)

and

“He Was Being Dishonest – Wuhan Institute Published Paper Saying ‘Funded by NIH'” – Rand Paul Calls Out Fauci’s Dishonesty Under Oath (VIDEO)

I normally don't talk about Coronavirus science too much because my knowledge of it is limited to a layman's understanding. Also, I just don't have to time (or even interest) to dig through scientific literature on this issue.

btw - That's my general policy when I see scientists yelling at each other and saying things in public that are the exact opposite of each other. At these times, I rely on people I trust to give breakdowns I can understand, but take into account that this is information gleaned and interpreted second-hand (at best). So I believe it, but keep a tab in my brain open for further verification if I run across something.

The links above present the entire argument about the nasty side of the Coronavirus research in plain language anyone can understand.

Here is how I grokked it. There is a process scientists can use on a virus called "gain of function" where a virus that infects non-human animals in the wild is juiced up to infect humans.

The way Alex presented it (and presuming I am getting it right), an animal cell is put together with a human cell, but with a majority animal (like 90% animal and 10% human) and both are submitted to the same virus. Then the experiment starts lowering the amount of animal cell and ramping up the human cell. The elements of the virus that do not infect human cells start disappearing. By the end of the process, only the virus elements that infect human cells are left because only the human cell is left. The scientists then extract that as a virus in itself and voilà. Instant bioweapon. 

In other words, in nature, the viruses they are experimenting on rarely if ever infect humans because the quantity of virus elements that target human cells in the natural form of the viruses are so small, they do not pose much of a threat. By using the process above, the viruses becomes totally infectious to humans.

Then there's this. Scientists actively go out in the wild and hunt animals to get the original viruses, which is where the thing about bats came in. 

What's worse, Alex presented information showing how, in one of the experiments, the scientists were trying to do this process with five separate strains of the Coronavirus brewed together, thus producing one hell of a deadly and infectious bioweapon.

I think I got that right. At least it's in lay-person speak and how I understand it so far.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means, since Rand Paul made a statement about his exchange with Fauci, let's let Fauci have a statement, too.

Fauci slips up after hearing, explains collaboration with ‘Chinese commu… uh, Chinese scientists’

In other words, Fauci once again denied Rand Paul's accusations, but this time, in the same statement, he admitted Rand Paul was right.

One can accuse this crony government-corporatist scammer of many things, but can never accuse him of consistency.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

Got a cravin? Try our raven, freshly “grilled” at the roadkill cafe!

Raise you Porcupine en Croute, deliciously simmered in its own skin and juices over diesel fuel for hours...

Caro the partRomany

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2021 at 3:18 PM, caroljane said:
On 4/14/2021 at 2:52 PM, ThatGuy said:

Pretty condescending, coming from a naive government bootlicker.

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

[...]

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.

For some people caught somewhere between bootlicking and terror, an option is being bruited about, at least according to the [insert colourful adjective] folks at VICE:

Anti-Maskers Ready to Start Masking—to Protect Themselves From the Vaccinated

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m pretty sure Fauci is spinning so hard and outright lying on television and in those hearings because his is not under oath.

I’d be willing to bet direct answers to direct questions need to be extracted via subpoena and through legal representation, and I don’t see that happening .

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