Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Peter said:

... the doctor would NOT agree with because it is not scientific. I don't consider that altruistic, merely benevolent. Follow your reasoning, and let them follow theirs.

What ticks me off, is trying to get others to follow the malarky which can get them killed. I just saw another one of those stories about a rabidly anti vax couple but the wife is barely hanging on after getting the Chinese virus. I don't know if anyone remembers that Yul Brenner public service announcement, "Just don't smoke." but I would like to add, "Just don't smoke and mirrors."         

I am well, thanks for asking. Surviving great on not-scientific malarkey - my natural immunity post infection,  a weekly dose of Ivermectin, daily D3 and Zinc. I haven't needed a doctor's advice in 15 years.

Pseudo science! Vaccines are the one, true science.

The "altruism"? That's independent minds sacrificed by the people unquestioningly obeying authority and the herd. Where benevolence enters is live and let live, quite - when and only when, one is undemanding of others to make sacrifices to you nor you for them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Trust the science" ... and also J + J's baby powder...huh, what, you can't?

 

It's ok. I asked my doctor. And my mother used baby powder on my bare butt when I was a baby, and I  haven't had any cancer from it, which means that my personal experience can be reified as the whole, because I'm an egoist, so it must be ok for everyone, today. And by that standard, if their baby powder is safe, then their vaccines are safe, even if you don't want to call it a vaccine.

So, then, if you're an Objectivist (you're not irrational, are you?), powder your bottom.

"Trust the science."
 

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Trust the science" ... and also J + J's baby powder...huh, what, you can't?

 

I'm being sarcastic, of course, but on a serious note:
Re: "How did they cover this up?" in the Russell Brand video thumbnail:
Why is this a big story now, as in, what happened to bring it into the spotlight? I don't doubt that J&J was trying to cover it up, but I've known about this personally for several years, now, having seen advertisements for lawsuits over it...

(Edit: Oh, I see, there's a new update on the defense in the lawsuit, and news about J&J trying to silence shareholders...]
 

522de7275340bfe92924f1658e52d943
FINANCE.YAHOO.COM

The controversial Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) bankruptcy strategy will face a fresh trial to urge a judge to allow it to use the bankruptcy...

 

GettyImages-998014522.jpg
WWW.CITYAM.COM

Activist investment platform Tulipshare has accused healtchare giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) of stifling debate and “silencing investors”...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

I'm being sarcastic, of course, but on a serious note:
Re: "How did they cover this up?" in the Russell Brand video thumbnail:
Why is this a big story now, as in, what happened to bring it into the spotlight? I don't doubt that J&J was trying to cover it up, but I've known about this personally for several years, now, having seen advertisements for lawsuits over it...

(Edit: Oh, I see, there's a new update on the defense in the lawsuit, and news about J&J trying to silence shareholders...]
 

522de7275340bfe92924f1658e52d943
FINANCE.YAHOO.COM

The controversial Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) bankruptcy strategy will face a fresh trial to urge a judge to allow it to use the bankruptcy...

 

GettyImages-998014522.jpg
WWW.CITYAM.COM

Activist investment platform Tulipshare has accused healtchare giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) of stifling debate and “silencing investors”...

 

It should go without saying that any company that tries to silence investors and such over the dangers of their product has not earned trust for experimental medicines, and that extends to patients trusting their doctors to be forthright, as well, since we know that doctors can and have been both bought and cowed into silence.

[Additional comment edited; "may cooler heads prevail."]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TG,

Just a word about tactics.

Everybody has their own time to absorb information in an intellectual war. No two people are alike and sometimes the differences are vast. 

One thing is for sure. Nobody ever gets browbeat into agreement. And if someone does, I for one, would be very suspicious of that person's beliefs.

Over the years online, I myself, have been called many names for the views I held. Even today, I'm sure my presence is not welcome among certain Objectivists.

Our dear beloved Brant once said I was kissing Objectivism in the mouth as I stabbed it in the back.

I paraphrase, but I am pretty sure the imagery is accurate.

:)

Yet I feel strong friendship towards Brant. And I have only ever mentioned this to tease him like a friendly jab in the ribs. I have nothing but good feelings for him and those feelings run deep.

 

Have you ever seen me defend my views from the lens of being a true Objectivist? Or a true neo-Objectivist? Or whatever? Have you ever seen me get offended because someone claimed I did not belong on the Objectivist side? 

Nah...

Life is too short.

The people who need to be with me are with me of their own choice. Many agree with me, but some disagree with me substantially on some issues. That's good enough for me. Either such people will come around to my way of thinking after they process the information we discuss or I will come around to theirs. 

The thing is, some things take a long time to happen and other things are short. As Lenin once said, "There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen."

That's a good thought, but maybe I should have quoted someone different, huh? :) 

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to micromanage anything. Do as you wish. I'm just offering food for thought.

In my view, an Objectivist-friendly form of grace is showing patience in allowing a person to do things in his or her own time--realizing that person's time is not the same as my time. I don't see that as sanctioning the opposite of one's own views. In fact, I am known as clear on my views. I don't run from expressing them.

(If things get out of hand, like they did with Jon, you have to do something about it. But it takes a hell of a lot to get to that point. And, besides, grace is not the remedy in that context. :) )

In my experience, we should choose our battles wisely. And there are plenty of real-deal bad guys out there to fight who have no need whatsoever for time to come around. They want to destroy you, me, OL, the US, all of it.

For me, those guys are worth fighting. It's one of the reasons I am so pro-Trump. I can't take out those bad guys. Nobody here in O-Land can take them out. (I haven't seen anything since Rand herself.) But I can help Trump take them out just like millions of others are doing.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

Just a word about tactics.

Everybody has their own time to absorb information in an intellectual war. No two people are alike and sometimes the differences are vast. 

One thing is for sure. Nobody ever gets browbeat into agreement. And if someone does, I for one, would be very suspicious of that person's beliefs.

Over the years online, I myself, have been called many names for the views I held. Even today, I'm sure my presence is not welcome among certain Objectivists.

Our dear beloved Brant once said I was kissing Objectivism in the mouth as I stabbed it in the back.

I paraphrase, but I am pretty sure the imagery is accurate.

:)

Yet I feel strong friendship towards Brant. And I have only ever mentioned this to tease him like a friendly jab in the ribs. I have nothing but good feelings for him and those feelings run deep.

 

Have you ever seen me defend my views from the lens of being a true Objectivist? Or a true neo-Objectivist? Or whatever? Have you ever seen me get offended because someone claimed I was did not belong on the Objectivist side? 

Nah...

Life is too short.

The people who need to be with me are with me of their own choice. Many agree with me, but some disagree with me substantially on some issues. That's good enough for me. Either such people will come around to my way of thinking after they process the information we discuss or I will come around to theirs. 

The thing is, some things take a long time to happen and other things are short. As Lenin once said, "There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen."

That's a good thought, but maybe I should have quoted someone different, huh? :) 

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to micromanage anything. Do as you wish. I'm just offering food for thought.

In my view, an Objectivist-friendly form of grace is showing patience in allowing a person to do things in his or her own time--realizing that person's time is not the same as my time. I don't see that as sanctioning the opposite of one's own views. In fact, I am known as someone who is clear on my views. I don't run from expressing them.

(If things get out of hand, like they did with Jon, you have to do something about it. But it takes a hell of a lot to get to that point. And, besides, grace is not the remedy in that context. :) )

In my experience, we should choose our battles wisely. And there are plenty of real-deal bad guys out there to fight who have no need whatsoever for time to come around. They want to destroy you, me, OL, the US, all of it.

For me, those guys are worth fighting. It's one of the reasons I am so pro-Trump. I can't take out those bad guys. Nobody here in O-Land can take them out. (I haven't seen anything since Rand herself.) But I can help Trump take them out just like millions of others are doing.

Michael


May cooler heads prevail.

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, nothing like a dash of humor, irony or satire to get over a message. That Guy made a fine point this way, and Russell Brand is a master of the technique. Funny, articulate and equally deadly serious, mind you. He is most disarming, as he's clearly an excellent thinker and observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some data being 'pushed' suggest you may have done a pretty good favor for someone , especially anyone under 50 yrs old and still a good deal for those up to 80 yr old, if you suggested safe early treatments and avoidance of the experimental mRNA jabs.

( of course, always draw your own conclusions)

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Seneff_costBenefit-COVID-death-all-cause.pdf

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All hell is getting ready to break loose on the jabs.

And don't even worry about the science for this point.

The problem?

Money.

The insurance companies that offer life insurance are suddenly having to make huge payouts because so many people are dying from the jabs. We know that when you screw around with the money of money organizations, society changes.

Well, society is about to change. Right now the insurance companies are having a fit. They see the bill to pay for the show coming right at them. In fact, it's already here. And they don't want to pay. So they are going to make sure the nonsense is stopped.

But at least the funeral business is booming.

Here's Wall Street investor, Ed Dowd, saying this in different words.

Use simple logic.

Deaths from COVID are going down. The official organizations are all saying the pandemic is winding down and Omicron is not very toxic anyway, something like the common cold.

Jabs and booster jabs are going through the roof in number.

The death industries like the funeral business and life insurance are getting swamped with super-high and growing death numbers. Real numbers from customers, not the fake ones.

Hmmmm...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Congress under Bush/Obama bailed out the 'banks' when the derivatives blew up and the Fed/Congress has been trying to paper over that since, how big a chunk of the funds under management by the institutional investors, hedge funds ect come from the insurance market ?

I don't know even how to figure that out, but there must be a fairly lucrative gain to owning the claims on those funds re all the commercials for companies willing to pay cash to pensioners for the remainder of their policies.

" How to be a millionaire and not pay taxes, first get a million dollars.." S. Martin

Take a lot of money on a reoccurring basis from a lot of people , hire mathematicians to tell you how much you need on hand to pay out claims and invest every single penny above that amount: the insurance industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tmj said:

Some data being 'pushed' suggest you may have done a pretty good favor for someone , especially anyone under 50 yrs old and still a good deal for those up to 80 yr old, if you suggested safe early treatments and avoidance of the experimental mRNA jabs.

( of course, always draw your own conclusions)

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Seneff_costBenefit-COVID-death-all-cause.pdf

Has everyone read this report and Conclusion? It's taken me a while to absorb. If only semi-true, all I can say is - shattering. What have they done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Head's up... (plus, a tale of two headlines...)

Biden Declares 'National Emergency' Ahead of Freedom Convoy Heading Towards Washington D.C.
 

Joe Biden is pronouncing that the Covid "national emergency" should be extended ahead of an expected People's Convoy heading towards Washington D.C.

The action echoes beleaguered Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act to carry out a police crackdown on Freedom Convoy protesters under the color of martial law.

Biden made the declaration in an executive letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Madam President:)

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, beginning March 1, 2020, concerning the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is to continue in effect beyond March 1, 2022.

There remains a need to continue this national emergency.  The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause significant risk to the public health and safety of the Nation.  More than 900,000 people in this Nation have perished from the disease, and it is essential to continue to combat and respond to COVID-19 with the full capacity and capability of the Federal Government.

Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9994 concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43
THEKYLEBECKER.SUBSTACK.COM

Plus: Trudeau will compile an "enemies list" to target anyone who stood up for their basic human rights in the Freedom Convoy protests.

Biden to extend U.S. national emergency due to COVID-19 health risk
 

Feb 18 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden said on Friday the U.S. national emergency declared in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic will be extended beyond March 1 due to the ongoing risk to public health posed by the coronavirus.

Biden said the deaths of more than 900,000 Americans from COVID-19 emphasized the need to respond to the pandemic with "the full capacity" of the federal government.

WWW.REUTERS.COM

President Joe Biden said on Friday the U.S. national emergency declared in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic will be...
wh_social-share.png
WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Madam President:) Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

900,000? to be radically adjusted to a fraction - When "excess mortality" is factored in (after knowing total deaths from ¬all causes¬ in the USA for '20 to '22).

In other words, how many in the recorded figure of Covid deaths in x calendar year ¬would¬ have died, in the absence of Covid, anyway?

Fatality numbers for a large enough population and country stay remarkably close, year on year. As with world deaths ¬60 million p/a.

Knowing this total in any country, then we'll know how many extra people directly died *of and from* Covid. Not *after* some period of contracting it. As hospitals counted by and exaggerated or falsified.

The factor calculated by John Campbell (for England and Wales) from released official figures - A ratio of one in eight.  Divide (assumed mortality) by 8.

World: 5.9mil/8

Tired of the emphasis on large and questionable numbers governments used to manipulate everyone into submission. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2022 at 4:03 PM, william.scherk said:

The nine-person jury returned a verdict. Unexpectedly by perhaps no one on the Palin team, the jury did not rule in Palin's favour.

On the other hand:

Alan Dershowitz Says Judge In Palin Case Against NY Times Made A ‘Mistake’

GettyImages-505736806-palin.jpg
CONSERVATIVEBRIEF.COM

Former Alaska governor now has a better chance on appeal.

 

Quote

Liberal Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says he believes the federal judge who handled former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times has made a “mistake” that could lead to a redefinition of the term and give Palin a good case on appeal.

Dershowitz’s remarks during an interview with Newsmax TV came after U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff noted in an opinion he would toss her lawsuit before deliberating jurors had even returned a verdict, which was then relayed to jurors via push notification...

. . .

“The judge should have either dismissed before the jury went into deliberate or wait until the jury verdict came back,” Dershowitz said. “But the judge wanted to write an opinion, and if the jury verdict came the way it did – in favor of The New York Times – the judge would have no opportunity to write an opinion.

“So, he wanted to write an opinion, and the only way to do it is in the middle of jury deliberation, because if he did it at the beginning of jury deliberations, then the issue would be a legal one on appeal.

“He wanted to make an edict. He wanted to have a verdict in his favor, and he wanted to have an opportunity to write, and it may come back to bite him in the end,” the famed liberal lawyer continued, adding that Palin’s attorneys may be able to use Rakoff’s mistake to her advantage on appeal.

. . .

Now, Dershowitz told host Tom Basile, Palin’s appeal may lead to a changing of the libel standard regarding the “concept of malice.”

“Now, whether the Court of Appeals will say there was enough evidence to establish malice, that’s the hard question, and that issue may go to the Supreme Court, and we may see a redefinition of the concept of malice,” he added.

Lots of wood still to chop.

The NYT played a dangerous game of slander in an attitude of full arrogance, and the court made it look like Sarah she was being railroaded, so I would not bet against her.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should be a serious wake-up call for anyone saying "ask your doctor/trust the science". Seriously, how can one trust their doctor to be even able to advise fully when the CDC is withholding information?

CDC Officials Admit Agency Has Withheld Critical Covid Information From the Public, Including Data About Breakthrough Infections, Over Fears of “Vaccine Hesitancy”

According to a new report by the New York Times, the CDC has also been collecting much more detailed data about Covid infections that breaks down by age, race, and vaccination status. The critical information would go a long way towards figuring out an end to the pandemic, but the agency has purposefully suppressed the information from the public over fears that it would be “misinterpreted” and cause “vaccine hesitancy.”

In other words, the ‘experts’ in the US public health regime believe the plebs aren’t capable enough to interpret something themselves.

D1617591-2630-4428-BC62-1A7E9DC60F42-913
FEDERALINQUIRER.COM

Throughout the pandemic, the CDC has diligently maintained a running tally of Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths for the public to...

The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects

The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.

Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race would help health officials identify and help the populations at highest risk. Information on hospitalizations and death by age and vaccination status would have helped inform whether healthy adults needed booster shots. And wastewater surveillance across the nation would spot outbreaks and emerging variants early.

Without the booster data for 18- to 49-year-olds, the outside experts whom federal health agencies look to for advice had to rely on numbers from Israel to make their recommendations on the shots.

00virus-cdc-data-topart-facebookJumbo.jp
WWW.NYTIMES.COM

The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.




 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

This should be a serious wake-up call for anyone saying "ask your doctor/trust the science". Seriously, how can one trust their doctor to be even able to advise fully when the CDC is withholding information?

CDC Officials Admit Agency Has Withheld Critical Covid Information From the Public, Including Data About Breakthrough Infections, Over Fears of “Vaccine Hesitancy”

According to a new report by the New York Times, the CDC has also been collecting much more detailed data about Covid infections that breaks down by age, race, and vaccination status. The critical information would go a long way towards figuring out an end to the pandemic, but the agency has purposefully suppressed the information from the public over fears that it would be “misinterpreted” and cause “vaccine hesitancy.”

In other words, the ‘experts’ in the US public health regime believe the plebs aren’t capable enough to interpret something themselves.

D1617591-2630-4428-BC62-1A7E9DC60F42-913
FEDERALINQUIRER.COM

Throughout the pandemic, the CDC has diligently maintained a running tally of Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths for the public to...

The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects

The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.

Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race would help health officials identify and help the populations at highest risk. Information on hospitalizations and death by age and vaccination status would have helped inform whether healthy adults needed booster shots. And wastewater surveillance across the nation would spot outbreaks and emerging variants early.

Without the booster data for 18- to 49-year-olds, the outside experts whom federal health agencies look to for advice had to rely on numbers from Israel to make their recommendations on the shots.

00virus-cdc-data-topart-facebookJumbo.jp
WWW.NYTIMES.COM

The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.




 

A serious, non-snark challenge to anyone trumpeting "Ask your doctor/Trust the Science":

How can one "trust" in light of such information? How can one even trust that their personal doctor is getting all the available information in order to responsibly advise their patients?

One doesn't need to have a medical degree to see the problem here, or to justify their skepticism and concern (let alone have their objectivity called into question. It would be unobjective not to be skeptical/voice concerns...)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just that one word, "breakthroughs" recently went out of fashion. First utilized to make it seem uncommon for the vaxxed to be infected, even the slowest people are realizing that can't be so. Not the exception, it's the rule. The vaxxed catch it and infect one another in huge numbers.

Looking back, it's easy to see how events, proclamations and tactics unfolded exactly like a PR campaign. The objective: marketing the vaccines.

Back then 'they' were anticipating "vaccine hesitancy". So: how to get over that?

Plan: Tell them we are only flattening the curve a short while to save the hospitals. Disparage the effectiveness of natural immunity. Pump up those 'case' and death numbers. Deny or ban off the shelf self-treatments. Put out the falsehood that vaccines will end the virus : Zero Covid is close! You only must obey.

 

And if some extra few hundred thousand might die before the vaccinations, by denying people essential information and proper treatment. It's all in a good cause of preparing the people.

With the corrupt media their mouthpiece, not a difficult campaign. With a captive audience how could it fail?

After the psychological (etc.) effects of lockdowns and masking etc., the acquiescent public would be, and have been, ready to believe in anything - and get jabbed needlessly and riskily to bring closure and normality.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

A serious, non-snark challenge to anyone trumpeting "Ask your doctor/Trust the Science":

How can one offer such "trust" in light of such information? How can one even trust that their personal doctor is getting all the available information in order to responsibly advise their patients?

One doesn't need to have a medical degree to see the problem here, or to justify their skepticism and concern (let alone have their objectivity called into question. It would be unobjective not to be skeptical/voice concerns...)

The idea of any doctor making any recommendation with confidence, unless that recommendation is to be careful/moderate, should be a red flag to anyone knowing how quickly "Science changes".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile... Amesh Adalja, The Ayn Rand Institute's go-to vaccine schill, still pushing the grift:
 

09virus-immunity1-facebookJumbo.jpg
WWW.NYTIMES.COM

A flurry of new studies suggest that several parts of the immune system can mount a sustained, potent response to any coronavirus variant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2022 at 12:16 PM, Peter said:

I hope everyone will do right for themselves, and try not to talk someone else from following their doctor's advise based on data or stories the doctor would NOT agree with because it is not scientific.
 

Data and stories are never scientific. And that's all we have, regardless of whether you are a doctor, scientist, or neither. The only thing scientific is reproducible experiments. Nobody has that right now. Nobody.

Quote

I don't consider that altruistic, merely benevolent. Follow your reasoning, and let them follow theirs.  

Of course... but how does this follow from what you wrote above?

Quote

What ticks me off, is trying to get others to follow the malarky which can get them killed. I just saw another one of those stories about a rabidly anti vax couple but the wife is barely hanging on after getting the Chinese virus. I don't know if anyone remembers that Yul Brenner public service announcement, "Just don't smoke." but I would like to add, "Just don't smoke and mirrors."     

The question is, "what can get them killed?" You keep referring to science, then working on assumptions... oh, and stories you saw, which are one side of a coin that we've seen the other side of many times in this same thread.

Except those stories actually have weight when they go in the other direction, because they are dis-confirming evidence. You are arguing based on the established narrative. Your stories mean nothing, because the narrative is "we know for certain." Knowing for certain isn't proven by 10 stories, 100, or a million. It's either disproven or it's not. And once it's disproven, it's supposed to be over.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard the Queen got the Chinese Bug. I wish her well. Once again, I urge everyone to follow their doctor's advice and don't go to the Internet Hospital if you test positive. joke   

edit. My wife sent away for four free tests from the government, and they arrived yesterday. Just in case.

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