The COVID humbug thread

Coronavirus.

The first pandemic in history that won’t be eradicated until you agree to live under communism.

3 Likes

It’s interesting to see big pharma, big data, and the WEFfers all working in sync to create some sort of utopia for us all. I’m impressed by the speed of it, too.

We are eternally grateful.

1 Like

That doesn’t address the question.

As in, what aspect of my posting screams that type of dogma to you? Honestly it makes no sense to me (unless you’re just trying politely to say that you think I’m stupid).

Think about it. A is officially at war with B. Inner party members in A say things to each other like it’s not a real war, nothing will ever come of it, it’s all theater to keep the proles and outer party members in line, relax, follow the inner party announcements to know what places to avoid when (because all the bombings are scheduled), you’ll be fine.

Then one day, an inner party member in B decides to turn the dial up, because reasons. The machinery is already in place, literally and figuratively. If A and B are not perfectly evenly matched, A is suddenly in trouble, especially if it’s done all its modeling around the dogma that real wars no longer exist and never will again.

This is what Huxley’s BNW doesn’t account for at all: competition at the top. He has his double alphas all perfectly content to be a hive mind, except for the eccentrics who are all perfectly content to banish themselves to some bohemian island and never do anything that matters. Orwell never explains how his system would fail, but the appendix (by casting the story as a strange period of history) shows that it did fail, and of course – why wouldn’t it?

I’m trying to leave this open-ended. You might be right about “their” plans; I might be right; we might all be wrong (most likely outcome, IMO). But you seem to be arguing that I absolutely must be wrong because politicians are mostly stupid and wouldn’t be bright enough to come up with a world-dominating conspiracy … despite the fact that politicians have repeatedly done exactly that throughout history, with far fewer tools at their disposal.

I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you have some curious cognitive quirks that I can’t get my own head around. As we’ve sort-of agreed before, there’s no point either of us explaining our own world-view to the other because they’re too far apart.

1 Like

“But you seem to be arguing that I absolutely must be wrong because politicians are mostly stupid and wouldn’t be bright enough to come up with a world-dominating conspiracy … despite the fact that politicians have repeatedly done exactly that throughout history, with far fewer tools at their disposal.”

Yeh? Can’t think of one, unless you count globalized capitalism, which wouldn’t tax the intellectual resources of an amoeba, hence its attraction.

There have been attempts , of course, but hard to think of (previous) successes.

Closer to home, I understand the artillery duels at Kinmen in the 60’s and 70’s, which provided the steel for the local knife making artisans, were coreographed on an agreed schedule (PLA not firing on even-numbered days) which made casualties unlikely. This doesn’t make a real shooting war impossible.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Roman Empire? The Catholic Church? Holy Roman Empire? The Mongol Empire? The British Empire? The USSR? Modern China?

They’ve never managed truly global reach, and neither will they now; there will be “disconnected” pockets of humanity that just aren’t worth bothering with. But they were all pretty impressive, and considering the technology of the time, the idea that these empires were founded by bumbling fools just doesn’t hold much water.

Governments today can know everything and control everything with the push of a button; it’s not inconceivable that now is the time for a World Government.

1 Like

If there is a risk of blood clots from AZ/other side effects from other vaccines and it is debatable which is more dangerous to a young person, Vaccine side effects or Covid, well what is going to happen when we make young people take a shot every year from now on?

1 Like

As I understood it the rare blood knot reaction only happens to people with very specific condition. They are healthy otherwise, just their body chain reaction to vaccine leads to blood knots.

If you had the vaccine and didn’t have this side effect, the vaccine should be safe for you.

They are working to improve the vaccine to not have this effect in the future, but it will take time since the new version has to redo the certification steps.
The modification of the vaccine is which part of the spike protein is used for the vaccine.

But nobody really knows one way or the other.

There is some compelling evidence that the clotting is actually an expected consequence of both vaccination and COVID infection, but in the vast majority of cases your body will clear the problem (blood clotting and the breakdown of clots is an extremely sophisticated set of processes - it’s worth reading up on).

In any case blood clots don’t seem to be the major risk for young people. There’s a range of other weird stuff that’s under investigation, such as cardiomyopathy and neurological damage.

The basic issue here is that vaccine manufacturers are relying on national reports of side effects to gauge safety, rather than collecting their own data. This is, to put it mildly, a rather lackadaisical approach to something that is supposed to be a clinical trial: the vaccines were released to the public under EUA’s or various national equivalents, and should therefore be closely monitored. The fact that they’re being rolled out to billions of people suggests that the manufacturers should be keeping their eye very firmly on the ball, because the consequences of a black-swan event could be catastrophic.

Oh … except that it wouldn’t be that catastrophic, because they have legal immunity.

That’s always been the modus operandi of big pharma. Where I’m from they keep adding mandatory vaccines every year, so now you need 14 shots from birth until age 4. Do they know the long-term effects of combining all these shots? Of course not, how can they when they add new ones every year? Next year they’ll add another one or two to the babies as well. The effect? No one knows. They’ve been doing this for decades. Do they care? No. It’s just all profit to them. These are for-profit private companies with shareholders, dollars to be made, jets to be flown and yachts to be skippered. Anyone who thinks these companies are doing it out of the good of their heart is misguided, at best. No doubt even some of the bigpharma guys have convinced themselevs of the same thing. I don’t believe them in the slightest. Call me cynical, but I firmly believe that at heart, it’s all self-centred and ill-motivated.

Oh… so if you didn’t have that reaction the first time, you shouldn’t get it after, no matter how many boosters you have?

It is about the risk. Taking a vaccine is less risky as getting sick with serious decease.
Most vaccines are not mandatory. So the parents can decide.

Not where I’m from.

That depends on the individual factors involved.

They also don’t know the long-term risks of combining all these vaccines, new ones every year added on top of the others. How can they?

Not necessarily. It depends on a rare chance in certain people.

When the vaccine enters a cell and starts reproducing the vaccine spike protein DNA to create an immune reaction, there is a chance that the copied DNA is not an exact copy due to which part of the spike protein DNA was used in the vaccine. This causes some chain reactions which cause blood knotting.
It has some RNG to it. It is very rare that it happens. And they are trying to fix this issue.

They will know when a lot of people will have issues. This has not happened. Still less risky than all those serious diseases.

There is nobody who knows it all. Vaccines are a rather new scientific method to face serious deceases. Some vaccines might have other risks. But as long as it brings more benefits in the bottom line, I don’t see why it should not be used.

Before the nature did natural selection and killed off most of certain species. Humans will not accept such losses anymore.

I think you’re missing my point. When new mandatory vaccines are added every year, they cannot see what long-term issues may arise from that person-specific combination, until many years into the future.

Also, they can’t ever really know, as they add another vaccine a year or two later on top of the last one.

So it’s really impossible to tell what effect came from what combination 10 years down the track. They have so many vaccines, who is to say which particular combination resulted in which particular negative effect?

That’s an opinion. I have no problem with you having it.

You got that right :dollar: :laughing:

Do you have any data to support this? A total of 17 people under 14 died “of or with” COVID to date. Which suggests you only need a 1-in-a-million chance of serious side effects to completely negate the benefits of vaccination.

But most parents aren’t qualified to make that judgement, which means they’ll do as they’re told - possibly with tragic consequences.

1 Like

That is not an opinion. Vaccines eliminated many deadly deceases which caused many deaths year on year

I was talking about health benefits and not profits for pharma companies. You got that wrong.

Covid19 is a new case and solid data will be available in the future.
I was talking bout deceases which were successfully addressed previously with vaccines.

Yes, that is why people seek medical advice of doctors. Vaccines always have some risks. Yes, some people die from them, but not using them would be far worse.