- This topic has 115 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
josh R
“& I guess “proscribed” would be Hamas & Hezbollah, the Iranian army, let alone the plethora of environmental or domestic ‘terrorists’ being added to the list in increasing numbers.”
No your guess is way off the mark. They specifically name extreme Nazi right wing groups:
“Hope not Hate also documented videos hosted on BitChute supporting or produced by terrorists groups, including ISIS and the neo-Nazi groups National Action and Atomwaffen Division.”I guess you feel that for the sake of freedom of speech these recruitment videos should be widely aired.
The rate at which ‘conspiracy theory’ becomes well established fact has been dizzying lately, despite this, our esteemed gatekeepers feel nary a moment of cognitive dissonance.
FDA adds warning about rare heart inflammation to Pfizer, Moderna Covid vaccines:
.
.
.
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday added a warning to patient and provider fact sheets for the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines to indicate a rare risk of heart inflammation. For each vaccine, the fact sheets were revised to include a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis after the second dose and with the onset of symptoms within a few days after receiving the shot.”And I gave a link to all the USA data related to that/those conditon/s, see my last post. What’s your point J? It’s all clearly documented by the CDC. Where is the conspiracy?
J
There is a difference between rare unforeseen complications of vaccines and also other medicines, like the pericarditis with the Pfizer and Moderns vaccines and also the rare clotting disorder associated with the AZ and Johnson vaccines and all the anecdotal statements of many people dying of heart attacks that you posted. No attempts were made at denying these and they are now included as known rare complications of these vaccines as ET pointed out. But this does not translate to “thousands of people dying of side effects of vaccines” and the “the spike protein is toxic” in material you linked to. Interestingly the antivaxxer conspiracy theories are now the fear-mongering side, having accused everyone else of fear mongering about the virus. Now everyone who falls ill and who dies after vaccination (a large proportion of people in U.K. now) dies of vaccination whereas anyone who died of covid-19 dies with it. And this sleight of hand translates to vaccinations being the main cause of death now according to these CTs.J, why would you rather people got heart damage from infection by SARS-CoV-2 than from a vaccine against it?
Serious question J. It really doesn’t matter whether I’m on the side of evil or not; the question remains relevant.
SA, I expect that the spike protein itself is indeed harmful. That’s why pieces of it are excluded from the more traditional vaccines, and from the mRNA of the mRNA vaccines. I remember that early in the pandemic some researchers described SARS-CoV-2 as “booby trapped” for vaccine designers. Maybe this is why some vaccines occasionally cause blood clots whereas others occasionally cause heart inflammation – note that both conditions are very frequently caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself, so they could well be caused by part of the spike protein.
I have heard that precisely which pieces of genetic material are included or excluded is “proprietary information” and withheld ie. concealed by the drug companies, though feel free to check me on that. But I believe that more transparency would help to prevent proliferation of conspiracy theories. Surely there should be a fully public discussion of every potential danger raised by every researcher. Such concealment seems reckless and highly unethical to me, as if each company is hoping that their competitors’ vaccines will prove less profitable through being less safe. It is entirely rational for suspicions to proliferate in such an atmosphere, especially given the drug companies’ decades long track record.
The spike protein coded for in both types of vaccine is designed to remain anchored to the cell wall with it’s antigenic bit presented to the outside. It isn’t meant to be released into the extracellular space. This is why people got excited by the research finding picograms of bits of spike protien free in blood post vaccination. 1 pico gram being one trillionth of a gram. Any forgign protein will caise some degree of immune response. Like a blood transfusion reaction. Apart from ABO there are scores of other proteins on red blood cells all of which could cause a transfusion reaction to varying degrees.
J, you opened this “discussion” over a week ago with very serious preemptive accusations against, presumably, any who would question your claims. Since then, you have evaded every single question I’ve asked you, you have dismissed my opinions as both negligible and harmful, accused all and sundry of bullying, gatekeeping and insensitivity to the cognitive dissonance that they rightly should be feeling.
After making considerable effort to engage with you I have lost patience, so I hope that the moderators will tolerate my considerably milder counter-accusation that you seem like a couch potato habituated to mindlessly absorbing hours of sensationalist video, too lazy intellectually to actually search out and appraise evidence, but a raging zealot when promoting the nonsense you’ve indulged in.
In other words, typical conspiracy theorists are really just alt-sheeple, psychologically projecting their own flaws upon the general population.
But do please, please prove me wrong by engaging in proper, structured, back-and-forth discussion. Like stamping out covid, it’s never too late.
Clark
This article has the answer to many of your questions.“The new study, however, is the first to directly show that the spike proteins themselves are able to cause harm, and also confirms that COVID-19 is primarily a vascular disease that damages blood vessel walls.”
So this study shows neatly that the spike protein is toxic in the conformation it is made mimicking that found in the virus, but without being able to replicate. It also shows what has been suspected, that Covid-19 is a vascular multisystem disease and not limited to the lungs.
” The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines produce the full-length spike protein. Pfizer studied several formulations initially, but found that the full length protein vaccine had fewer side effects and was better tolerated than other vaccine candidates, so that is the one they went with.”
So that answers your other question about what bit of the spike RNA is used, it is the whole length.
And why therefore is the spike virus protein toxic but not the vaccine generated protein: the answer appears to be that again the conformation of the protein produced by the vaccine is antigenic and and therefore produces antibodies, but is not able to interact with the ACE receptor as that of the virus can and therefore affect the target cells. I also read somewhere else that the amount of free spike protein that is detected in the circulation is tiny and unlikely to cause widespread damage.
“After the Pfizer vaccine full spike proteins are expressed on the vaccinated cells for presentation to the immune system. But the vaccine-induced proteins do not appear to cause any harmful effects. This may be because the vaccine is administered in the muscle, and so muscle cells are the ones taking up the mRNA and making spike proteins. There is a vigorous immune response which neutralizes the spike proteins before they can cause any harm. This is very different from a virus replicating throughout the body.”
SA, thanks for the link.
WHO apparently believes that sending your child to school is automatic consent for them to be injected with a dangerous chemical and biological coctail with unknown long term effects. I imagine some of those here are intensely relaxed about theirs and others children being the guinea pigs of oligarchs. The sickness in our society isn’t any virus.
“3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.”
https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
Doctors, Parents Sue HHS Over COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization in Children Under 16
“We’ve never seen this level of side effects for any vaccine without the FDA taking action,” Dr. Angelina Farella, pediatric medical director for America’s Frontline Doctors, said in a statement. “The Rotavirus vaccine was pulled for 15 cases of non-lethal side effects and the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled for 25 deaths. But now, by the CDC’s own data, we are seeing a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines and they’re still talking about giving this to our kids… According to the CDC’s own medical and scientific data, in the last four months, more than 4,000 deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations were reported, as opposed to 1,500 total deaths in the previous ten years for all vaccines, the statement pointed out.
Dr. Farella said that children are at statistically zero risk for COVID-19. The data shows that the survivability rate for COVID-19 patients under the age of 20 is 99.997 percent.”
J
Your last post is a very good illustration of why some people relish being conspiracy theorists in order to trick others that they are the underdog with the truth feared by the establishment. This is an amazing piece of cherry-picking. So let us see:” WHO apparently believes that sending your child to school is automatic consent for them to be injected with a dangerous chemical and biological coctail with unknown long term effects.”
You then link to an 8 page WHO document
Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old.
This document discusses how consent should be obtained for vaccination of children and how in practice this is done. It then recommends what ideally should happen and encourages that informed consent procedures should be made to comply with local and international human rights law. Your giveaway here is ‘apparently’ – a word well-known to be used to give a skewed interpretation to what is actually being said. If you search ‘automatic consent in that document, there are no returns. So that document never mentions automatic consent.
By sleight of hand you then quote a passage from the document that you highlight, but then you omit the rest of the paragraph
“Implied consent procedures are common practice in many countries. However, when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination. Comprehensive data on whether the approach countries use to deal with consent has changed or evolved over the last decades is not available.”
So what does the WHO actually rather than apparently recommend? Please answer truthfully.
The document even addresses the question of consent in mandatory vaccination on p4.
Mandatory vaccination does not always overrule the need for consent
On p8 the document concludes by outlining country responsibility and there is no “apparently” there. In fact this is an excellent document from which you cherry-picked one sentence to illustrate how awful the WHO is, but this is an extremely well-researched and excellent document that outlines how international standards should be developed in such a complex and sensitive issue.
J, I am afraid you shot yourself in the foot. After you answer, I shall look at your other link, meanwhile I will go and do something more useful.
The nice thing is that your allegation is a copy and paste job taken from SOTT and here is the evidence.
Totally debunked here:
I found all this after I wrote my answer to you.
The beauty of this discovery J is that I have here uncovered your sources for supposedly reliable information, even down to your highlighted sentence above.
J, you have cited a quote:
– …by the CDC’s own data, we are seeing a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines and they’re still talking about giving this to our kids… According to the CDC’s own medical and scientific data, in the last four months, more than 4,000 deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations were reported, as opposed to 1,500 total deaths in the previous ten years for all vaccines. […] The data shows that the survivability rate for COVID-19 patients under the age of 20 is 99.997 percent.
A quote, but no evidence. I assume your cited quote is based upon evidence, but until you cite that evidence, the poor, deluded sheeple are denied the chance to assess it, to place it in context and thereby evaluate its relevance. Would you correct that please? If you ignore this request, I recommend other readers to interpret your silence as an attempt to keep them in ignorance – still sheeple, but now at least your sheeple.
– Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent.
This is identical for almost everything that happens in schools. The physical presence of the pupil implies parental consent for attending all the various classes, being subject to school discipline, using the tuck shop, attending assembly and drinking from the school’s water supply. Please explain why vaccination should be an exception.
J, you wrote:
– “I imagine some of those here are intensely relaxed about theirs and others children being the guinea pigs of oligarchs. The sickness in our society isn’t any virus.”
Ah, so you do regard the pandemic as a hoax. To save a lot of time and irrelevance, I asked you about this near the beginning of this (attempted) “discussion”, but you evaded answering – again, you seem to be concealing things from other readers, in this case your own motivation.
Something I find very unpleasant about conspiracy theorists is their manipulative deception. They use the same tricks as the establishment they claim to oppose, but far worse, presumably in their attempt to compensate for their lack of corporate media amplification and state power. Yet strangely (suspiciously?), conspiracy theorists’ and the establishment’s objectives usually converge – in this case, absolving governments from their duty to protect the people from infection. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that covid denialism had been promoted by a corporate PR project, yet among their copious suspicions, conspiracy theorists never find room that one.
J, in Peru, covid-19 has killed over 0.57% of the entire population. Similar whole-population mortality rates have occurred in Manaus and New York City.
You’re happy to dismiss this?
Cue another two days silence followed by concentration upon some different cherry-picked details by J… But again J, do please prove me wrong.
Clark
J can’t prove you wrong because J does not have a coherent theory other than them and us. This is the same approach that George Bush took. The real world is more nuanced, something happens like the virus, people and countries react in different ways and the harm and inconvenience falls asymmetrically but those in power will always manipulate it to their advantage. But instead of seeing the real lies and cheating of the politicians, rulers and media, these conspiracy theories attack science and produce a smokescreen that is harmful and as you say, ends up exonerating our cheating governments. I am not sure it is worth answering J anymore as he his tactics have been exposed and he will continue to distract us with a plethora of pseudoscientific nonsense from well-known conspiracy websites.SA, J can prove me wrong at any time just by engaging; discussing properly, as an equal. It is purely a matter of choice. J is wrong about the pandemic and therefore may be unable to answer some of my questions without contradiction, but it is still J’s choice whether to discuss, or to maintain silence so as to avoid exposing the errors in his assertions.
Such choices are made every day within the scientific community, but certain standards of discussion are compulsory, in that refusal to discuss amounts to leaving the scientific arena. It’s somewhat like sport. You can’t win a championship merely by refusing to play because you claim all your opponents are evil, but you can’t win just by breaking the rules either; you actually need skill and ability, and you need to exercise them.
It is both a massive shame and a major problem that our politicians and “news” media set such a low bar with their appalling examples.
Some people perceive no contradiction while delivering extended ad hominem attacks – from attribution of motive to detection of wrong-think and low character, while simultaneously professing to encourage ‘participation in discussion’. I admit, I am most amused by their high self regard.
C: “Cue another two days silence followed by concentration upon some different cherry-picked details by J […]”
Isn’t it always the same with these people? I had no great hopes J would come up with an interesting, genuine point – less still defend it. Look how Mystic N_eg came up with such misleading, hysterical claims as “25 elderly people drop dead after receiving vaccine”, when the truth was no such thing.
This is all they ever do. “What about this, then?” and run. “How about this killer youtube? Watch it if you dare – only 2 hours – it got banned because the authorities cannot stand for people to hear the truth” – and so on.
Minimal effort for them, a lot more work to debunk, and the lazy buggers will never come back to either counter or acknowledge the debunking. Frankly, given the disruption to effort ratio, it’s little more than trolling.
As SA dug up just above, and as Clark has eluded to on occasion, there are surprisingly few sources that the denialists and conspiracy nuts go to again and again. This list might be even smaller than imagined:
12 Influencers Are Behind Most Anti-Vax Hoaxes On Social Media
The “Disinformation Dozen” produce 65% of the shares of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms, concluded the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate.
The report, released in March, noted that “living in full view of the public on the internet are a small group of individuals who do not have relevant medical expertise and have their own pockets to line, who are abusing social media platforms to misrepresent the threat of COVID and spread misinformation about the safety of vaccines.”
Myself, 12:32, comment #73482 earlier today:
– “Cue another two days silence…”
Well, effective silence :/
J, do feel free to respond to any of the questions I’ve raised, or my requests for evidence etc., or to just fill readers in on your overall beliefs about the pandemic, or pieces of conspiracy theory other than the one you happen to be pushing at present. Flat Earth / the NASA conspiracy, maybe? That lot use a very similar mix of cherry-picking, quote mining, selective omission etc. to all the others. Or if you prefer something more eclectic, try the Great Glasgow Bin-Wagon False Flag – I see that Google has, at long last, stopped listing Chris Spivey at the top of their search results, but he’s even more right wing then the rest of your preferred sources.
J
I am sorry we hurt your feelings, sincere apologies. But would you like to comment on the WHO informed consent document that you referred to? Have you read it before you posted a non-representative passage? Do you still stand by your statements about what the WHO did or did not allegedly advocate?Glenn_nl, thanks for the link. Twelve prolific posters account for 65% of the shares – reminiscent of modern inequality of wealth.
But we can’t really blame the twelve. It has been the big internet companies that have promoted such stuff for decades and made obscene amounts of money doing so. It’s such a cynical exploitation of human weakness, much like junk foods loaded with fats and low fructose corn syrup, but far more profitable and they don’t even manufacture it themselves.
J, do you believe that each person should take responsibility for the effects they have upon others? And do you believe that there is an objective reality, even though people’s opinions about it differ?
I believe both, and that is why I request that you return to this thread and discuss evidence, in pursuit of as much consensus as we can establish. The matters under discussion are of the highest importance, affecting the health of, and indeed life or death for literally millions of people. People’s decisions need to be based on clear, well documented evidence, not on misleading impressions. My position is that everyone carries personal responsibility for the opinions they promote in society, to avoid clumsy censorship by fallible and partisan authorities, so I request your cooperation.
