Missouri V Biden

[Kathianne]

This certainly seems a big deal. I'm sure SassyLady or revelarts may be able to tell us more? While I'm not likely to ever be the first to jump on vaccines and such; from the get go I did find the government overreach to be draconian. I did learn many lessons from post 9/11 about said overreach, Covid was just an excuse for more diffused responses.


https://www.racket.news/p/on-missouri-v-biden-and-the-new-abnormal


On Missouri v. Biden and "The New Abnormal": Interview With Dr. Aaron KheriatyOne of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case offers thoughts on last week's ruling, plus a general warning
MATT TAIBBI
SEP 14, 2023


Soon to become one of the original plaintiffs in the landmark Missouri v. Biden First Amendment case, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty at the outset of the pandemic began seeing patients come to his clinical practice speaking in ways he hadn’t encountered before, expressing a “weird apocalyptic anxiety” that combined depressive reactions to isolation with paralyzing fixations on social media, commercial news, and various disastrous scientific scenarios.


Acutely aware of real dangers of Covid-19 — as ethics consultant at the University of California-Irvine hospital he’d sat through “more conversations than I can count” informing families loved ones were dying of the new disease — Kheriaty nonetheless began to tally its psychiatric consequences as well. In late 2020 he wrote The Other Pandemic: The Lockdown Mental Health Crisis, addressing statistics matching his clinical experience. Anxiety disorders had tripled, depressive disorders quadrupled, and 11% of respondents contemplated suicide within 30 days. When it became consensus that questioning lockdowns was equivalent to murder — The Atlantic even ran a headline, “Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice” when Governor Brian Kemp allowed “gyms, churches, hair and nail salons, and tattoo parlors” to reopen — bringing up such issues guaranteed backlash, as he was to find out.


Between the Other Pandemic article and the signing of the Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdowns with future co-plaintiffs Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Kheriaty found himself subject to increasingly absurd pressures. In September 2021, for instance, Kheriaty gave an interview to podcaster Alison Morrow that was not only removed by YouTube, and caused Morrow’s account to be frozen, but eventually got Morrow fired from a day job she held with the state of Washington, as bosses demanded she stop all interviews with anyone who “undermined” vaccine mandates. YouTube framed the interview as “misinformation” because it was seen to “contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization.”


In this sense, Kheriaty’s story is crucial to hear especially for naysayers and mainstream news consumers, who’ve been led to believe digital censorship is always on some level about “fake news.” His case, like that of co-plaintiffs Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, was instead about suppression of exactly the expert, credentialed opinion anti-disinformation bodies often claim is sacrosanct. “It was narrative control,” Kheriaty recalls now.


Covid led Kheriaty down the path of becoming the most ambitious theorist of the censorship-industrial age, pondering the pandemic’s mysteries. Why were things academics once would have discussed, like pandemic policy, presented as diktats beyond the scope of debate? Why was the general population so accepting of such non-negotiable decrees? Why did the medical community shrug as concepts like informed consent — so central to modern medical ethics that it’s the first entry in the 1947 Nuremberg Code — were replaced overnight with new doctrines de-emphasizing individual care and stressing collective “safety” issues? Why was language infected with odd catastrophizing tendencies (e.g. from bending to flattening to “smashing the curve”), and why were issues once thought of as social matters best resolved through discussion and democratic reform, like racism, suddenly being re-framed as public health or national security matters?

...

[SassyLady]

I can't speak for Rev but I felt like the info I tried to post here was not acceptable. Even when I tried to explain how medical experts were being shut down and censored by YouTube, Twitter, etc.

If you want to know what we have/had to say about this go to the COVID thread. We said a lot.

[AHZ]

I can't speak for Rev but I felt like the info I tried to post here was not acceptable. Even when I tried to explain how medical experts were being shut down and censored by YouTube, Twitter, etc.

If you want to know what we have/had to say about this go to the COVID thread. We said a lot.


All the main pharmaceutical companies are descended from IG Farben, the nazi industrialist megacorp that supported the nazi regime, did horrible human experiments and invented Zyklon b.

and this is just to start off with.

and now they finance the news.

of course people are anxious. it's tough to find out the nazis actually won wwII.

[revelarts]

Hope the Lawsuits Get Traction.

But the censorship is continuing.
"Dr. Berg, the largest health influencer on YouTube (11m) is about to be shut down - due to YouTube's new partnership with the WHO."

He's the latest in the line of Alt health, Nutritional info proponents and establishment experts who leave the reservation on some issue so they were censored/banned/blocked/removed.

YouTube Bans or algorithmically downgrades medical information that the WHO/Big Pharma/medical establishment does not approve of.
It was happening before covid and ramped up to crazy levels during covid where some videos were aggressively removed every-time someone dared to repost. and some sites completely shut down.
Youtube, twitter, ticktok, facebook, google.
search algorithms altered, info and experts banned blocked & deplateformed.
Facebook removed the groups that had vaccine injured people completely. don't think they're back up yet.


YouTube has just banned anything related to health that doesn’t align with the general medical consensus.
If any information related to health doesn’t agree with the World Health Organization, the video won’t necessarily be taken down, but it may be hard to find.
This is supposed to protect viewers against misinformation and promote high-quality health information. But, their definition of misinformation is anything that opposes their viewpoint.
I currently have collected 7,607 success stories—I’m helping people. My information is not misinformation. It’s helpful information.
Traditional medicine doesn’t work for everyone, and people are looking for inexpensive natural remedies. How are they supposed to find alternative viewpoints or opinions?
A lot of people are searching for the keto diet. However, many medical professionals don't really understand nutritional ketosis.
Many times, doctors don’t get training in nutrition or alternatives. Yet these are the people who get to control this information.
Healthy ketosis is not toxic or dangerous. Ketones are a super fuel and are antioxidants. On the other hand, glucose is dangerous and toxic.

[revelarts]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?73797-You%92re-Not-Censoring-American-COVID-Comments-%91Nearly-Enough&p=987028#post987028

Surgeon General to Big Tech: You’re Not Censoring American COVID Comments ‘Nearly Enough’

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy nagged social media companies for not doing more to censor so-called misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Murthy in an August 22 appearance of CNN’s State of the Union, the American people are so-called “superspreaders” of misinformation by questioning the government narrative, according to the Biden administration. America’s current surgeon general responded to Facebook’s most recent transparency report by scourging social media

Murthy commented on the “profound cost of health misinformation,” observing that “we’ve been seeing the health misinformation as a problem for years, but the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading and impacting our health is really unprecedented.”

Murthy went on to say “its happening largely and in part, aided and abetted by social media platforms.” His diagnosis was that Big Tech may have done “some things to reduce the spread of misinformation,” but it’s “not nearly enough.”

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/alexander-hall/2021/08/23/surgeon-general-big-tech-youre-not-censoring-american

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/alexander-hall/2021/08/23/surgeon-general-big-tech-youre-not-censoring-american

There are people that think it is instead, Dr. Vivek that should be in court defending his criminal position.-- :saluting2: ---Tyr

[revelarts]

Here's an interview with Dr Kheriaty
(i've seen others but somehow i can't find them on youtube now. weird)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSk90Uz4ao0



Interview with NYU Professor FORBIDDEN From Teaching About Covid Propaganda.
"NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller has for many years taught a course on propaganda without incident. But when he began asking students to investigate modern-day propaganda they experienced, including about COVID, the university turned on him and launched an investigation into his teaching practices, eventually canceling the class for good.
Jimmy talks with Professor Miller about the Orwellian struggle he faced, and the deeply personal hostility he experienced from colleagues, as a result of questioning the COVID narrative."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSp1iFBSno

.......
Last edited by revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/posthistory.php?p=1017038); Today at 10:39 AM.

CALIFORNIA
California Law Strips Licenses from 'Misinformation'-Spreading Doctors
"You have this looming power over you that essentially can end your career," says Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya.
ZACH WEISSMUELLER | 12.6.2022 12:45 PM
https://reason.com/video/2022/12/06/california-law-strips-licenses-from-misinformation-spreading-doctors/

A new California law gives the state unprecedented control over what doctors can say to their patients about COVID-19.
"We've got to stop the disinformation pipeline," an emergency physician supporting California's AB 2098 told the California Assembly in April.
Stanford economist and medical school professor Jay Bhattacharya, a leading critic of the law, says that it "puts the [Center for Disease Control] in the same room with the doctor and the patient," violating a basic trust.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2098 into law in September, meaning that starting in 2023, doctors who disseminate what the state defines as "misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus" can face disciplinary action by the California Medical Board, including being stripped of their licenses.
"It essentially ends your ability to combat bad ideas put out by public health because you have this looming power that over you that essentially can end your career," says Bhattacharya.

He was one of several scientists whose work NIH Director Francis Collins said needed a "quick and devastating published takedown" in an email to Anthony Fauci that was obtained through a FOIA request, after Bhattacharya had participated in the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 open letter calling for an immediate end to the lockdowns and use of an alternative COVID-19 mitigation strategy called "focused protection."
Collins called Bhattacharya—an M.D. and Stanford professor—a "fringe epidemiologist," along with his co-signers, Harvard's Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Oxford University's Dr. Sunetra Gupta.

"This kind of campaign essentially put the government in the role of suppressing legitimate public policy debate," says Bhattacharya about Fauci and Collin's actions. "The idea was to create this illusion of consensus around the lockdowns that didn't actually exist."
That same illusion of consensus, Bhattacharya says, is what California is leveraging to quash dissent among doctors across the entire state with this new law.
AB 2098 defines COVID-19 "misinformation" as medical advice "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus," though does not specify how to define such a consensus....

[Black Diamond]

Here's an interview with Dr Kheriaty
(i've seen others but somehow i can't find them on youtube now. weird)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSk90Uz4ao0



Interview with NYU Professor FORBIDDEN From Teaching About Covid Propaganda.
"NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller has for many years taught a course on propaganda without incident. But when he began asking students to investigate modern-day propaganda they experienced, including about COVID, the university turned on him and launched an investigation into his teaching practices, eventually canceling the class for good.
Jimmy talks with Professor Miller about the Orwellian struggle he faced, and the deeply personal hostility he experienced from colleagues, as a result of questioning the COVID narrative."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSp1iFBSno

Yeah weird

[AHZ]

Yeah weird

fascism..


weird.

[Gunny]

This certainly seems a big deal. I'm sure @SassyLady (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=83) or @revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760) may be able to tell us more? While I'm not likely to ever be the first to jump on vaccines and such; from the get go I did find the government overreach to be draconian. I did learn many lessons from post 9/11 about said overreach, Covid was just an excuse for more diffused responses.


https://www.racket.news/p/on-missouri-v-biden-and-the-new-abnormalI agree there was censorship/narrative control. This isn't the only lawsuit over it. I agree the government went way too far. Don't have a problem with Government pushing its vaccines. That's what it's supposed to do. Right up to the point of coercion.

The histrionics from both sides helped no one. Being told you're going to die if you get the vaccine is no less bullshit than being told you're going to die if you don't get it.

[Kathianne]

I agree there was censorship/narrative control. This isn't the only lawsuit over it. I agree the government went way too far. Don't have a problem with Government pushing its vaccines. That's what it's supposed to do. Right up to the point of coercion.

The histrionics from both sides helped no one. Being told you're going to die if you get the vaccine is no less bullshit than being told you're going to die if you don't get it.

That perfectly reflects my views. I am against coercion. I'm also beyond perplexed that CDC is pushing for children covid vaccines, even 6 mo old. The vaccine side effects vastly outweigh any possible prevented deaths. Horrible advice orders for parents.

[Gunny]

That perfectly reflects my views. I am against coercion. I'm also beyond perplexed that CDC is pushing for children covid vaccines, even 6 mo old. The vaccine side effects vastly outweigh any possible prevented deaths. Horrible advice orders for parents.That's too young, IMO. Although, my brother and I were fully vaccinated with whole lineup prior to going to Turkey, ages 1 & 3. As I've said from the beginning, personal choice and circumstance.

I don't need government drug pushers telling me what to do anymore than I do people who play doctors on the internet.

[SassyLady]

The sad thing is that real doctors tried to use the internet to discuss and were shut down or painted as kooks. And those of us who did post the links were also called kooks or labled hair on fire alarmists.

I was even questioned on this board as perhaps doing something illegal by having friends and family bring me ivermectin from Mexico. Simply because the pharma cabal wanted to make money on the vaccines and didn't want anyone using anything other than their shit to fight covid.

I was even told that ivermectin wouldn't cure covid ... well ... neither did the vaccine.

[Kathianne]

The sad thing is that real doctors tried to use the internet to discuss and were shut down or painted as kooks. And those of us who did post the links were also called kooks or labled hair on fire alarmists.

I was even questioned on this board as perhaps doing something illegal by having friends and family bring me ivermectin from Mexico. Simply because the pharma cabal wanted to make money on the vaccines and didn't want anyone using anything other than their shit to fight covid.

I was even told that ivermectin wouldn't cure covid ... well ... neither did the vaccine.

In fairness, you and others were pretty much posting just the same, in reverse. People were fools for 'listening' or doing different than yourselves.

I think that people should make their own choices and take responsibility for wherever those choices lead.

[revelarts]

I agree there was censorship/narrative control. This isn't the only lawsuit over it. I agree the government went way too far. Don't have a problem with Government pushing its vaccines. That's what it's supposed to do. Right up to the point of coercion.

The histrionics from both sides helped no one. Being told you're going to die if you get the vaccine is no less bullshit than being told you're going to die if you don't get it.
mmm, just wondering how many people have to die from side of effects of the vaxs for the negative info about the vaxs not to be histrionic?

If it was someone in my family who died or was disabled from the vax, i'd certainly wish someone would have told me what the real risk and benefits were... histrionic or not... Rather than just the hype/propaganda/lies about vaxs being "100% safe & effective".

Also I really wish you'd show me some examples of the histrionics.
I didn't catch most of those.
the only emotional things i saw on the anti-vax side were tears in congress from doctors begging congress to approve/promote early treatments like ivermectin, hydrocloriquin, vitamin D, C etc...
All the Drs & researchers I saw that talked about the vax mainly had questions and wanted to see the big pharma experimental data that no one wanted give them... for 75 years.
And they mentioned the long history of failures of MRNA drugs... often in a very dry, clinical & unemotional way.


But please Gunny, post some of the histrionics you saw or read that turned you off so badly that you couldn't clearly see the logic, studies, and facts about the issue.

[Kathianne]

mmm, just wondering how many people have to die from side of effects of the vaxs for the negative info about the vaxs not to be histrionics?

If it was someone in my family who died or was disabled from the vax, i'd certainly wish someone would have told me what the real risk and benefits were... histrionic or not... Rather than just the hype/propaganda/lies about vaxs being "100% safe & effective".

Also I really wish you'd show me some examples of the histrionics.
I didn't catch most of those.
the only emotional things i saw on the anti-vax side were tears in congress from doctors begging congress to approve/promote early treatments like ivermectin, hydrocloriquin, vitamin D C etc...
All the Drs & researchers I saw that talked about the vax mainly had questions and wanted to see the big pharma experimental data that no one wanted give them... for 75 years.
And they mentioned the long history of failures of MRNA drugs... often in a very dry, clinical & unemotional way.


But please Gunny, post some of the histrionics you saw or read that turned you off so badly that you couldn't clearly see the logic, studies, and facts about the issue.

So if someone in your family chose not to get vaccine and take something you recommended and got sick and died, their immediate family would be fully justified to take their grief out on your recommendations?

In spite of AHZ continual 'both sides' nonsense, like so many other things today, the divides are way too set in cement like beliefs.

[revelarts]

So if someone in your family chose not to get vaccine and take something you recommended and got sick and died, their immediate family would be fully justified to take their grief out on your recommendations?


If they were convinced that the the vaccines would have worked, yes.
But sad thing is, plenty of people who were vaccinated have died anyway. More people vaxxed & boosted have gotten sick and died of covid than those who haven't been. In raw numbers and percentage wise.
But sure, I get blamed for all kinds of things.

Also IF they did what I recommended & got well would they give me the credit? probably not.
And I wouldn't take any. But if they got some side effect of the vax and I didn't warn them about it, I would feel guilty.



So if someone in your family chose not to get vaccine and take something you recommended and got sick and died, their immediate family would be fully justified to take their grief out on your recommendations?

In spite of AHZ continual 'both sides' nonsense, like so many other things today, the divides are way too set in cement like beliefs.


As far as the divide goes, it's only there because people emotionally do no want to look at all of the facts objectively.
AND the gov't, big Media and Big Harma have bamboozled so many and it's extremely hard for folks who have been bamboozled to admit it.

Everyone tends to want to save face rather than just admit the harsh facts.

[Kathianne]

If they were convinced that the the vaccines would have worked, yes.
But sad thing is, plenty of people who were vaccinated have died anyway. More people vaxxed & booted have gotten sick and died of covid than those who haven't been. In raw numbers and percentage wise.
But sure, I get blamed for all kinds of things.

Also IF they did what I recommended & got well would they give me the credit? probably not.
And I wouldn't take any. But if they got some side effect of the vax and I didn't warn them about it, I would feel guilty.





As far as the divide goes, it's only there because people emotionally do no want to look at all of the facts objectively.
AND the gov't, big Media and Big harm have bamboozled so many and it's extremely hard for folks who have been bamboozled to admit it.

Everyone tends to want to save face rather than just admit the harsh facts.

I totally get what you're saying. More than that, as the reports regarding heart problems in teens, especially males, kept adding up I remembered the writings of you and Sassy.

What I felt then and to some degree now is that many that weren't quite ready to go down your roads, were ignored or basically condescended to when they picked a 'middle road' even while defending anyone's rights to take their stands. If one wanted to go fight their way in maskless to Walmart or a restaurant, more power to them. Just don't be amazed when arrested if they pushed or abused someone for doing their job.

I respected others rights to protest how they saw fit, I didn't see the reciprocal from many of the hardliners against any and all recommendations.

I didn't need or want total agreement or even partial, just reciprocal respect.

[SassyLady]

In fairness, you and others were pretty much posting just the same, in reverse. People were fools for 'listening' or doing different than yourselves.

I think that people should make their own choices and take responsibility for wherever those choices lead.
However, it's now been proven that ivermectin protocol did in fact save lives. The vaccine might have saved lives as well but it also has destroyed a lot people's health. Therein lies the difference.

Some of us actually researched alternatives. Others just blindly followed the crowd or had to make hard choice to get the vaccine in order to continue with their lifestyle (i.e. career).

I don't fault anyone for getting the vaccine. It just pisses me off that so many people said ... "you're going to kill grandma if you don't get it. Do it for the good of the majority... etc." Guilt tripping. I didn't try to guilt anyone into not taking it. I was presenting alternatives and also concerns about side effects.

[Kathianne]

However, it's now been proven that ivermectin protocol did in fact save lives. The vaccine might have saved lives as well but it also has destroyed a lot people's health. Therein lies the difference.

Some of us actually researched alternatives. Others just blindly followed the crowd or had to make hard choice to get the vaccine in order to continue with their lifestyle (i.e. career).

I don't fault anyone for getting the vaccine. It just pisses me off that so many people said ... "you're going to kill grandma if you don't get it. Do it for the good of the majority... etc." Guilt tripping. I didn't try to guilt anyone into not taking it. I was presenting alternatives and also concerns about side effects.

I don't blame you for being pissed off, but not at those that didn't do such.

Not being snarky, for better or worse I don't play doctor, nor is my first instinct to listen to those getting huge amount of info from internet. Not even when quoting 'doctors,' who in the long run may or may not have been right.

Between just you and Rev, not too mention the myriad of other sources I read, I was inundated with alternatives, many of which were obviously nutty and some that I just could not know enough about.

I'm very glad that things all worked out for you, very glad. I do hope that those of us chose differently, make out ok in long run.

[SassyLady]

I don't blame you for being pissed off, but not at those that didn't do such.

Not being snarky, for better or worse I don't play doctor, nor is my first instinct to listen to those getting huge amount of info from internet. Not even when quoting 'doctors,' who in the long run may or may not have been right.

Between just you and Rev, not too mention the myriad of other sources I read, I was inundated with alternatives, many of which were obviously nutty and some that I just could not know enough about.

I'm very glad that things all worked out for you, very glad. I do hope that those of us chose differently, make out ok in long run.

Kathianne... not being snarky but I actually got the info from my doctor and then found sources on the internet that validated her advice to me. Then I posted those links to help give people another source of info.

There used to be good info on the internet .. until the government decided to shut down anything that didn't align with their narrative. Then, anyone that bucked that narrative were labeled conspiracy theorists.

Just curious .. where did you get your info that convinced you to take the vaccine? Your doctor? Or did you just go to the pharmacy and get the shot because you saw it on the news?


I really do hope people will be fine.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne... not being snarky but I actually got the info from my doctor and then found sources on the internet that validated her advice to me. Then I posted those links to help give people another source of info.

There used to be good info on the internet .. until the government decided to shut down anything that didn't align with their narrative. Then, anyone that bucked that narrative were labeled conspiracy theorists.

Just curious .. where did you get your info that convinced you to take the vaccine? Your doctor? Or did you just go to the pharmacy and get the shot because you saw it on the news?


I really do hope people will be fine.

Well, I did talk to my doctor. I did read what was out there. I did listen to Trump and Pence and the advisors. Would I do the same given what we knew then as opposed to now? Probably.

Again, I respect your choices. They will never be mine. We are very different in how much interactions we want with health providers and supplements and such-before Covid. As you say, all was fine with those differences, until Covid. Then I guess the diktats were supposed to work and when those were done, we were supposed to listen to those with the true answers and their doctors or not.

Bottom line for me, like most things in my life I chose a middle road. I'm not extreme in my healthcare or most things in my life. What I am though is not easily influenced, yet have little trouble making changes if I see the need-not others telling me what I should do.

[Kathianne]

Just saw this:

https://www.city-journal.org/article/more-mask-hysteria

One of the changes I will make if, heaven forbid, they try to force masks upon us again, is not go along with it. Truly wearing one didn't bother me, at the time just didn't seem worth the trouble. I now think it probably should have been a small protest against the diktats.

I will not go with anymore covid boosters, for several reasons. There have been proven purposeful manipulations of records of deaths from other sources, given covid as cod. Not ok to f with records. There are too many heart issues in young people, especially athletes. The glaring absence of any reports on whether or not they received covid vaccine, when it has been a known side effect, is problematic, along with the false cod's.

The current trial balloons about masks and vaccine boosters on children, in spite of increased side effects and the near 0 health threat to the children, is near criminal imo.

[Kathianne]

One of the voices that was heard by many during the pandemic. Was part of 'system' but was obviously not 100% on board, though likely not as vehemently as some would have liked. His warnings though came through to those that were trying to figure out the different factors:

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/15/dr-robert-redfield-comes-clean-on-government-censorship/


Dr. Robert Redfield Comes Clean on Government Censorship"We, the people, must hold an overreaching government accountable for violating our most sacred rights"


By Lloyd Billingsley
September 15, 2023
“My position was just tell the American public the truth. There are side effects to vaccines. Tell them the truth and don’t try to package it.”


That was Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control during the administration of Donald Trump. Dr. Redfield recently went on record that the government health bureaucracy tried to quash discussion about the ineffectiveness of Covid vaccines.


“There was such an attempt to not let anybody get any hint that maybe vaccines weren’t foolproof, which, of course, we now know they have significant limitations,” said Redfield, who co-founded the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology and served as the Chief of Infectious Diseases and Vice Chair of Medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.


“I think we should have really confidence and not be afraid to debate the issues that we think are in the public’s interest and just tell the public the truth,” said the former CDC director. This wasn’t the first time Dr. Redfield had been at odds with the government health establishment.


“I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped,” Redfield told CNN in 2021. “Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out.” After these statements, as Vanity Fair reported, “death threats flooded his inbox,” some from prominent scientists.


“I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield explained. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.” The people might expect the FBI to investigate death threats against a public official, but reports of any such investigation are hard to find.


In 2021, Joe Biden said he would ask the intelligence community to “redouble their efforts to collect and analyze information that could bring us closer to a definitive conclusion.” The Delaware Democrat ignored a key reality about the pandemic.


The CDC deploys the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), a medical CIA, to prevent epidemics from arriving on American soil. The intrepid EIS officers failed to stop the Covid virus from arriving stateside, and their failure, like the death threats against Redfield, has not been subjected to an investigation. In early 2020, EIS veteran Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the sister of Rod Rosenstein, delivered a series of press briefings that faithfully echoed China’s talking points.


Biden medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for nearly 40 years. Dr. Fauci funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct gain-of-function research that makes viruses more lethal and transmissible. The WIV, in turn, received shipments of deadly pathogens courtesy of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, the Chinese national who headed the special pathogens unit at Canada’s National Microbiology Lab.


In 2017-2018 alone, Dr. Qiu made at least five trips to the WIV. Despite the record, Dr. Fauci maintained that the virus arose naturally in the wild, a matter of speculation, not science. After more than 50 years in government, Dr. Fauci announced retirement at the end of 2022.


Dr. Fauci’s bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, but he claims to represent science. The former NIAID boss continues to act as though he still runs the place, urging people to follow CDC orders to mask up. In similar style, with mysterious new variants allegedly emerging, Joe Biden announces new vaccines “for everybody,” regardless of what they had done in the past.


Former CDC director Dr. Redfield proclaims that complete immunization is a “false perception,” that vaccines have “significant limitations,” and that vaccine mandates caused a deterioration in public trust.


Dr. Redfield’s comments came in the wake of a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the government cannot force social media companies to remove content to which they object. A plaintiff in the case was Dr. Jay Battycharya of Stanford University.


With epidemiologists Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Dr. Battycharya was co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, a plea for more human policies on lockdowns, masking and such. Instead of debating these medical scientists, National Institutes of Health boss Dr. Dr. Francis Collins ordered Fauci to organize a “devastating takedown” of the declarations.


“At the height of the pandemic, I found myself smeared for my supposed political views, and my views about Covid policy and epidemiology were removed from the public square on all manner of social networks,” writes Dr. Battycharya, who became an American citizen at age 19. “I could not believe this was happening in the country I so love.”


According to the Stanford professor, the Fifth Circuit decision “isn’t perfect.” The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) “can still work with academics to develop a hit list for government censorship.” And NIAID “can still coordinate devastating takedowns of outside scientists critical of government policy.”


On the other hand, “the federal government can no longer threaten social media companies with destruction if they don’t censor on behalf of the government.” Like Dr. Robert Redfield, the Stanford immunologist has learned a valuable lesson:


“Our government is not immune to the authoritarian impulse. I have learned the hard way that it is only we, the people, who must hold an overreaching government accountable for violating our most sacred rights. Without our vigilance, we will lose them.”

[AHZ]

So if someone in your family chose not to get vaccine and take something you recommended and got sick and died, their immediate family would be fully justified to take their grief out on your recommendations?

In spite of AHZ continual 'both sides' nonsense, like so many other things today, the divides are way too set in cement like beliefs.


yes. especially if they knew they were lying when they said it.

the vaccines were never tested. "safe" was always a lie.

yes. fully justified.

[AHZ]

Just saw this:

https://www.city-journal.org/article/more-mask-hysteria

One of the changes I will make if, heaven forbid, they try to force masks upon us again, is not go along with it. Truly wearing one didn't bother me, at the time just didn't seem worth the trouble. I now think it probably should have been a small protest against the diktats.

I will not go with anymore covid boosters, for several reasons. There have been proven purposeful manipulations of records of deaths from other sources, given covid as cod. Not ok to f with records. There are too many heart issues in young people, especially athletes. The glaring absence of any reports on whether or not they received covid vaccine, when it has been a known side effect, is problematic, along with the false cod's.

The current trial balloons about masks and vaccine boosters on children, in spite of increased side effects and the near 0 health threat to the children, is near criminal imo.

of course you should have not gone along with it.

it's called "the principle of the thing".

[Gunny]

The sad thing is that real doctors tried to use the internet to discuss and were shut down or painted as kooks. And those of us who did post the links were also called kooks or labled hair on fire alarmists.

I was even questioned on this board as perhaps doing something illegal by having friends and family bring me ivermectin from Mexico. Simply because the pharma cabal wanted to make money on the vaccines and didn't want anyone using anything other than their shit to fight covid.

I was even told that ivermectin wouldn't cure covid ... well ... neither did the vaccine.Link, please. As I recall, those who aren't into forcing their views/choices on others went out of their ways to not offend those that were. While I DO recall you and rev going over the top issuing alarmist warnings of death by vaccine, not to mention practicing internet medicine, I DON'T recall a single person peddaling vaccine.

I see no difference between being told I'm going to die for being vaccinated than being told I'm going to die without it, followed by either crazy crap on one side or lies from the other. In both instances, the misinformation presented could be more dangerous than either vaccine or virus.

So do I refuse to get the vaccine to spite Biden's mandate? Or get it just to spite the anti-vaxxers? Gee what f-ing choices when it come to MY f-ing life, and the lives of those around me:rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Link, please. As I recall, those who aren't into forcing their views/choices on others went out of their ways to not offend those that were. While I DO recall you and rev going over the top issuing alarmist warnings of death by vaccine, not to mention practicing internet medicine, I DON'T recall a single person peddaling vaccine.

I see no difference between being told I'm going to die for being vaccinated than being told I'm going to die without it, followed by either crazy crap on one side or lies from the other. In both instances, the misinformation presented could be more dangerous than either vaccine or virus.

So do I refuse to get the vaccine to spite Biden's mandate? Or get it just to spite the anti-vaxxers? Gee what f-ing choices when it come to MY f-ing life, and the lives of those around me:rolleyes:

Kinda close to what I said. I was a bit more polite. 😆

[AHZ]

I see no difference between being told I'm going to die for being vaccinated than being told I'm going to die without it

the difference is one lie was buttressed by the full faith and credit of the united states government, full fascism style.

[revelarts]

One of the voices that was heard by many during the pandemic. Was part of 'system' but was obviously not 100% on board, though likely not as vehemently as some would have liked. His warnings though came through to those that were trying to figure out the different factors:

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/15/dr-robert-redfield-comes-clean-on-government-censorship/

Yes, There were several who were part of the system, along with Dr. Redfield, who didn't go along with the 'official' narratives.

Trump's HHS Expert, Dr. Paul Alexander & Trump's Medical Advisor Dr Scott Atlas to name 2 others who, If I remember correctly, both were very vocal against shutdowns, were for natural immunity, were clear about youth NOT being at risk, wanted to prioritize the elderly and were against mass vaccinations as "the solution". Others in the FDA resigned rather than approve the vaxs in some cases.

Not much of this was shouted from the housetops, except for Tucker Carlson's show and a some other fox interviews.

there were enough clear voices "in the system".
And plenty of Highly credentialed Doctors and researchers outside of it making clear, logical and CONSISTENT points.
As apposed to flip-floppery of Faucci and the dominate fear fueled narratives & recommendations which changed every 10 - 30 days.

Doctors and researchers from John Hopkins, Yale, Oxford, Heads of Immunology units, Heads of Critical Care units at hospitals, one of the country's top 5 cardiologist. An Owner of a drug company who was former head of research at Pzfizer. many doctors who were successfully treating patients who spoke before congress on multiple occasions. But somehow they only got media attention via "the internet".

I'm not sure how people lose credibility if they are just "on the internet" but I have a family member who, almost literally, will not believe anything UNTIL it's on CNN. i know others who somehow find it hard to believe people are "experts" UNTIL some "trusted" Mainstream source platforms them.
Since I've worked at a newspaper myself I have NO illusions as to how they get their info or decide what gets published.
And today with the internet anyone here has nearly the same capacity to vet the sources & review the raw info to the same degree that MANY news orgs will.

No need to wait for some MSM suit to tell you what the experts in various fields have said. you can hear/read them for yourself
and use your common sense to make the best of it.

Straining out the desire to trust the govt authorities to do whats right and the social pressures to go with the flow is often swimming up stream though.
And if you haven't been burned by the gov't or the crowd in the past, I understand the tendency to trust.
But I bring up the Reagan quote again
"Trust, but verify"

[Gunny]

Kinda close to what I said. I was a bit more polite. 😆I tried :)

.

[revelarts]

Link, please. As I recall, those who aren't into forcing their views/choices on others went out of their ways to not offend those that were. While I DO recall you and rev going over the top issuing alarmist warnings of death by vaccine, not to mention practicing internet medicine, I DON'T recall a single person peddaling vaccine.


So no one has died from vaccines?




I see no difference between being told I'm going to die for being vaccinated than being told I'm going to die without it, followed by either crazy crap on one side or lies from the other. In both instances, the misinformation presented could be more dangerous than either vaccine or virus.
So do I refuse to get the vaccine to spite Biden's mandate? Or get it just to spite the anti-vaxxers? Gee what f-ing choices when it come to MY f-ing life, and the lives of those around me:rolleyes:
You review what evidence each has for their point of views and make your decision.
Rather than looking at the most extreme aspects only then mischaracterizing what they said, calling them blind polar opposites then throwing up your hands calling both extreme and pretending you can now clap your hands and simply dismiss both without an honest review.

I live in an area were hurricanes show up every few years. There are old timers here who NEVER leave when asked told by the authorities. they check for themselves the weather info, and their bad knee.
While the local news weather guys and news people with the super dopler radar Over Hype every tropical storm as the storm that could wipe us off the map.

Both are using official weather data and history, shouldn't I look at THAT and make my decision or just throw up my hands and say both are crazy so i won't listen to either?

[AHZ]

Would I do the same given what we knew then as opposed to now? Probably.



why on earth would you do that?


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::l augh2::laugh2:


doubling down on stupid is a move.

it's not a good move.

[Black Diamond]

why on earth would you do that?


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::l augh2::laugh2:


doubling down on stupid is a move.

it's not a good move.

Yeah cause you only double down on 11.

Right.

[AHZ]

Yeah cause you only double down on 11.

Right.


I only gamble with my life.

[Gunny]

So no one has died from vaccines?



You review what evidence each has for their point of views and make your decision.
Rather than looking at the most extreme aspects only then mischaracterizing what they said, calling them blind polar opposites then throwing up your hands calling both extreme and pretending you can now clap your hands and simply dismiss both without an honest review.

I live in an area were hurricanes show up every few years. There are old timers here who NEVER leave when asked told by the authorities. they check for themselves the weather info, and their bad knee.
While the local news weather guys and news people with the super dopler radar Over Hype every tropical storm as the storm that could wipe us off the map.

Both are using official weather data and history, shouldn't I look at THAT and make my decision or just throw up my hands and say both are crazy so i won't listen to either?

I already have enough of one who likes to put words in people's mouths. You don't need to join the club.

As far as your two extremes analogy goes? When the two extremes completely drown out the facts, logic and/or common sense, and the voices of moderation who believe in basing opinions on the aforementioned, turning the topic into nothing but extremist, useless, political garbage rhetoric, don't try and shift blame onto me.

For some reason, you anti-vaxxers act just like Democrats. People considering the vax aren't listening. They just don't know the real real. We haven't bothered to research. Yada, yada, yada:rolleyes:

None of us that I am aware of who do just fine articulating on any given subject suddenly got brain bleached and need anyone to tell is what to think. Isn't THAT part of what you're bitching about? Government and whoever else trying to tell you what's best for you and what to believe? So why is it okay for you to do it?

You and sassy have pages and pages of anti-vax propaganda on here. Have you been told not to post it? Hell, I even added a separate forum for the express purpose of the topic so you or anyone else doesn't have to go digging through all the forums looking for it.

I haven't judged your choice nor your right to make it. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to others in return.

[SassyLady]

I already have enough of one who likes to put words in people's mouths. You don't need to join the club.

As far as your two extremes analogy goes? When the two extremes completely drown out the facts, logic and/or common sense, and the voices of moderation who believe in basing opinions on the aforementioned, turning the topic into nothing but extremist, useless, political garbage rhetoric, don't try and shift blame onto me.

For some reason, you anti-vaxxers act just like Democrats. People considering the vax aren't listening. They just don't know the real real. We haven't bothered to research. Yada, yada, yada:rolleyes:

None of us that I am aware of who do just fine articulating on any given subject suddenly got brain bleached and need anyone to tell is what to think. Isn't THAT part of what you're bitching about? Government and whoever else trying to tell you what's best for you and what to believe? So why is it okay for you to do it?

You and sassy have pages and pages of anti-vax propaganda on here. Have you been told not to post it? Hell, I even added a separate forum for the express purpose of the topic so you or anyone else doesn't have to go digging through all the forums looking for it.

I haven't judged your choice nor your right to make it. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to others in return.

I'm not anti vax Gunny! I'm anti covid vax. I'm up to date with all my vaccines and at 72 that's quite a few. So stop calling me an anti vaxxer!

[SassyLady]

I already have enough of one who likes to put words in people's mouths. You don't need to join the club.

As far as your two extremes analogy goes? When the two extremes completely drown out the facts, logic and/or common sense, and the voices of moderation who believe in basing opinions on the aforementioned, turning the topic into nothing but extremist, useless, political garbage rhetoric, don't try and shift blame onto me.

For some reason, you anti-vaxxers act just like Democrats. People considering the vax aren't listening. They just don't know the real real. We haven't bothered to research. Yada, yada, yada:rolleyes:

None of us that I am aware of who do just fine articulating on any given subject suddenly got brain bleached and need anyone to tell is what to think. Isn't THAT part of what you're bitching about? Government and whoever else trying to tell you what's best for you and what to believe? So why is it okay for you to do it?

You and sassy have pages and pages of anti-vax propaganda on here. Have you been told not to post it? Hell, I even added a separate forum for the express purpose of the topic so you or anyone else doesn't have to go digging through all the forums looking for it.

I haven't judged your choice nor your right to make it. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to others in return.
Perhaps you can post data that supports how safe and effective the vaccine is instead of trashing Rev and I for posting actual evidence of how it wasn't effective.

I haven't judged anyone for getting it.

[fj1200]

Perhaps you can post data that supports how safe and effective the vaccine is instead of trashing Rev and I for posting actual evidence of how it wasn't effective.

I haven't judged anyone for getting it.

Is it your position that the covid vaccine did absolutely nothing for anyone?

[AHZ]

I already have enough of one who likes to put words in people's mouths. You don't need to join the club.

As far as your two extremes analogy goes? When the two extremes completely drown out the facts, logic and/or common sense, and the voices of moderation who believe in basing opinions on the aforementioned, turning the topic into nothing but extremist, useless, political garbage rhetoric, don't try and shift blame onto me.

For some reason, you anti-vaxxers act just like Democrats. People considering the vax aren't listening. They just don't know the real real. We haven't bothered to research. Yada, yada, yada:rolleyes:

None of us that I am aware of who do just fine articulating on any given subject suddenly got brain bleached and need anyone to tell is what to think. Isn't THAT part of what you're bitching about? Government and whoever else trying to tell you what's best for you and what to believe? So why is it okay for you to do it?

You and sassy have pages and pages of anti-vax propaganda on here. Have you been told not to post it? Hell, I even added a separate forum for the express purpose of the topic so you or anyone else doesn't have to go digging through all the forums looking for it.

I haven't judged your choice nor your right to make it. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to others in return.


but only one side is trying to use force of government (under the influence of corporations) to make their view the law and shut down opposing views.

your "bothesidesism" leaves you unable to determine which side is doing the most wrong. you're not really looking at which side is jackboot thugs.

has anybody bannd your pro vax opinions?

you're getting the same courtesy.

[fj1200]

but only one side is trying to use force of government (under the influence of corporations) to make their view the law and shut down opposing views.

your "bothesidesism" leaves you unable to determine which side is doing the most wrong. you're not really looking at which side is jackboot thugs.

has anybody bannd your pro vax opinions?

you're getting the same courtesy.

Is it your position that the covid vaccine did absolutely nothing for anyone?

[Gunny]

but only one side is trying to use force of government (under the influence of corporations) to make their view the law and shut down opposing views.

your "bothesidesism" leaves you unable to determine which side is doing the most wrong. you're not really looking at which side is jackboot thugs.

has anybody bannd your pro vax opinions?

you're getting the same courtesy.What pro vax opinion? It defaults me to the opposite extreme only to those closed-minded extremists who hold firmly to the 100% with me or 100% against me mentality. Both indicative of only half one's brain in gear.

Contrary to your erroneous "math" (1+1 = 3), my objectivity allows me to look at both sides of the issue which provided me with twice as much information as your onesideism which has only one answer. I prefer to see the train coming to pretending it isn't there and it coming nevertheless.

[revelarts]

Is it your position that the covid vaccine did absolutely nothing for anyone?
It's certainly did something, BILLIONS for Bill Gate's bottom line & many in Big Harma.
Plus fattening the reelection war chest of several politicians world wide.

As far as vaccine effectiveness goes, It's my opinion at this point that it's probably harmed (and will harm) more people than it's helped.
And for many people it did nothing either way... at best.

BTW I have the same medical degree as Bill Gates... and everyone else here.

[Kathianne]

What pro vax opinion? It defaults me to the opposite extreme only to those closed-minded extremists who hold firmly to the 100% with me or 100% against me mentality. Both indicative of only half one's brain in gear.

Contrary to your erroneous "math" (1+1 = 3), my objectivity allows me to look at both sides of the issue which provided me with twice as much information as your onesideism which has only one answer. I prefer to see the train coming to pretending it isn't there and it coming nevertheless.

Yep, therein lies a big problem. Those that weren't quick to forgo the vaccine, that didn't fight with folks trying to do their jobs regarding masks, many were able to see over time that some things were outright wrong and others were overstated. Simple solutions: don't get vaccine or boosters or more. Don't wear mask by either only patronizing mask free places or wear and take off. Still not ok to abuse folks just doing their jobs.

Thinking people do not need to deep dive hours and hours and posting pages and pages, while some do. All should be able to live their lives as chosen. Some came to realizations later than others or not at all. It's ok as long as they leave others alone.

Not so the teacher's unions; the president; the CDC, etc. Now those are people worth going out and protesting.

[Kathianne]

Yep, therein lies a big problem. Those that weren't quick to forgo the vaccine, that didn't fight with folks trying to do their jobs regarding masks, many were able to see over time that some things were outright wrong and others were overstated. Simple solutions: don't get vaccine or boosters or more. Don't wear mask by either only patronizing mask free places or wear and take off. Still not ok to abuse folks just doing their jobs.

Thinking people do not need to deep dive hours and hours and posting pages and pages, while some do. All should be able to live their lives as chosen. Some came to realizations later than others or not at all. It's ok as long as they leave others alone.

Not so the teacher's unions; the president; the CDC, etc. Now those are people worth going out and protesting.

Yep, and as fj has pointed out several times, the vaccine was effective for certain groups-especially the elderly. Something that DeSantis noticed and worked with in order to serve those most in need and protected the kids by reopening schools.

[fj1200]

As far as vaccine effectiveness goes, It's my opinion at this point that it's probably harmed (and will harm) more people than it's helped.
And for many people it did nothing either way... at best.

So ignoring the spite, you maintain it had no effectiveness for anyone?

[SassyLady]

Is it your position that the covid vaccine did absolutely nothing for anyone?

It's been proven it did not protect anyone from getting covid as it was hyped to do. It might have lessened symptoms .... but so did ivermectin (without adverse reactions).

[revelarts]

Perhaps you can post data that supports how safe and effective the vaccine is instead of trashing Rev and I for posting actual evidence of how it wasn't effective.

I haven't judged anyone for getting it.

um, Sassy, what we've posted is "propaganda" that Gunny and others have graciously put up with.
We should be grateful that we have been allowed to post information we think might help inform, promote health and health freedom.
I guess we're posting to much information that's been censored & suppressed by the gov't & the MSM.
It seems that simply posting the info means we are pressuring them to agree with it?!
Not trying to show them evidence so they can make up there own minds up with.
And in doing that we are nearly exactly the same as gov't/MSM/SocialMeida censorship, their outright lies & forced compliance under various threats.

the fact that we've been basically CORRECT, while Facuii and the MSM have been basically wrong makes no difference. AT ALL.
We need to be quiet and stop FORCING our crazy but correct opinions... on a forum that's about "debating policy"...
It seems that being nice, really means not sharing basically truthful information... to much.


Look, sorry but I'm going to go here... again.
the gov't was wrong about mask.
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about lockdowns.
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about social distancing.
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about the numbers deaths and "cases".
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about the vax being 100% effective.
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about the stopping transmission .
mmm I think.. we said so..
the gov't was wrong about EVERYONE needing a vax.
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about the vax being the ONLY treatment path.
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about the vax being "safe" and well tested.
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about where the virus came from.
we said so.

we never said chips are in the vax.
we never said that EVERYONE is going to drop dead from the vax.
we never said any alt treatments were 100% effective or for everyone.
We never abused anyone here for having a different opinion... or for wearing mask... or getting the vax.

Somehow (by luck?) we've been generally correct... but somehow we're told we're pushing "propaganda" THE SAME/NO DIFFERENT from the "the other side" according to Gunny.
By no objective standard does that make sense.
But... that's where some people are. Fine, OK, everyone has a right to their opinion.

But it Seems to me "the side" that was mostly WRONG and censored others and got people fired from jobs kick out of schools would get a LOT more heat from people "in the middle" than those who mainly got it right.

Most of my family got the vax so my warnings to them were about as effective as they are here.
But that's all they've been, warnings and info. For people to take or leave.

If i've posted false info, point it out, I'll agree that it's false. Or even if it's over the top. Tell me And i'll dial it back if you SHOW ME the flaws.
But if it's just a vague woozy sense that someone doesn't like what i post because it makes them uncomfortable because it reminds them of bad experiences with others... well that's not really my problem.

[SassyLady]

um, Sassy, what we've posted is "propaganda" that Gunny and others have graciously put up with.
We should be grateful that we have been allowed to post information we think might help inform, promote health and health freedom.
I guess we're posting to much information that's been censored & suppressed by the gov't & the MSM.
It seems that simply posting the info means we are pressuring them to agree with it?!
Not trying to show them evidence so they can make up there own minds up with.
And in doing that we are nearly exactly the same as gov't/MSM/SocialMeida censorship, their outright lies & forced compliance under various threats.

the fact that we've been basically CORRECT, while Facuii and the MSM have been basically wrong makes no difference. AT ALL.
We need to be quiet and stop FORCING our crazy but correct opinions... on a forum that's about "debating policy"...
It seems that being nice, really means not sharing basically truthful information... to much.


Look, sorry but I'm going to go here... again.
the gov't was wrong about mask.
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about lockdowns.
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about social distancing.
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about the numbers deaths and "cases".
we said it was.
the gov't was wrong about the vax being 100% effective.
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about the stopping transmission .
mmm I think.. we said so..
the gov't was wrong about EVERYONE needing a vax.
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about the vax being the ONLY treatment path.
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about the vax being "safe".
we said so.
the gov't was wrong about where the virus came from.
we said so.

we never said chips are in the vax.
we never said that EVERYONE is going to drop dead from the vax.
we never said any alt treatments were 100% effective or for everyone.

Somehow (by luck?) we've been generally correct... but somehow we're told we're pushing "propaganda" THE SAME/NO DIFFERENT from the "the other side" according to Gunny.
By no objective standard does that make sense.
But... that's where some people are. Fine, OK, everyone has a right to their opinion.

But it Seems to me "the side" that was mostly WRONG and censored others and got people fired from jobs kick out of schools would get a LOT more heat from people "in the middle" than those who mainly got it right.

Most of my family got the vax so my warnings to them were about as effective as they are here.
But that's all they've been, warnings and info. For people to take or leave.

If i've posted false info, point it out, I'll agree that it's false. Or even if it's over the top. Tell me And i'll dial it back if you SHOW ME the flaws.
But if it's just a vague woozy sense that someone doesn't like what i post because it makes them uncomfortable because it reminds them of bad experiences with others... well that's not really my problem.
Yep!

[revelarts]

So ignoring the spite, you maintain it had no effectiveness for anyone?

It may have helped an extremely small percentage of elderly people or people with co-morbidities or obesity.

Other than that, based on what i've read, most people would have done just as well without it.
99.+% of people below 60.

[AHZ]

Is it your position that the covid vaccine did absolutely nothing for anyone?


my position is that it definitely did more harm than good.

there were never honest records kept on dying with v. dying from.

[Gunny]

It may have helped an extremely small percentage of elderly people or people with co-morbidities or obesity.

Other than that, based on what i've read, most people would have done just as well without it.
99.+% of people below 60.Now you're being ridiculous.

[AHZ]

What pro vax opinion? It defaults me to the opposite extreme only to those closed-minded extremists who hold firmly to the 100% with me or 100% against me mentality. Both indicative of only half one's brain in gear.

Contrary to your erroneous "math" (1+1 = 3), my objectivity allows me to look at both sides of the issue which provided me with twice as much information as your onesideism which has only one answer. I prefer to see the train coming to pretending it isn't there and it coming nevertheless.


but only one side is trying to destroy the first amendment and all civil rights.

this is why your bothesidesism is so utterly retarded and off kilter.

[revelarts]

It may have helped an extremely small percentage of elderly people or people with co-morbidities or obesity.

Other than that, based on what i've read, most people would have done just as well without it.
99.+% of people below 60.
Now you're being ridiculous.

How so, exactly?
Natural immune response & immunity without any treatments kept most people out of the hospitals and from death.
There are several countries that never got many or any vaccines and somehow covid didn't wipe them out.
Over 98-99% of them survived it. And the larger portion of those who died were elderly.

I stand by my statement.
Can you show me that it's off?

[AHZ]

Now you're being ridiculous.


should he be silenced for being wrong?

[Gunny]

How so, exactly?
Natural immunity without any treatments kept most people out of the hospitals and from death.
There are several countries that never got many or any vaccines and somehow covid didn't wipe them out.
Over 98-99% of them survived it. And the larger portion of those who died were elderly.

I stand by my statement.
Can you show me that it's off?Natural immunity didn't work so well for the 7M covid killed.

You tend to forget (or purposefully ignore) the same people that cried "save us!" to the GWB/ the government on 9/11 did the same about covid. Just as they started caterwalling after the Patriot Act, so too the caterwalling after the vaccine because it wasn't 100% risk free with no side effects.

Just ridiculous. Want to have your cake and eat it too:rolleyes:

[AHZ]

Natural immunity didn't work so well for the 7M covid killed.

You tend to forget (or purposefully ignore) the same people that cried "save us!" to the GWB/ the government on 9/11 did the same about covid. Just as they started caterwalling after the Patriot Act, so too the caterwalling after the vaccine because it wasn't 100% risk free with no side effects.

Just ridiculous. Want to have your cake and eat it too:rolleyes:


is that the fake number of people who died with covid and not of covid?

the government forced iraq and the government forced covid with lies.

the government was in on 9/11.

the government helped invent covid.

did you see how the cia paid off people to not say the truth?

why are you still defending these clowns?

are your priorities askew?

[Black Diamond]

I think the vaccine will save some people's lives and kill others and/or make people miserable.
I don't know If there will be a net gain or net loss of life.

[AHZ]

I think the vaccine will save some people's lives and kill others and/or make people miserable.
I don't know If there will be a net gain or net loss of life.


do you think a profit motive could ever skew "science" as presented by large corrupt organizations?

[revelarts]

Natural immunity didn't work so well for the 7M covid killed.
sadly, No it didn't.
Neither did mask, social distancing, lockdowns, the vaxs or alt treatments.

But, I'm still not sure about those numbers.
Especially since there was that year where the Flu killed basically no one. :rolleyes:





You tend to forget (or purposefully ignore) the same people that cried "save us!" to the GWB/ the government on 9/11 did the same about covid. Just as they started caterwalling after the Patriot Act, so too the caterwalling after the vaccine because it wasn't 100% risk free with no side effects.
Just ridiculous. Want to have your cake and eat it too:rolleyes:

um... what?
You're telling me that fearful people (people ginned up into fear) asked the gov't to save us and the gov't took advantage of that?
After 911 and the covid?!?
really?
say it ain't so.

But gunny seriously, I'm not sure what you're saying.
Are you blaming the people for the problem?
Not the gov'ts that did gain of function research?
Not the Gov't that (if you believe the official story) created/Funded Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians for decades?
I should blame the people for begging the gov't to help... when the gov't twist the request into a train of unconstitutional control freak BS and experimental drugs.

what cake am I eating? i dont get it.

[Black Diamond]

do you think a profit motive could ever skew "science" as presented by large corrupt organizations?

Of course it could and did . Captain obvious states the obvious.

[AHZ]

Of course it could and did . Captain obvious states the obvious.


all righty then.

there is hope for you.

[Black Diamond]

all righty then.

there is hope for you.

Fuck off.

[Gunny]

sadly, No it didn't.
Neither did mask, social distancing, lockdowns, the vaxs or alt treatments.

But, I'm still not sure about those numbers.
Especially since there was that year where the Flu killed basically no one. :rolleyes:





um... what?
You're telling me that fearful people (people ginned up into fear) asked the gov't to save us and the gov't took advantage of that?
After 911 and the covid?!?
really?
say it ain't so.

But gunny seriously, I'm not sure what you're saying.
Are you blaming the people for the problem?
Not the gov'ts that did gain of function research?
Not the Gov't that (if you believe the official story) created/Funded Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians for decades?
I should blame the people for begging the gov't to help... when the gov't twist the request into a train of unconstitutional control freak BS and experimental drugs.

what cake am I eating? i dont get it.

You do not know for a fact that masking, the vaccine, social distancing, and/or alternative methods did not work.

Here's a completely logical, plausible alternative theory to yours: The sheeple bleated to Big Brother and Big Brother didn't know what to do so it started pulling shit out of its ass trying to buy time for a vaccine to be developed. In real time there's only one way to test a vaccine.

Then along come the Monday morning quarterbacks digging to find fault, especially those who find fault with everything the government does because they so sure the government is always up to something shitty. You want your version of the rules followed even in an emergency situation when NO ONE knew WTF was going on. Except those like you:rolleyes:

The REAL disease that got spread is fear, and you are in the lead spreading it. Your fear of the government and of vaccines.

So I have some questions:

Were you forced to take the vaccine against your will?

Did you lose anything for refusing to take the vaccine?

[Gunny]

I think the vaccine will save some people's lives and kill others and/or make people miserable.
I don't know If there will be a net gain or net loss of life.I seriously doubt anyone knows the actual answers because all those selling that they do have inundated everyone with so much skewed bullshit that most people have just given up on ever knowing the actual facts. There's as much or more propaganda from both sides on this as there is climate change.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

However, it's now been proven that ivermectin protocol did in fact save lives. The vaccine might have saved lives as well but it also has destroyed a lot people's health. Therein lies the difference.

Some of us actually researched alternatives. Others just blindly followed the crowd or had to make hard choice to get the vaccine in order to continue with their lifestyle (i.e. career).

I don't fault anyone for getting the vaccine. It just pisses me off that so many people said ... "you're going to kill grandma if you don't get it. Do it for the good of the majority... etc." Guilt tripping. I didn't try to guilt anyone into not taking it. I was presenting alternatives and also concerns about side effects.

I was much like you my friend. I warned people but never told any person not to get it if they thought that a correct decision.
I did tell people what big pharma and government was doing. I never took the vaccine and would not allow my son to be vaccinated either.
I damn sure never guilt tripped others either. I told what I knew, they are adults, either decide to take it or not. End of story with me.--Tyr

[AHZ]

You do not know for a fact that masking, the vaccine, social distancing, and/or alternative methods did not work.

Here's a completely logical, plausible alternative theory to yours: The sheeple bleated to Big Brother and Big Brother didn't know what to do so it started pulling shit out of its ass trying to buy time for a vaccine to be developed. In real time there's only one way to test a vaccine.

Then along come the Monday morning quarterbacks digging to find fault, especially those who find fault with everything the government does because they so sure the government is always up to something shitty. You want your version of the rules followed even in an emergency situation when NO ONE knew WTF was going on. Except those like you:rolleyes:

The REAL disease that got spread is fear, and you are in the lead spreading it. Your fear of the government and of vaccines.

So I have some questions:

Were you forced to take the vaccine against your will?

Did you lose anything for refusing to take the vaccine?

but in reality, the government was forcing it on behalf of oligarchs and big pharma.

did you research in to eco-health alliance and doctor Peter Dascek?

he probably lost faith in government and medicine..

that's what we all lost from this eugenicist lie festival.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

sadly, No it didn't.
Neither did mask, social distancing, lockdowns, the vaxs or alt treatments.

But, I'm still not sure about those numbers.
Especially since there was that year where the Flu killed basically no one. :rolleyes:





um... what?
You're telling me that fearful people (people ginned up into fear) asked the gov't to save us and the gov't took advantage of that?
After 911 and the covid?!?
really?
say it ain't so.

But gunny seriously, I'm not sure what you're saying.
Are you blaming the people for the problem?
Not the gov'ts that did gain of function research?
Not the Gov't that (if you believe the official story) created/Funded Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians for decades?
I should blame the people for begging the gov't to help... when the gov't twist the request into a train of unconstitutional control freak BS and experimental drugs.

what cake am I eating? i dont get it.

YEP. One year covid told the flu to take a break and it would kill all those people so that the flu wouldn't have to!!!
I mean, who knew the covid was that damn smart and kind?
I guess the brilliant government knew , eh?--Tyr

[Gunny]

It's been proven it did not protect anyone from getting covid as it was hyped to do. It might have lessened symptoms .... but so did ivermectin (without adverse reactions).THIS is one of the problems I have with this topic. Giving medical advice that is not proven. THAT can actually harm someone. Ivermectin IS toxic.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

THIS is one of the problems I have with this topic. Giving medical advice that is not proven. THAT can actually harm someone. Ivermectin IS toxic.
Gunny, I know someone that used it and it was not toxic to them. And certain doctors prescribed it. ---TYR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I seriously doubt anyone knows the actual answers because all those selling that they do have inundated everyone with so much skewed bullshit that most people have just given up on ever knowing the actual facts. There's as much or more propaganda from both sides on this as there is climate change.

So true my friend, government and media bullshit was hip deep and tripling down. They paraded the ignorant self-absorbed movie stars out too.
I never argued the point with anybody. Take it, don't take it, its your decision is what I told family and others.--TYR

[AHZ]

I seriously doubt anyone knows the actual answers because all those selling that they do have inundated everyone with so much skewed bullshit that most people have just given up on ever knowing the actual facts. There's as much or more propaganda from both sides on this as there is climate change.


is big pharma "selling that they know the answer"?

just wondering.

youre not even "both sides" anymore.

you purely a big pharma / biden supporter.

[AHZ]

THIS is one of the problems I have with this topic. Giving medical advice that is not proven. THAT can actually harm someone. Ivermectin IS toxic.


we know injections from large nazi corporations hurt people too.

[Black Diamond]

we know injections from large nazi corporations hurt people too.

Yeah fauci=gates = mengele. :rolleyes:

No one knows what the final outcome will be or what people's intentions were. But making that kind of a jump is stupid and outlandish. Typical of you

[Gunny]

we know injections from large nazi corporations hurt people too.I'm not concerned that someone dying in the name of your dumb causes would cause you the loss of a second's sleep. Most people capable of empathy however might give pause to handing out medical advice that could prove harmful to others.

[Black Diamond]

I'm not concerned that someone dying in the name of your dumb causes would cause you the loss of a second's sleep. Most people capable of empathy however might give pause to handing out medical advice that could prove harmful to others.

Even if they look something up on WebMD.

[AHZ]

Yeah fauci=gates = mengele. :rolleyes:

No one knows what the final outcome will be or what people's intentions were. But making that kind of a jump is stupid and outlandish. Typical of you


the eugenics movement has been strong in america since the 1920s.

[Black Diamond]

the eugenics movement has been strong in america since the 1920s.

And you can tie gates and fauci to that movement.

[AHZ]

I'm not concerned that someone dying in the name of your dumb causes would cause you the loss of a second's sleep. Most people capable of empathy however might give pause to handing out medical advice that could prove harmful to others.


but it's fine when big pharma gives poison shots.

that doesnt hurt anyone.

[Gunny]

but it's fine when big pharma gives poison shots.

that doesnt hurt anyone.I am unaware of anyone giving "poison shots" to anyone. But typical of you to think so. So tell me, your idol got vaccinated. You weren't up his butt in line for yours? Loyalty points deduction for you.

[revelarts]

You do not know for a fact that masking, the vaccine, social distancing, and/or alternative methods did not work.


For the millions that died. i'm sure they did not work.



Here's a completely logical, plausible alternative theory to yours: The sheeple bleated to Big Brother and Big Brother didn't know what to do so it started pulling shit out of its ass trying to buy time for a vaccine to be developed. In real time there's only one way to test a vaccine.
why did the Big Brother pull Crap out of it's Arse? Why not calm people with words like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" instead of worse case scenarios and nightly death counts? Why did the govt assume that vaxs were the only way to go? If there was no time to test a vaccine shouldn't they have looked into alt treatments already available. ALL OF THESE OPTIONS were on the table and recommended in REAL TIME.



Then along come the Monday morning quarterbacks digging to find fault, especially those who find fault with everything the government does because they so sure the government is always up to something shitty. You want your version of the rules followed even in an emergency situation when NO ONE knew WTF was going on. Except those like you:rolleyes:
Faucii told the truth the 1st time he was asked (or in older presentations) on nearly every question.
On mask he said they were no good.
On Vaccines he said they take 7+ years to test BECAUSE latent effects can't be known.
On lockdowns he said He didn't think we Could or Should.
On natural immunity he had said it was THE BEST defense against a disease.
etc etc No Need to Monday morning quarterback the INFO was ALREADY AVAILABLE. we knew mask didn't work after the Spanish FLU. It was in the OSHA manuels from the 1990s up until 2019!
But he & the gov't changed his stories FRIDAY SATURDAY & SUNDAY NIGHT... Because the bad old frightened people forced him to(?)... in your version of history.
really?
Is that why he lied about supporting gain of Function? because the people made him do it?
Is that why he and Collins of the CDC tried to suppress and smear experts with facts that refuted his BS narrative?
Because the frightened people? that's plausible?

As far a rules Go. I wanted NO RULES!! I wanted things to be AS NORMAL. With people using common sense & voluntarily Not going to work or wearing mask & taking whatever remedies they wanted. NO NEW RULES from the Gov't. NONE. You know, freedom. (the same view I had after 911 BTW)

BTW People DID KNOW, after the 1st month or 2 that it was PRIMARILY older people dying. That was a universally accepted FACT. still is.
So the common sense thing to do would be focus efforts there.
Which is what the experts from Stanford, Oxford, MIT, John Hopkins, & Yale and many others suggested but the Faucii wanted cencored and the experts smeared in the Press and painted as "fringe".




The REAL disease that got spread is fear, and you are in the lead spreading it. Your fear of the government and of vaccines.
So I have some questions:
Were you forced to take the vaccine against your will?
Did you lose anything for refusing to take the vaccine?

Gunny I've answered all your questions directly even some you didn't ask me.
But i think there are at least 7 or 8 questions I've put you in this thread that are unanswered.
Answer half of those and I will continue to do you the same courtesy & answer all of yours

Here are 2 more to start,
Are you afraid of the gov't or vaccines because of my post?
Should you be?

[AHZ]

I am unaware of anyone giving "poison shots" to anyone. But typical of you to think so. So tell me, your idol got vaccinated. You weren't up his butt in line for yours? Loyalty points deduction for you.


did you hear of any adverse reaction to the covid shot?

[SassyLady]

THIS is one of the problems I have with this topic. Giving medical advice that is not proven. THAT can actually harm someone. Ivermectin IS toxic.

Link?

[SassyLady]

I'm not concerned that someone dying in the name of your dumb causes would cause you the loss of a second's sleep. Most people capable of empathy however might give pause to handing out medical advice that could prove harmful to others.

Gunny ... I'm pretty sure more people have died from the vaccine and had more adverse effects from it than those that used ivermectin.

[SassyLady]

Even if they look something up on WebMD.

As I've said many times here .. my doctor prescribed Ivermectin. It's not something I looked up on the internet. I did go research it after she prescribed it and then posted that info here.

[SassyLady]

And you can tie gates and fauci to that movement.
Actually tie the WEF and WHO to that movement as well.

[Black Diamond]

As I've said many times here .. my doctor prescribed Ivermectin. It's not something I looked up on the internet. I did go research it after she prescribed it and then posted that info here.

Yeah. I was talking in general.

[Gunny]

Gunny ... I'm pretty sure more people have died from the vaccine and had more adverse effects from it than those that used ivermectin.You don't know that for a fact.

[revelarts]

Even if they look something up on WebMD.
As apposed to those who just listened to the gov't and CNN then ran to get in line anywhere to get a shot?

[Gunny]

For the millions that died. i'm sure they did not work.


why did the Big Brother pull Crap out of it's Arse? Why not calm people with words like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" instead of worse case scenarios and nightly death counts? Why did the govt assume that vaxs were the only way to go? If there was no time to test a vaccine shouldn't they have looked into alt treatments already available. ALL OF THESE OPTIONS were on the table and recommended in REAL TIME.


Faucii told the truth the 1st time he was asked (or in older presentations) on nearly every question.
On mask he said they were no good.
On Vaccines he said they take 7+ years to test BECAUSE latent effects can't be known.
On lockdowns he said He didn't think we Could or Should.
On natural immunity he had said it was THE BEST defense against a disease.
etc etc No Need to Monday morning quarterback the INFO was ALREADY AVAILABLE. we knew mask didn't work after the Spanish FLU. It was in the OSHA manuels from the 1990s up until 2019!
But he & the gov't changed his stories FRIDAY SATURDAY & SUNDAY NIGHT... Because the bad old frightened people forced him to(?)... in your version of history.
really?
Is that why he lied about supporting gain of Function? because the people made him do it?
Is that why he and Collins of the CDC tried to suppress and smear experts with facts that refuted his BS narrative?
Because the frightened people? that's plausible?

As far a rules Go. I wanted NO RULES!! I wanted things to be AS NORMAL. With people using common sense & voluntarily Not going to work or wearing mask & taking whatever remedies they wanted. NO NEW RULES from the Gov't. NONE. You know, freedom. (the same view I had after 911 BTW)

BTW People DID KNOW, after the 1st month or 2 that it was PRIMARILY older people dying. That was a universally accepted FACT. still is.
So the common sense thing to do would be focus efforts there.
Which is what the experts from Stanford, Oxford, MIT, John Hopkins, & Yale and many others suggested but the Faucii wanted cencored and the experts smeared in the Press and painted as "fringe".




Gunny I've answered all your questions directly even some you didn't ask me.
But i think there are at least 7 or 8 questions I've put you in this thread that are unanswered.
Answer half of those and I will continue to do you the same courtesy & answer all of yours

Here are 2 more to start,
Are you afraid of the gov't or vaccines because of my post?
Should you be?

I answer any question that is mine to answer right up to the part where you start down your rabbit holes. If I could answer why people say and do what they do, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'd be too busy lighting cigars with $100 bills.

That covid affected the elderly AND at risk persons worse was known from the beginning. And? Those millions of deaths weren't just old/at risk people.

Why would I be afraid of the government or vaccines because of your posts? The government's been vaccinating me since I was 2 years old with everything it takes to live in Third World countries and are currently up to date. I'm still here.

One does not have to trust the government to understand its not going to kill off its taxpayers.

[revelarts]

Gunny ... I'm pretty sure more people have died from the vaccine and had more adverse effects from it than those that used ivermectin.You don't know that for a fact.
Over a billion doses if ivermectin had already been given out before 2019 for other problems. It's on the WHOs list of essential meds.
With a better safety record than Tylenol. It's over the counter medicine in many countries.

While they don't even track all of the Covid Vax injuries but it all ready has many times more injuries on US & UK official records than any other vaccine.

[AHZ]

And you can tie gates and fauci to that movement.



bill gates has always been an outspoken eugenicist.

[Gunny]

Over a billion doses if ivermectin had already been given out before 2019 for other problems. It's on the WHOs list of essential meds.
With a better safety record than Tylenol. It's over the counter medicine in many countries.

While they don't even track all of the Covid Vax injuries but it all ready has many times more injuries on US & UK official records than any other vaccine.I am very well versed on ivermectin and its uses, thanks. I was on it for 3 months. Prescribed by a physician for an infection which it is designed for, not a virus.

You got one part right: they don't track the numbers so you don't know.

[Black Diamond]

I am very well versed on ivermectin and its uses, thanks. I was on it for 3 months. Prescribed by a physician for an infection which it is designed for, not a virus.

You got one part right: they don't track the numbers so you don't know.

I don't like how everyone got ridiculed because it was horse meds. I'm pretty sure Coumadin is rat poison.

[Gunny]

I don't like how everyone got ridiculed because it was horse meds. I'm pretty sure Coumadin is rat poison.I don't like my words and stances being misconstrued, myself.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic designed originally for use in livestock. It has since been approved for and used in humans for certain infections. I can tell you for a fact that for me, it certainly got rid of my infection or I wouldn't be sitting here. I was hospitalized for two of the three aforementioned months. It also completely stripped my immune system. I hid out in my room for about 3 months until I got that unf-d. Lots of kids with crud around here :)

There is still no proof it works on covid. The fact people took it and had covid and survived is evidence solely of that. It is not proof ivermectin is the reason for survival.

On the other hand, the government's insistence on not using it, which probably made it all the more attractive, and from what I've seen refusal to even study whether or not it might work on covid seems to have given it more fame than it probably actually deserves. Just my opinion.

I could care less what anyone uses to ease their paranoid little minds. Vax or don't. Ivermectin or not. Little orange candy pills from the kid's doctor kit. Whatever.

Just my opinion that this relentless attack on a vaccine is more than a bit much. Don't get it. Ranting not required.

Now, Ive got about 20 vitamins, minerals and herbs to go take for my immune system :)

[revelarts]

I am very well versed on ivermectin and its uses, thanks. I was on it for 3 months. Prescribed by a physician for an infection which it is designed for, not a virus.

You got one part right: they don't track the numbers so you don't know.
I said they don't track ALL the numbers. Harvard estimated 1% of all vaccine injuries are reported link (https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system).
And of the 1%, covid vaccines have BY FAR the highest amount of reports compared to other vaccines.

Even In official test/trials they knew there were high risk of negative effects.
"Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults...
Results
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest ...
Discussion
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes..."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/


While in Contrast Ivermectin ...before 2019.... was universally hailed as a highly Safe & Effective ' WONDER DRUG.
Here's an article from NATURE magazine. A top, if not the top, science magazine in the world
https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711
Published: 15 February 2017
Review Article
Ivermectin: enigmatic multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations


...Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary....

....Antiviral (e.g. HIV, dengue, encephalitis)
Recent research has confounded the belief, held for most of the past 40 years, that ivermectin was devoid of any antiviral characteristics. Ivermectin has been found to potently inhibit replication of the yellow fever virus, with EC50 values in the sub-nanomolar range. It also inhibits replication in several other flaviviruses, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis and tick-borne encephalitis, probably by targeting non-structural 3 helicase activity.97 Ivermectin inhibits dengue viruses and interrupts virus replication, bestowing protection against infection with all distinct virus serotypes, and has unexplored potential as a dengue antiviral.98

Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broad-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins. It has been shown to have potent antiviral action against HIV-1 and dengue viruses, both of which are dependent on the importin protein superfamily for several key cellular processes. Ivermectin may be of import in disrupting HIV-1 integrase in HIV-1 as well as NS-5 (non-structural protein 5) polymerase in dengue viruses.99, 100

Antibacterial (tuberculosis and Buruli ulcer)
Up until recently, avermectins were also believed to lack antibacterial activity. However, in 2012, reports emerged that ivermectin was capable of preventing infection of epithelial cells by the bacterial pathogen Chlamydia trachomatis, and to do so at doses that could be used to counter sexually transmitted or ocular infections.101 In 2013, researchers confirmed that ivermectin was bactericidal against a range of mycobacterial organisms, including multidrug resistant and extensively drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the authors suggesting that ivermectin could be re-purposed for tuberculosis treatment. Although other researchers found that ivermectin does not possess anti-tuberculosis activity, the results were later shown to be non-comparable due to differences in testing methods, with the original findings being confirmed by further work in Japan.102, 103, 104 Unfortunately, the potential use of ivermectin for tuberculosis treatment is doubtful due to possible neurotoxicity at high dosage levels. Ivermectin was also reported to be bactericidal against M. ulcerans,105 although other researchers found no significant activity against this bacterium.106

Anti-cancer
There is a continuously accumulating body of evidence that ivermectin may have substantial value in the treatment of a variety of cancers. The avermectins are known to possess pronounced antitumor activity,107 as well as the ability to potentiate the antitumor action of vincristine on Ehrlich carcinoma, melanoma B16 and P388 lymphoid leukemia, including the vincristine-resistant strain P388.108
Over the past few years, there have been steadily increasing reports that ivermectin may have varying uses as an anti-cancer agent, as it has been shown to exhibit both anti-cancer and anti-cancer stem cell properties. An in silico chemical genomics approach designed to predict whether any existing drugs might be useful in tackling glioblastoma, lung and breast cancer, indicated that ivermectin may be a useful compound in this respect.109
In human ovarian cancer and NF2 tumor cell lines, high-dose ivermectin inactivates protein kinase PAK1 and blocks PAK1-dependent growth. PAK proteins are essential for cytoskeletal reorganization and nuclear signaling, PAK1 being implicated in tumor genesis while inhibiting PAK1 signals induces tumor cell apoptosis (cell death).
...
Globally, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women but treatment options are few. Ivermectin suppresses breast cancer by activating cytostatic autophagy, disrupting cellular signaling in the process, probably by reducing PAK1 expression. Ivermectin-induced cytostatic autophagy also leads to suppression of tumor growth in breast cancer xenografts, causing researchers to believe there is scope for using ivermectin to inhibit breast cancer cell proliferation and that the drug is a potential treatment for breast cancer....

Neurological disease
Many neurological disorders, such as motor neurone disease, arise due to cell death initiated by excessive levels of excitation in central nervous system neurons. A proposed novel therapy for these disorders involves silencing excessive neuronal activity using ivermectin. Because of its action on P2X4 receptors, ivermectin has potential with respect to preventing alcohol use disorders92 as well as for motor neurone disease.93 Indeed, in 2007, Belgian scientists applied for a patent, ‘Use of ivermectin and derivates thereof for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis’ (Publication No.: WO/2008/034202A3), to cover ‘the use of ivermectin and analogs, to prevent, retard and ameliorate a motor neuron disease such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and the associated motor neuron degeneration’....

Concerning safety the article says.

"Ivermectin has now been used for over three decades to treat parasitic infections in mammals, and has an extremely good safety profile, with numerous studies reporting low rates of adverse events when given as an oral treatment for parasitic infections.50 Several problematic reactions have been recorded, but they are generally mild and usually do not necessitate discontinuation of the drug..."

So your assertion about it being "TOXIC" is pretty much BS.
But No drug should be used willy nilly and can cause problems. it's not candy. But it is over the counter medication in many countries.
BTW NO DRUG is safe for EVERYONE. that includes Vaccines.

[revelarts]

bill gates has always been an outspoken eugenicist.
um, it's just "population control" AHZ

GATES: The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population— reproductive health.
And maybe the most interesting thing I learned is this thing that is still surprising when I tell other people which is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down.
You know I thought it was— before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.
And the fact that health leads parents to decide, “okay, we don’t need to have as many children because the chance of having the less children being able to survive to be adults and take care of us, means we don’t have to have 7 or 8 children.” Now that was amazing.

MOYERS: But did you come to reproductive issues as an intellectual, philosophical pursuit? Or was there something that happened? Did come upon— was there a revelation?

GATES: When I was growing up, my parents were almost involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table my parents were very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that...
https://billmoyers.com/content/conversation-bill-gates-making-healthier-world-children-future-generations-transcript/


Planned Parenthood started as and still is a Eugenics organization.
...By the late 1930s, growing public hostility meant eugenicists and birth control groups could no longer afford to compete for the dwindling funds from foundations and wealthy donors. As Gordon notes, "In 1938 rivalry in the birth control movement was ended with the reunification of Sanger's friends and enemies in the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA)."[15]
In January 1940 the BCFA held its annual meeting in New York City. The title of the symposium, "Race Building in a Democracy," showed little had changed. The same title was given to a luncheon speech by Henry Fairchild, president of the American Eugenics Society.

At that meeting, the eugenics movement, tainted by public hostility to their Nazi-like ideologies, united with the birth controllers. In his speech Dr. Fairchild noted, "One of the outstanding features of the present conference is...that these two great movements, eugenics and birth control, have now come together as almost indistinguishable."[16]
Planned Parenthood was the product of that union. The luncheon at which Dr. Fairchild spoke also began the 1940 fund drive for "The Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood." ...[l7]

A New Name
The birth control leaders realized that more than a new organization was needed. A new image had to replace the tainted one. To create that new image, Sanger, now their Honorary Chairman, hired D. Kenneth Rose as public relations consultant.[l8] Rose recommended that they drop "birth control" from their name and use "planned parenthood" instead. Sanger objected, but "In 1942 the new organization changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). It was the only national birth-control organization until the abortion-reform movement that began in the late 1960s."...[l9]
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/history-of-planned-parenthood-12139

[SassyLady]

You don't know that for a fact.

Well ... you don't know it isn't a fact either or you would be able to prove it. You're just being obnoxious because you have it in your head somehow that ivermectin only had one use. I suppose that's because you never really read any of the info that Rev and I posted but probably heard one of the late night comedy talk shows shay something stupid about it. And you still believe it. That's the sad part in all of this. Not doing your own research and continuing with the government agency narratives. I though you were more open minded than that. Guess I was wrong.

[AHZ]

um, it's just "population control" AHZ

GATES: The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population— reproductive health.
And maybe the most interesting thing I learned is this thing that is still surprising when I tell other people which is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down.
You know I thought it was— before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.
And the fact that health leads parents to decide, “okay, we don’t need to have as many children because the chance of having the less children being able to survive to be adults and take care of us, means we don’t have to have 7 or 8 children.” Now that was amazing.

MOYERS: But did you come to reproductive issues as an intellectual, philosophical pursuit? Or was there something that happened? Did come upon— was there a revelation?

GATES: When I was growing up, my parents were almost involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table my parents were very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that...
https://billmoyers.com/content/conversation-bill-gates-making-healthier-world-children-future-generations-transcript/


Planned Parenthood started as and still is a Eugenics organization.
...By the late 1930s, growing public hostility meant eugenicists and birth control groups could no longer afford to compete for the dwindling funds from foundations and wealthy donors. As Gordon notes, "In 1938 rivalry in the birth control movement was ended with the reunification of Sanger's friends and enemies in the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA)."[15]
In January 1940 the BCFA held its annual meeting in New York City. The title of the symposium, "Race Building in a Democracy," showed little had changed. The same title was given to a luncheon speech by Henry Fairchild, president of the American Eugenics Society.

At that meeting, the eugenics movement, tainted by public hostility to their Nazi-like ideologies, united with the birth controllers. In his speech Dr. Fairchild noted, "One of the outstanding features of the present conference is...that these two great movements, eugenics and birth control, have now come together as almost indistinguishable."[16]
Planned Parenthood was the product of that union. The luncheon at which Dr. Fairchild spoke also began the 1940 fund drive for "The Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood." ...[l7]

A New Name
The birth control leaders realized that more than a new organization was needed. A new image had to replace the tainted one. To create that new image, Sanger, now their Honorary Chairman, hired D. Kenneth Rose as public relations consultant.[l8] Rose recommended that they drop "birth control" from their name and use "planned parenthood" instead. Sanger objected, but "In 1942 the new organization changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). It was the only national birth-control organization until the abortion-reform movement that began in the late 1960s."...[l9]
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/history-of-planned-parenthood-12139




population control in the downward direction.....:cool:

[AHZ]

Well ... you don't know it isn't a fact either or you would be able to prove it. You're just being obnoxious because you have it in your head somehow that ivermectin only had one use. I suppose that's because you never really read any of the info that Rev and I posted but probably heard one of the late night comedy talk shows shay something stupid about it. And you still believe it. That's the sad part in all of this. Not doing your own research and continuing with the government agency narratives. I though you were more open minded than that. Guess I was wrong.


he's a pure deep state shill.

the cia paid people to not reveal wuhan lab goings on.

[revelarts]

...
Why would I be afraid of the government or vaccines because of your posts? The government's been vaccinating me since I was 2 years old with everything it takes to live in Third World countries and are currently up to date. I'm still here.

One does not have to trust the government to understand its not going to kill off its taxpayers.

Oh no of course not, our gov't would never harm or kill it's own citizens: :rolleyes:

except for that time in the 1920's when US the eugenics movement set up laws in nearly every state to that allowed/promoted forced sterilization. 10s of thousands were sterilized even up into the 1970s.
and then when eugenics movement changed it's name to planned parenthood... to kill a few taxpayers or potential tax payers.

the US has is only trying to kill other countries taxpaers with it DEpopulation efforts


and that time where
•During Prohibition : some FBI agents regularly poisoned some illegal liquor with methane, formaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic, kerosene and more to make it appear that booze was in fact deadly. Many did indeed die.

•Cigarette Corps and Asbestos Corps hide cancer: for decades both of those industries knew that their products caused cancer, they work in concert, and paid for false studies, did propaganda and fought regs and cajoled/paid politicians and gov't researchers while Americans died and they made $$$.

specifically concerning the US gov't and biological crimes against it's own citizens there are many documented accounts.

•Tuskegee experiments: where gov't doctors lied to men with syphilis that they were treating them but they were actually just documenting the progress of the disease.

•1950-70x-...? MKUltra: where the gov't used LSD and other drug and techniques against citizens wills to brainwash and mind control people. Also used drugs on children and minors.

• 1950: In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.

•1954: (https://www.foxnews.com/us/armys-secret-chemical-testing-in-st-louis-neighborhoods-during-cold-war-raising-new-concerns) The US military sprayed a radioactive bioweapon mixed with Cadmium sulfide over a part of St Louis with 10,000 low income people, 70% of them being children under the age of 12. Lied to city officials, did the same in other cities.

• 1955: The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.

• 1956: U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.

• 1965: Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along.

• 1966: U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.

• 1990: More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

• 1994: With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made.

•"As horrifying as these admitted tests of biological weapons on unwitting subjects are, perhaps even more frightening is the knowledge that governments have a documented history of using biological agents against their own citizens in bioterror false flag operations. It is no coincidence that two of the most well-known and devastating biological releases this decade have traced back to Fort Detrick (the home of the U.S. biological weapons research program since the 1950s and the current home of USAMRIID) and Porton Down (Fort Detrick's British equivalent). "

just to name a few of the known incidents.

[AHZ]

but...but....they wouldn't DOOOOOOOOOOOO THAAAAAAAAT!


https://cf-images.us-east-1.prod.boltdns.net/v1/static/694940094001/9ee8f0b8-9889-4a6a-b88f-e5a4141f5640/d49881ec-ddf4-4ee9-976b-04dd7de7c2bf/1280x720/match/image.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

bill gates has always been an outspoken eugenicist.

From what I have read his father was a big leader in the eugenics movement....
So good ole filthy rich Bill is carrying on his dad's work it seems.--Tyr

[fj1200]

It's been proven it did not protect anyone from getting covid as it was hyped to do. It might have lessened symptoms .... but so did ivermectin (without adverse reactions).

I think you understate the positives but you seem to agree that it did some good.


It may have helped an extremely small percentage of elderly people or people with co-morbidities or obesity.

So it did help some folks sounds like you're saying.


my position is that it definitely did more harm than good.

there were never honest records kept on dying with v. dying from.

Sounds like you'd agree that it did some good.

[AHZ]

I think you understate the positives but you seem to agree that it did some good.



So it did help some folks sounds like you're saying.



Sounds like you'd agree that it did some good.


but it hurt more, so in the net it was overall harmful to do.

[fj1200]

From what I have read his father was a big leader in the eugenics movement....
So good ole filthy rich Bill is carrying on his dad's work it seems.--Tyr

What!?!

[fj1200]

but it hurt more, so in the net it was overall harmful to do.

Sounds like your a bothsider suffering from bothsideism.

[revelarts]

So it did help some folks sounds like you're saying.


Probably for a few older people it was better than nothing, for a narrow window of time.
The Vaxs all carried or HAD THE HOST PRODUCED spike proteins which are what they say the immune system should be looking for to deal with the virus.
So folks apparently did produce the antibodies that were a signal that it did what it was supposed to do on that front.
But somehow it wasn't very protective.
Since vaxxed People still spread it, still caught it, still got sick, still went to hospital and many stilled died. boosted & double boosted people as well.
Also it wasn't long lasting, hence boosters just a months after the 1st shots.
Now they are literally saying the NEW vax is needed because the previous vax(s) are now completely useless.
Those who took it are now considered UNvaccinated.
Unlike natural immunity which, as I understand it at this point, has produced a long lasting resistance and is good for most (all?) variants.

Not to mention that Vitamin D and other supplements also have been shown to protect folks.
As well as several other alt treatments, mentioned elsewhere, which don't have the level of known and unknown side effects/problems the vaxs have.

There needs to be the typical pharmaceutical advertising disclaimer on the vaxs"
"...Pfizer & Moderna Mrna Covid Vaccines may cause,
Nerve damage
Anaphylaxis
Thyroiditis
Arthritis
Rhabdomyolysis
Generalized Convulsions
Bell's Palsy
Pancreatitis
Hyperglycemia
Anaphylaxis
Diarrhea
Myocarditis/Pericarditis
Other forms of acute cardiac injury
Acute respiratory distress syndrome
Coagulation disorder
Acute respiratory distress
Acute liver injury
Acute kidney injury
Encephalitis/encephalomyelitis
Skin rashes that wont go away after 48 hours
etc.. and in rare cases death.
please discontinue use if you see any of these symptoms.. oops to late. never mind.
Just consult your doctor so she can pretend it's not the vaccine.

Don't ask your doctor if the vaccine is right for you, just get it at your random drug store or vaxing tent.... for Grandma."

[SassyLady]

Gave blood the other day. They asked if I had taken the vaccine. Asked why they asked about that Vax and no others. All she could say was it is a question they had to ask. Hmmmm ... wonder why?

[SassyLady]

For those who think ivermectin is toxic.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin/


Like penicillin and aspirin, ivermectin is a medication that derives from nature.Although it was little known in advanced health economies before COVID, the drug has an incredible history of promoting health in underdeveloped countries. Approved for human use in 1987, it has been instrumental in tackling some of the world’s most harmful tropical diseases, such as Onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis (also known as Elephantiasis), strongyloidiasis and scabies. It also effectively fights parasitic infestations in animals, which can be economically devastating to the livestock industry.
In addition to being an effective, broad-spectrum anti-parasitic, many healthcare professionals have been using ivermectin for decades to treat a variety of other diseases.
“Few, if any, other drugs can rival ivermectin for its beneficial impact on human health and welfare,” wrote Andy Crump in The Journal of Antibiotics in 2017 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711). Crump worked with Satoshi Ōmura, the Japanese microbiologist responsible for discovering ivermectin, for decades.

Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs known. It is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines, has been given over 4 billion times around the globe, and won the Nobel Prize for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world.

[fj1200]

Probably for a few older people it was better than nothing, for a narrow window of time.


Seems we all agree that it had at least some positive effects for some folks. I guess we're all "bothsiders" now.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Probably for a few older people it was better than nothing, for a narrow window of time.
The Vaxs all carried or HAD THE HOST PRODUCED spike proteins which are what they say the immune system should be looking for to deal with the virus.
So folks apparently did produce the antibodies that were a signal that it did what it was supposed to do on that front.
But somehow it wasn't very protective.
Since vaxxed People still spread it, still caught it, still got sick, still went to hospital and many stilled died. boosted & double boosted people as well.
Also it wasn't long lasting, hence boosters just a months after the 1st shots.
Now they are literally saying the NEW vax is needed because the previous vax(s) are now completely useless.
Those who it it are now considered UNvaccinated.
Unlike natural immunity which, as I understand it at this point, has produced a long lasting resistance and is good for most (all?) variants.

Not to mention that Vitamin D and other supplements also have been shown to protect folks.
As well as several other alt treatments, mentioned elsewhere, which don't have the level of known and unknown side effects/problems the vaxs have.

There needs to the typical pharmaceutical advertising disclaimer on the vaxs"
"...Pfizer & Moderna Mrna Covid Vaccines may cause,
Nerve damage
Anaphylaxis
Thyroiditis
Arthritis
Rhabdomyolysis
Generalized Convulsions
Bell's Palsy
Pancreatitis
Hyperglycemia
Anaphylaxis
Diarrhea
Myocarditis/Pericarditis
Other forms of acute cardiac injury
Acute respiratory distress syndrome
Coagulation disorder
Acute respiratory distress
Acute liver injury
Acute kidney injury
Encephalitis/encephalomyelitis
Skin rashes that wont go away after 48 hours
etc.. and in rare cases death.
please discontinue use if you see any of these symptoms.. opps to late. never mind.
Just consult your doctor so she can pretend it's not the vaccine.
Don't ask your doctor if the vaccine is right for you, just get it at your random drug store or vaxing tent.... for Grandma."

That is one helluva very long list of very bad things to get just to try to protect yourself from a disease that is less that 2 percent fatal.
Do you think they named all the bad it inflicts?
I don't...--Tyr
But government and big pharma said it was safe....hmmmmmm...--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Probably for a few older people it was better than nothing, for a narrow window of time.
The Vaxs all carried or HAD THE HOST PRODUCED spike proteins which are what they say the immune system should be looking for to deal with the virus.
So folks apparently did produce the antibodies that were a signal that it did what it was supposed to do on that front.
But somehow it wasn't very protective.
Since vaxxed People still spread it, still caught it, still got sick, still went to hospital and many stilled died. boosted & double boosted people as well.
Also it wasn't long lasting, hence boosters just a months after the 1st shots.
Now they are literally saying the NEW vax is needed because the previous vax(s) are now completely useless.
Those who it it are now considered UNvaccinated.
Unlike natural immunity which, as I understand it at this point, has produced a long lasting resistance and is good for most (all?) variants.

Not to mention that Vitamin D and other supplements also have been shown to protect folks.
As well as several other alt treatments, mentioned elsewhere, which don't have the level of known and unknown side effects/problems the vaxs have.

There needs to the typical pharmaceutical advertising disclaimer on the vaxs"
"...Pfizer & Moderna Mrna Covid Vaccines may cause,
Nerve damage
Anaphylaxis
Thyroiditis
Arthritis
Rhabdomyolysis
Generalized Convulsions
Bell's Palsy
Pancreatitis
Hyperglycemia
Anaphylaxis
Diarrhea
Myocarditis/Pericarditis
Other forms of acute cardiac injury
Acute respiratory distress syndrome
Coagulation disorder
Acute respiratory distress
Acute liver injury
Acute kidney injury
Encephalitis/encephalomyelitis
Skin rashes that wont go away after 48 hours
etc.. and in rare cases death.
please discontinue use if you see any of these symptoms.. opps to late. never mind.
Just consult your doctor so she can pretend it's not the vaccine.
Don't ask your doctor if the vaccine is right for you, just get it at your random drug store or vaxing tent.... for Grandma."

That is one helluva very long list of very bad things to get just to try to protect yourself from a disease that is less that 2 percent fatal.
Do you think they named all the bad it inflicts?
I don't...--Tyr
But government and big pharma said it was safe....hmmmmmm...


I think in the next ten years being vaccinated may cause the death of millions worldwide. Hope I am wrong.--Tyr

[fj1200]

I think in the next ten years being vaccinated may cause the death of millions worldwide. Hope I am wrong.--Tyr

A chirpy Brit already told us that hundreds of millions would have died already. That chirpy Brit was incorrect.

[revelarts]

Seems we all agree that it had at least some positive effects for some folks. I guess we're all "bothsiders" now.


If bothsiders means like.
Agreeing that if someone's nearly dying of thirst, that yes,
they're probably better off getting water from a slightly pissy toilet bowl than nothing.
But all the while suggesting that they get water from the sink instead.
Because the sink is far better and far less chance of having other problems.
And if you're not near death you shouldn't drink toilet water at all.
OK.

If you're going to make the question, will the toilet water WORK?
OK, yes, it will most likely rehydrate a person near death.

"bothsiders". if you say so.

[Black Diamond]

A chirpy Brit already told us that hundreds of millions would have died already. That chirpy Brit was incorrect.

Drummond would have said that number would die without it. And if you disagree he'll sue you. Maybe we aren't talking about the same brit. :cool:

[Black Diamond]

If bothsiders means like.
Agreeing that if someone's nearly dying of thirst, that yes,
they're probably better off getting water from a slightly pissy toilet bowl than nothing.
But all the while suggesting that they get water from the sink instead.
Because the sink is far better and far less chance of having other problems.
And if you're not near death you shouldn't drink toilet water it at all.
OK.

If you're going to make the question, will the toilet water WORK?
OK, yes, it will most likely rehydrate a person near death.

"bothsiders". if you say so.

:laugh:

[fj1200]

Drummond would have said that number would die without it. And if you disagree he'll sue you. Maybe we aren't talking about the same brit. :cool:

Not the same Brit. But he did have some interesting viewpoints.

[fj1200]

If bothsiders means like.
Agreeing that if someone's nearly dying of thirst, that yes,
they're probably better off getting water from a slightly pissy toilet bowl than nothing.
But all the while suggesting that they get water from the sink instead.
Because the sink is far better and far less chance of having other problems.
And if you're not near death you shouldn't drink toilet water it at all.
OK.

If you're going to make the question, will the toilet water WORK?
OK, yes, it will most likely rehydrate a person near death.

"bothsiders". if you say so.

No. I mean bothsiders like, "hey, the covid vaccine had a purpose with some measure of effectiveness" on one side and, "hey, the covid vaccine has some downsides." That kind of bothsiders. If we can all stipulate to that then it would save us some arguing and avoiding the chirpies on both sides who make outlandish claims. Or we spend our time arguing over the chirpy points. Actually it'll probably go either way on that one.

[revelarts]

No. I mean bothsiders like, "hey, the covid vaccine had a purpose with some measure of effectiveness" on one side and, "hey, the covid vaccine has some downsides." That kind of bothsiders. If we can all stipulate to that then it would save us some arguing and avoiding the chirpies on both sides who make outlandish claims. Or we spend our time arguing over the chirpy points. Actually it'll probably go either way on that one.

CDC says
"BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines." This is a direct quote from the CDC website, which was recently pointed out by retired nurse instructor and popular British YouTuber Dr. John Campbell.

[fj1200]

CDC says
"BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines." This is a direct quote from the CDC website, which was recently pointed out by retired nurse instructor and popular British YouTuber Dr. John Campbell.

I'm not sure that says what you think it says. I believe the whole quote is:


Based on what CDC knows now, existing tests used to detect and medications used to treat COVID-19 appear to be effective with this variant. BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines. Scientists are evaluating the effectiveness of the forthcoming, updated COVID-19 vaccine. CDC's current assessment is that this updated vaccine will be effective at reducing severe disease and hospitalization.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure that says what you think it says. I believe the whole quote is:

the full quote seems to say what I thought it said... and "trust us, we're the CDC".

[fj1200]

the full quote seems to say what I thought it said... and "trust us, we're the CDC".

I'm not even sure really what you think it says. I think it says that there's a new variant which may have mutated to a point where immunity from previous vaccinations or exposure is lessened. Which would seem to be a natural result of new variants.

[AHZ]

I'm not sure that says what you think it says. I believe the whole quote is:


that part quoted is the same.

what do you think you achieved here?

[fj1200]

that part quoted is the same.

what do you think you achieved here?

I pointed out the M.O. of those who take things out of context while attempting to make it apply to something unrelated. One sentence without context combined with an appeal-to-authority fallacy makes for a questionable argument. It's easy to present a quote without explanation so that readers will accept it prima facie and apply it to their particular viewpoint without having to do the work of being able to explain it to anyone.

In short it's weak. Probably why you're jumping behind it.

[Kathianne]

I pointed out the M.O. of those who take things out of context while attempting to make it apply to something unrelated. One sentence without context combined with an appeal-to-authority fallacy makes for a questionable argument. It's easy to present a quote without explanation so that readers will accept it prima facie and apply it to their particular viewpoint without having to do the work of being able to explain it to anyone.

In short it's weak. Probably why you're jumping behind it.
and it's that tendency that makes some people just roll their eyes at what seems to be manipulations and call the ideas being pushed as 'conspiracies.' The tendency on any side appears to be to find any way at all to convince the most people to follow them-whatever and wherever they want to go.

When events become more clear over time, the totality of what had been absorbed through various means begins to be applied. Thus why some of the information that came from those against the vaccines gets a third, forth look and the public funded backed recommendations are held to task. Without doubt, the funded sources are going to get more scrutiny and critiques, well deserved. OTOH, there is no oversight of the alternatives from the get go.

[revelarts]

FJ you think it says:
"there's a new variant which may have mutated to a point where immunity from previous vaccinations or exposure is lessened. Which would seem to be a natural result of new variants."
really?

FJ I must be reading something different than you & Kath.
what I see you posted is this.
"Based on what CDC knows now, existing tests used to detect and medications used to treat COVID-19 appear to be effective with this variant. BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines. Scientists are evaluating the effectiveness of the forthcoming, updated COVID-19 vaccine. CDC's current assessment is that this updated vaccine will be effective at reducing severe disease and hospitalization."


My translation reads like this:
"Based on what CDC knows now, "
the CDC doesn't know everything... or much at all at this point.
existing tests used to detect and medications used to treat COVID-19 appear to be effective with this variant.
it old busted test seem to be working . . but in some soon to be disclosed testing looks like the old unnamed medications "work" against the weak covid variant called BS.2.86.

End of sentence about medications & test.
Start new sentence about variant's infectiousness.

BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19
the new Covid variant BS.2.86 IS PROBABLY MORE Capable of infection people who have previously had COVID-19
or who have received COVID-19 vaccines.
the new Covid variant BS.2.86 IS PROBABLY MORE Capable of infection people who have previously had COVID-19 VACCINES.

Inferred logical conclusion: those rare people who have not had Covid or the Vax are PROBABLY LESS Capable of infection from the BS.2.86 variant.

End of sentence about variant's infectiousness.
Start new sentence about NEW medication.

Scientists are evaluating the effectiveness of the forthcoming, updated COVID-19 vaccine.
the NEW vaccine is still under review by scientist friendly to the CDC and the manufacturers. So we're not going to start blowing smoke with numbers about effectiveness yet.
We learn a lesson from the last time when we said it was 100% effective and then we had to admit it was down in the 30s or something. And that some of the negative data was hidden because "speed of science".

CDC's current assessment is that this updated vaccine will be effective at reducing severe disease and hospitalization.
CDC currently hopes that this NEW updated vaccine will be effective for somebody at reducing severe disease and hospitalization, and we hope you believe us and will get the shot based on this sketchy nothing burger endorsement.


I'm not sure what you and Kath think has been taken out of context, is unrelated or manipulated.
the context adds NOTHING.

As far as an "appeal-to-authority" goes.. sheesh.
Look, seems we "anti-vaxxers" are in d@mned if we do, d@mned if we don't, situation.

if we quote the CDC, NIH, FDA or Faucii were using an "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY". so it's invalid.
if we quote noted experts and studies outside of the gov't "there is no oversight" so it's invalid.

You're not being close to objective or honest. You're obviously PRO gov't and PRO Vax and ANYTHING that questions them automatically is guilty until... well... it cannot not be proven innocent. Because you don't trust anything that questions the gov't or vaxs.
Unless it comes from the gov't itself as a confession.

[fj1200]

Inferred

I can't control what you infer. It says something or it doesn't say something and grabbing one sentence out of a paragraph and larger context is disingenuous.

Here's the whole risk assessment if anyone actually cares about the whole thing. :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I can't control what you infer. It says something or it doesn't say something and grabbing one sentence out of a paragraph and larger context is disingenuous.

BS Fj.

If someone says, There are 3 dogs, one is all white and 2 spotted dogs that are bigger.
By default that tells you that the white dog is the smallest.

Why pretend like you don't use that kind of logic everyday?
You're not being honest here.

[fj1200]

BS Fj.

If someone say, There are 3 dogs, one is all White, and 2 spotted dogs which are the biggest. By default that tells you that the white dog is the smallest.

Why pretend like you don't use that kind of logic everyday?
You're not being honest here.

Oh for petes sake. Read the whole thing before you start cherry picking post what somebody else cherry picked for you. Besides, I used my vaunted logic skills when I read it the first time. :slap:

[revelarts]

Oh for petes sake. Read the whole thing before you start cherry picking post what somebody else cherry picked for you. Besides, I used my vaunted logic skills when I read it the first time. :slap:
you posted the "full quote" and it does not change the meaning of the quote.


If I say 'the sky is blue' in the middle of a paragraph talking about the the clouds, it does not change the reality of the sky being blue or what I MEANT by saying the sky is blue.

Why are you dodging the reality here.
slap yourself in the head.

[fj1200]

you posted the "full quote" and it does not change the meaning of the quote.


If I say 'the sky is blue' in the middle of a paragraph talking about the the clouds, it does not change the reality of the sky being blue or what I MEANT by saying the sky is blue.

Why are you dodging the reality here.
slap yourself in the head.

Then I question your reading skills. Read the whole thing, it's a page long. Start with this part...

https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/covid-19-variant.html


Background

All viruses, including the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), change over time. These viruses with changes are called “variants.” These changes can affect how contagious a virus is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people. Last week, a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 called BA.2.86 was detected in samples from people in Denmark and Israel. At least two cases have been identified in the United States. This variant is notable because it has multiple genetic differences from previous versions of SARS-CoV-2.

They're putting out a risk assessment for something they heard about a week ago and already you're reading conspiracy into it.

[revelarts]

Then I question your reading skills. Read the whole thing, it's a page long. Start with this part...
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/covid-19-variant.html
They're putting out a risk assessment for something they heard about a week ago and already you're reading conspiracy into it.

We can read the whole page, but we don't have to read a whole page.
The context is clear, the sentence is clear.

If they wanted to say,
'the variant seems to be AS infectious, no matter what a persons previous status, vaccinated, unvaccinated, exposed to covid or not.'
Then they could have ...and would have... said that.
But that's NOT what they said.
they made a point of ONLY mentioning those previously with Covid and those Vaxxed as probably "MORE capable" of being infected.

"MORE" THAN WHO FJ?
The sentence implies a 3rd group.
A group that is LESS capable.

What conspiracy FJ?
the CDC is just making a statement. Sassy and I are just reading it as written.
You're the one pretending it does not say what it says.

[fj1200]

We can read the whole page, but we don't have to read a whole page.
The context is clear, the sentence is clear.

If they wanted to say,
'the variant seems to be AS infectious, no matter what a persons previous status, vaccinated, unvaccinated, exposed to covid or not.'
Then they could have ...and would have... said that.
But that's NOT what they said.
they made a point of ONLY mentioning those previously with Covid and those Vaxxed as probably "MORE capable" of being infected.

"MORE" THAN WHO FJ?
The sentence implies a 3rd group.
A group that is LESS capable.

What conspiracy FJ?
the CDC is just making a statement. Sassy and I are just reading it as written.
You're the one pretending it does not say what it says.

Whatever. Infer whatever you need to advance your narrative.

[revelarts]

Whatever. Infer whatever you need to advance your narrative.

I'm looking for the facts, the truth.
I've got no money or ego on any of this.

If Ivermectin, or vitamins or vaccines work I'm glad.

But my BS sniffer says the vaxs are near useless crap. If I thought the evidence showed the vax were worth something I'd say so.
At this point all the evidence I've seen says they are highly suspect and dangerous.

the SAME FDA that approved ivermectin 25+ years ago is the same one that's approved the vioxx & opioids more recently
I don't have a hatred for the FDA or CDC, i think they are necessary, but they are not infallible. And if we get a chance to look at DATA and hear from internal and external experts. Then we can get some perspective.
And in this case it seems that something stinks bad.
& I'm going to say so.

your milage may vary

[fj1200]

I'm looking for the facts, the truth.
I've got no money or ego on any of this.

If Ivermectin, or vitamins or vaccines work I'm glad.

But my BS sniffer says the vaxs are near useless crap. If I the thought the evidence showed the were worth something I'd say so.
At this point all the evidence I've seen says they are highly suspect and dangerous.

the SAME FDA that approved ivermectin 25+ years ago is the same one that's approved the vioxx & opioids more recently
I don't have a hatred for the FDA or CDC, i think they are necessary, but they are not infallible. And if we get a chance to look at DATA and hear from internal and external experts. Then we can get some perspective.
And in this case it seems that something stinks bad.
& I'm going to say so.

your milage may vary

Pretty much goes for all of us. You'd be served to turn your BS meter down because you're smelling completely unrelated S*. You're pretty much guaranteed to find whatever you're looking for because you'll read it that way.

[revelarts]

[


Pretty much goes for all of us. You'd be served to turn your BS meter down because you're smelling completely unrelated S*. You're pretty much guaranteed to find whatever you're looking for because you'll read it that way.


You need to get your BS detector checked.
Seems you can stand in a pile of crap, even pointed out by the CDC, and still not even notice it.

[fj1200]

You need to get your BS detector checked.
Seems you can stand in a pile of crap, even pointed out by the CDC, and still not even notice it.

Whatever dude. Rock on! :rock:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Pretty much goes for all of us. You'd be served to turn your BS meter down because you're smelling completely unrelated S*. You're pretty much guaranteed to find whatever you're looking for because you'll read it that way.
Rev's comment was ok, it is the way many people feel about it. Government over reaction and its dictatorial dictates took away rights and liberties we had.
That is no small thing. Many of us are still pissed off about that!!! ---:saluting2:-Tyr

[fj1200]

Rev's comment was ok, it is the way many people feel about it. Government over reaction and its dictatorial dictates took away rights and liberties we had.
That is no small thing. Many of us are still pissed off about that!!! ---:saluting2:-Tyr

Then being pissed off is completely misplaced when trying to read way to much in a low level document. Why do we think that everything is so divided when even this threat assessment of something a week old is put through so much mental gymnastics to attempt to read it in a way that is so divisive.

On the left anything race related is RACISM, anything gay related is HOMOPHOBIA, any talk of controlling spending is SPENDING CUTS, and this is the same thing for some on the right; something about covid is OMG LOCKDOWNS, MANDATES, PLANDEMIC, you name it. Things need to be read for what they say not what people think they want it to say. The world is not a globalist plot.

[AHZ]

I pointed out the M.O. of those who take things out of context while attempting to make it apply to something unrelated. One sentence without context combined with an appeal-to-authority fallacy makes for a questionable argument. It's easy to present a quote without explanation so that readers will accept it prima facie and apply it to their particular viewpoint without having to do the work of being able to explain it to anyone.

In short it's weak. Probably why you're jumping behind it.


additional context MAY change the meaning of a sentence, but in this case it did not.

[fj1200]

additional context MAY change the meaning of a sentence, but in this case it did not.

I suppose you're right when someone takes every effort to read too much into the meaning of a sentence then the actual context is completely ignored so that they can remain correct.

[AHZ]

I suppose you're right when someone takes every effort to read too much into the meaning of a sentence then the actual context is completely ignored so that they can remain correct.


a sentence can be a stand alone fact. this one in question here was such a sentence.

your additional context did not change the meaning.

I can't make it any simpler.

[fj1200]

a sentence can be a stand alone fact. this one in question here was such a sentence.

your additional context did not change the meaning.

I can't make it any simpler.

You are flat wrong. A sentence in the middle of a document covering a week of evidence is far different than one covering four years of evidence with time for research and studies.

[AHZ]

You are flat wrong. A sentence in the middle of a document covering a week of evidence is far different than one covering four years of evidence with time for research and studies.


nope.

sentences have standalone meanings, complete in and of themselves.

'out of context' deception can be a thing.

in this case it was not, and your "additional context" did not change anything.

[fj1200]

nope.

sentences have standalone meanings, complete in and of themselves.

'out of context' deception can be a thing.

in this case it was not, and your "additional context" did not change anything.

Whatever dude. Your entire thought process can be summed up in "Aack COVID, VACCINES, MANDATES, LOCKDOWNS, PLANDEMIC!!! :haironfire: "

[AHZ]

Whatever dude. Your entire thought process can be summed up in "Aack COVID, VACCINES, MANDATES, LOCKDOWNS, PLANDEMIC!!! :haironfire: "


this is a bullet point list of my top issues, yes.

I have communicated effectively.

you are learning.

[Kathianne]

this is a bullet point list of my top issues, yes.

I have communicated effectively.

you are learning.
Once again, reading through all of today's posts. Same issues, repeat and unresponsive.

[fj1200]

this is a bullet point list of my top issues, yes.

I have communicated effectively.

you are learning.

I dispute your premise. Critical thinking is not your strong point.

[AHZ]

I dispute your premise. Critical thinking is not your strong point.


How would you know?

[revelarts]

Then being pissed off is completely misplaced when trying to read way to much in a low level document. Why do we think that everything is so divided when even this threat assessment of something a week old is put through so much mental gymnastics to attempt to read it in a way that is so divisive.

On the left anything race related is RACISM, anything gay related is HOMOPHOBIA, any talk of controlling spending is SPENDING CUTS, and this is the same thing for some on the right; something about covid is OMG LOCKDOWNS, MANDATES, PLANDEMIC, you name it. Things need to be read for what they say not what people think they want it to say. The world is not a globalist plot.

Did they Lockdown when we warned about it? yes.
Did they create mandates after they said they wouldn't? yes.
when officials said that surgical mask would protect you do they? no. they've admitted and said that N955, properly fitted might help.
when officials said the vax was 100% effective was it? No.
when they said "ONE AND DONE" vaccine was it? No.
when officials said that people with the vax wouldn't transmit the virus, did they? Yes.
when officials said that you wouldn't need a mask if you got vax, did they stick to it? No.
when officials said that the lockdowns would help, did they... really? No.
when officials said that the virus came from bats did it? No.
when they said it wasn't man made, was it? Yes.
when people died and got deathly sick from the vaccines & tried to get help from doctors and officials, have they? No? They are barely allowed to speak publicly.
etc etc


Why shouldn't EVERYONE be questioned everything the CDC and other officials say about this topic?
Every word should be documented, scrutinized and questioned.

you accuse others of "taking things out of context" and "appeals to authority"
but here your making wild -apples and oranges- comparisons.
"Racism... Homophobia... Spending Cuts"? seriously?

But OK...From the 1800s to the 1960-70s the racism situation may be considered somewhat similar, with the U.S. gov't lying & enforcing racist laws, in some case working with the KKK, and the Feds spying on and murdering civil rights leaders & more.
But today, racisms not even in the same ballpark.

But the level of OUTRIGHT LIES "for the greater good" told by Faucii and other officials, harma execs & experts over the covid issue is well documented at this point. If you want to look.
So instead of complaining about the people on this board's criticism of the gov't maybe you should turn your critical skills and heat TOWARD the gov't that has told us all so many lies over for the past 4 years about covid. And are apparently doing it again by recommending even children take a NEW vaccine untested on humans that YOU SAY only has a weeks worth of info.

Focus on the gov't lies, not us.
Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their next moves has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?

[AHZ]

Did they Lockdown when we warned about it? yes.
Did they create mandates after they said they wouldn't? yes.
when officials said that surgical mask would protect you do they? no. they've admitted and said that N955, properly fitted might help.
when officials said the vax was 100% effective was it? No.
when they said "ONE AND DONE" vaccine was it? No.
when officials said that people with the vax wouldn't transmit the virus, did it? Yes.
when officials said that you wouldn't need a mask if you got vax, did they stick to it? No.
when officials said that the lockdowns would help, did they.. really? No.
when officials said that you the virus came from bats did it? No.
when they said it wasn't man made, was it? Yes.
when people died and got deathly sick from the vaccines & tried to get help from doctors and officials, have they? No? They are barely allowed to speak publicly.
etc etc


Why shouldn't EVERYONE be questioned everything the CDC and other officials say about this topic?
Every word should be documented, scrutinized and questioned.

you accuse others of "taking things out of context" and "appeals to authority"
but here your making wild -apples and oranges- comparisons.
"Racism... Homophobia... Spending Cuts"? seriously?

But OK...From the 1800s to the 1960-70s the racism situation may be considered somewhat similar, with the U.S. gov't lying & enforcing racist laws, in some case working with the KKK, and the Feds spying on and murdering civil rights leaders & more.
But today, racisms not even in the same ballpark.

But the level of OUTRIGHT LIES "for the greater good" told by Faucii and other officials, harma execs & experts over the covid issue is well documented at this point. If you want to look.
So instead of complaining about the people on this board's criticism of the gov't maybe you should turn your critical skills and heat TOWARD the gov't that has told us all so many lies over for the past 4 years about covid. And are apparently doing it again by recommending even children take a NEW vaccine untested on humans that YOU SAY only has a weeks worth of info.

Focus on the gov't lies, not us.
Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their next moves has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?

:salute::dance::salute::dance::salute::dance::salu te::dance:

[fj1200]

Did they...

Oh geez. I'm sorry that you wrote all that but I'm tired of rehashing EVERYTHING EVERYTIME you get all dandered up. This particular tangent is on a particular sentence in a particular report with the question being what does it actually say in context of that particular report? In a sentence or two, what do you think it says?

[AHZ]

The world is not a globalist plot.


the world is a globalist plot actually.

[AHZ]

Oh geez. I'm sorry that you wrote all that but I'm tired of rehashing EVERYTHING EVERYTIME you get all dandered up. This particular tangent is on a particular sentence in a particular report with the question being what does it actually say in context of that particular report? In a sentence or two, what do you think it says?


it says previous covid vaccinations make the current variant worse.

so actually, the jabs are bad for you.

[fj1200]

it says previous covid vaccinations make the current variant worse.

so actually, the jabs are bad for you.

It does not.

[AHZ]

It does not.


we can agree to disagree.

[fj1200]

we can agree to disagree.

It doesn't say it. They can't know that after a week of knowing about a new variant.

[fj1200]

Hey, guess what? The CDC updated their risk assessment to make up for a poorly written sentence that people are bound and determined to take out of context. Why poorly written? Because the sentence said "more capable." More capable than what???


9/20/2023: Clarification on BA.2.86 risk assessment posted on 8/23/2023. The first risk assessment CDC released on BA.2.86 included the following sentence: “BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines.” The intent of this sentence was to raise the possibility that BA.2.86 might be more capable of causing infection compared with other variants currently circulating, but this sentence has been misinterpreted by some. Vaccination remains the best available protection against the most severe outcomes of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. COVID-19 vaccines also reduce the chance of having Long COVID. Since this webpage was originally posted, laboratory data have become available that suggest existing antibodies from previous COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 infection provide protection against this variant similar to other circulating variants and that updated COVID-19 vaccines are expected to provide similar protection as other circulating variants. For the latest updates on BA.2.86, please visit CDC Respiratory Virus Updates (https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/index.html).

[SassyLady]

Hey, guess what? The CDC updated their risk assessment to make up for a poorly written sentence that people are bound and determined to take out of context. Why poorly written? Because the sentence said "more capable." More capable than what???
So .. no need to get new vaccine.


Since this webpage was originally posted, laboratory data have become available that suggest existing antibodies from previous COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 infection provide protection against this variant similar to other circulating variants and that updated COVID-19 vaccines are expected to provide similar protection as other circulating variants

[revelarts]

Oh geez. I'm sorry that you wrote all that but I'm tired of rehashing EVERYTHING EVERYTIME you get all dandered up. This particular tangent is on a particular sentence in a particular report with the question being what does it actually say in context of that particular report? In a sentence or two, what do you think it says?
seems you've never really hashed the fact that we've been basically correct.
You denied, ignored, downplayed, deflected, nitpicked and accused us of extremism or conspiracy for 3+ years FJ.
while i haven't really seen you condemn the gov'ts words or actions AT ALL.
Maybe i missed it.
But I know for a FACT that you haven't scrutinized the gov't pronouncements or gone on to refute them point by point the way you've attempted to do us for 3+ years.

concerning this ONE LINE.
I've already told you. I literally broke it down in context line by line in post #127 & #133.


As far a rehashing goes it's only because you made a crazy statement comparing our valid criticism of covid lies from the gov't to a bunch of BS.
So i had to clear that falsehood off the table.

But i now repeat my questions to you.

Can you Focus your keen critical analysis on the gov't lies, instead of us?

Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their moves & lies has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you at 1st ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?

[revelarts]

Hey, guess what? The CDC updated their risk assessment to make up for a poorly written sentence that people are bound and determined to take out of context. Why poorly written? Because the sentence said "more capable." More capable than what???
Then why were you saying that we read it wrong FJ?
Why were you lying?
Why were you flailing blindly covering for the CDC?

[fj1200]

So .. no need to get new vaccine.

Do your thing.


seems you've never really hashed the fact that we've been basically correct.


Then why were you saying that we read it wrong FJ?

You didn't read it correct. You read it so that it supported your conclusion. You read it how you wanted and didn't ask the next obvious question. "Compared to...???"

[revelarts]

Do your thing.
You didn't read it correct. You read it so that it supported your conclusion. You read it how you wanted and didn't ask the next obvious question. "Compared to...???"

FJ, You know.. I rarely get personal...but man your full of crap here.


Here's something new.
Did i misread this for my personal conclusion"
"CIA offered hush money to analysts who found COVID-19 originated in Wuhan lab, whistleblower says
WASHINGTON (TND) — The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency offered hush money to analysts to cover up their findings that COVID-19 likely originated in a Wuhan, China laboratory, according to new whistleblower testimony.
A senior-level CIA officer testified to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic that six members of a CIA team came to the discovery of the disease's origins, according to letters dated Tuesday. The CIA then allegedly offered individuals bribes to the six members for them to change their findings to conclude that the virus had transferred to humans from animals...."
ABC NEWS (https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/cia-offered-hush-money-to-analysts-who-found-covid-19-originated-in-wuhan-lab-whistleblower-says-pandemic-testimony-william-burns-brad-wenstrup-mike-turner-ohio-biden-meta)

We pointed out early on that the virus looked man-made, I think Jimmy may have as well.

I ask you again.
Can you Focus your keen critical analysis on the gov't lies, instead of us?

Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their moves & lies has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you at 1st ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?

[AHZ]

FJ, You know.. I rarely get personal...but man your full of crap here.


Here's something new.
Did i misread this for my personal conclusion"
"CIA offered hush money to analysts who found COVID-19 originated in Wuhan lab, whistleblower says
WASHINGTON (TND) — The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency offered hush money to analysts to cover up their findings that COVID-19 likely originated in a Wuhan, China laboratory, according to new whistleblower testimony.
A senior-level CIA officer testified to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic that six members of a CIA team came to the discovery of the disease's origins, according to letters dated Tuesday. The CIA then allegedly offered individuals bribes to the six members for them to change their findings to conclude that the virus had transferred to humans from animals...."
ABC NEWS (https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/cia-offered-hush-money-to-analysts-who-found-covid-19-originated-in-wuhan-lab-whistleblower-says-pandemic-testimony-william-burns-brad-wenstrup-mike-turner-ohio-biden-meta)

We pointed out early on that the virus looked man-made, I think Jimmy may have as well.

I ask you again.
Can you Focus your keen critical analysis on the gov't lies, instead of us?

Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their moves & lies has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you at 1st ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?


fj doesn't see lying, smearing and mass murder as wrong. he's the next step in human evolution.

[fj1200]

FJ, You know.. I rarely get personal...but man your full of crap here.


Here's something new.

That's pretty much the problem with attempting discussion with you on anything covid related. You attempting to make something out of that was ridiculous; You need better source material. And then rather than saying "oops," you drag us on to the next thing and then make assumptions about what I think or what I'm going to defend or not.

In the last 25 threads you've started I've commented in 8 of them so apparently I'm making a career out of backing the government position. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

fj doesn't see lying, smearing and mass murder as wrong. he's the next step in human evolution.

You're a special kind of stupid. You can't argue your way out a wet paper bag and have to resort to that sort of filth to cover your inept abilities at communicating with other individuals.

[revelarts]

That's pretty much the problem with attempting discussion with you on anything covid related. You attempting to make something out of that was ridiculous; You need better source material. And then rather than saying "oops," you drag us on to the next thing and then make assumptions about what I think or what I'm going to defend or not.

In the last 25 threads you've started I've commented in 8 of them so apparently I'm making a career out of backing the government position. :rolleyes:
Fj, I'm one of the few on the board that admits mistakes immediately. i did just yesterday... to you in fact... about the national emergency over covid.
But here youre outright gaslighting, pretend that i've made one. while you acted like other misread something when the CDC now "claims" they miswrote it. AND YOU TRUST THEM WITHOUT QUESTION.
You won't admit your BS claims and simply continue to defend the official stories as if no lies have been told.

and you STILL haven't answered my questions.


Can you Focus your keen critical analysis on the gov't lies, instead of us?

Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their moves & lies has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you at 1st ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?

[AHZ]

FJ, You know.. I rarely get personal...but man your full of crap here.


Here's something new.
Did i misread this for my personal conclusion"
"CIA offered hush money to analysts who found COVID-19 originated in Wuhan lab, whistleblower says
WASHINGTON (TND) — The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency offered hush money to analysts to cover up their findings that COVID-19 likely originated in a Wuhan, China laboratory, according to new whistleblower testimony.
A senior-level CIA officer testified to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic that six members of a CIA team came to the discovery of the disease's origins, according to letters dated Tuesday. The CIA then allegedly offered individuals bribes to the six members for them to change their findings to conclude that the virus had transferred to humans from animals...."
ABC NEWS (https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/cia-offered-hush-money-to-analysts-who-found-covid-19-originated-in-wuhan-lab-whistleblower-says-pandemic-testimony-william-burns-brad-wenstrup-mike-turner-ohio-biden-meta)

We pointed out early on that the virus looked man-made, I think Jimmy may have as well.

I ask you again.
Can you Focus your keen critical analysis on the gov't lies, instead of us?

Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their moves & lies has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you at 1st ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?


You're a special kind of stupid. You can't argue your way out a wet paper bag and have to resort to that sort of filth to cover your inept abilities at communicating with other individuals.

I keep winning. you can only win with your corrupt moderator friends.

whipping yo butt, boy.

[fj1200]

Fj, I'm one of the few on the board that admits mistakes immediately. i did just yesterday... to you in fact... about the national emergency over covid.
But here youre outright gaslighting, pretend that i've made one. while you acted like other misread something when the CDC now "claims" they miswrote it. AND YOU TRUST THEM WITHOUT QUESTION.
You won't admit your BS claims and simply continue to defend the official stories as if no lies have been told.

and you STILL haven't answered my questions.


Can you Focus your keen critical analysis on the gov't lies, instead of us?

Our track record in calling the gov't out and predicting their moves & lies has been pretty good.
Even though it may seem abrasive or somehow outlandish to you at 1st ...until it happens or is exposed as correct.

How many things are we supposed to get right before we aren't considered extreme?
How many things is the gov't allowed to get wrong, mistake or lie about before you DO NOT give them the Benefit of the Doubt?

You did, that's right. I appreciate that. Here I think you read the statement to support your conclusion and you want to think that they're hiding something. IMHO nothing in what they put out supports your conclusion. You keep making assumptions about what I'm doing. I'll focus my "keen critical analysis" where I choose and if that involves calling out statements that go too far then I'll do that. On either side. If you have an issue then you're more than able to start a thread and if you can't glean from my thousands of posts what you think I think about a particular issue I don't know if I can help you. I'm not one to turn every thread into a hate covid, hate the government hate fest and rehash every single point every time a thread is about covid. That's your thing, not mine.

[fj1200]

I keep winning. you can only win with your corrupt moderator friends.

whipping yo butt, boy.

:rolleyes: You win nothing, you reap what you sow. I don't get involved in moderator discussions; rules you know.

[revelarts]

You did, that's right. I appreciate that. Here I think you read the statement to support your conclusion and you want to think that they're hiding something. here youre wrong






IMHO nothing in what they put out supports your conclusion. You keep making assumptions about what I'm doing. I'll focus my "keen critical analysis" where I choose and if that involves calling out statements that go too far then I'll do that. On either side. .....


Whaa
https://media0.giphy.com/media/yoJC2xBNWULqliMcwg/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47dso3vp22j7cpv5h0u024gohu6bto 1c7d8508x7qa&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
Can you link me to some of that either side stuff please.

[fj1200]

Can you link me to some of that either side stuff please.

Here's the thing. Every time you post something about covid and someone doesn't agree with it you post everything you hate about covid and assume that person disagrees with you on all of those things too. I don't do that.

But maybe you're right. Here's a link with everything I've ever posted here on every subject.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/index.php

It's even searchable here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/search.php?search_type=1

Try finding out what I think about Wuhan. Go ahead, it's all right there.

[AHZ]

Here's the thing. Every time you post something about covid and someone doesn't agree with it you post everything you hate about covid and assume that person disagrees with you on all of those things too. I don't do that.

But maybe you're right. Here's a link with everything I've ever posted here on every subject.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/index.php

It's even searchable here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/search.php?search_type=1

Try finding out what I think about Wuhan. Go ahead, it's all right there.

it's just that one side is clearly more in the wrong than the other.

you insisting on "bothsides" is effectively putting your finger on the scale and then proclaiming two things equal.

it's just fundamentally fraudulent to maintain this "bothesides" bias in light of recent evidence.

[revelarts]

the gov't (at best) assumed it was safe for pregnant woman without much testing.
the gov't lied about the Mrna staying in the injection site.
the gov't lied about Mrna not getting into breast milk. Lancet (https://t.co/novB24UUWL)2023

We should question everything they say on this topic.


FJ, if it's not too personal a question, are you planning on getting the new vaccine the CDC recommends?

[revelarts]

Do your thing.

You didn't read it correct. You read it so that it supported your conclusion. You read it how you wanted and didn't ask the next obvious question. "Compared to...???"

Compared to...


...The risk of COVID-19 varied by the phase of the epidemic in which the study participant's last prior COVID-19 episode occurred.
In decreasing order of risk were those never previously infected, those last infected during the pre-Omicron phase, and those last infected during the Omicron phase (Figure 1). The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19 (Figure 2).

....https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F634N1xWIAEWYDu?format=jpg&name=medium

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292?login=false#407193740

I'm Not sure why a scientific bodies would Publish info that supports MADE UP Rando conclusions...
the same conclusions someone would come to after reading in the CDC web pages.
weird.

OK
SO as the CDC initially wrote:
"BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19
or who have received COVID-19 vaccines."

as I said before the logical conclusion from that sentence is that:
those people who have not had Covid or the Vax are PROBABLY LESS Capable of infection from the BS.2.86 variant.
the study says that,
And it goes farther and shows that those would had less doses were Less likely to be infected.
MAYBE the CDC had already read the study? And the others like them that had been published earlier?


Seems there's Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension and nothing wrong with the CDCs INITIAL statement.
It reflected "the science".
But like Faucii with mask, at 1st he said they were useless, then he did a 180 and said they worked.

EVERYTHING the gov't says on this issue should be Questioned.

The least everyone should do is as Reagan said, "TRUST, but verify."

[AHZ]

Compared to...



I'm Not sure why a scientific bodies would Publish info that supports MADE UP Rando conclusions...
the same conclusions someone would come to after reading in the CDC web pages.
weird.

OK
SO as the CDC initially wrote:
"BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19
or who have received COVID-19 vaccines."

as I said before the logical conclusion from that sentence is that:
those people who have not had Covid or the Vax are PROBABLY LESS Capable of infection from the BS.2.86 variant.
the study says that,
And it goes farther and shows that those would had less doses were Less likely to be infected.
MAYBE the CDC had already read the study? And the others like them that had been published earlier?


Seems there's Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension and nothing wrong with the CDCs INITIAL statement.
It reflected "the science".
But like Faucii with mask, at 1st he said they were useless, then he did a 180 and said they worked.

EVERYTHING the gov't says on this issue should be Questioned.

The least everyone should do is as Reagan said, "TRUST, but verify."

fj is always arguing in bad faith.

he's a liar, though intelligent. that makes him a sophist. sophist = intelligence minus truth and morality

[fj1200]

it's just that one side is clearly more in the wrong than the other.

you insisting on "bothsides" is effectively putting your finger on the scale and then proclaiming two things equal.

it's just fundamentally fraudulent to maintain this "bothesides" bias in light of recent evidence.

My previous point was that there is fact on one end and fact on the other end making you 100% wrong. :)


FJ, if it's not too personal a question, are you planning on getting the new vaccine the CDC recommends?

No, it's served its purpose.


fj is always arguing in bad faith.

he's a liar, though intelligent. that makes him a sophist. sophist = intelligence minus truth and morality

You still don't understand words.

[fj1200]

Compared to...

I'm Not sure why a scientific bodies would Publish info that supports MADE UP Rando conclusions...
the same conclusions someone would come to after reading in the CDC web pages.
weird.

OK
SO as the CDC initially wrote:
"BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19
or who have received COVID-19 vaccines."


You're reading to much into a poorly written sentence with conclusions that don't match the context of the full statement. Try reading the below on it's own without the reference to the vaccine. Does it still match your conclusion?


BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19...

[AHZ]

You're reading to much into a poorly written sentence with conclusions that don't match the context of the full statement. Try reading the below on it's own without the reference to the vaccine. Does it still match your conclusion?


it said covid 19 and covid 19 vaccines.

you left that part out.

you're still just being a disingenuous fucktard.

[fj1200]

it said covid 19 and covid 19 vaccines.

you left that part out.

you're still just being a disingenuous fucktard.

Now, now, talk like that... You two are hanging an awful lot on two letters. Given that it said "or" then the statement should hold the same for either part to be used to cover the whole.

But I'm not a teacher so I'm guessing one will validate whether my logic holds there or not.

[revelarts]

You're reading to much into a poorly written sentence with conclusions that don't match the context of the full statement. Try reading the below on it's own without the reference to the vaccine. Does it still match your conclusion?

Try it on somewhere else FJ.

the study shows that people who have have had covid or the vaccines are MORE likely to be infected than those who have not.

end of story on this aspect of the vaccine.
It & previous infection makes people MORE susceptible to new strains.
Interesting fact.

Thanks God, the new strains are weaker.

[fj1200]

Try it on somewhere else FJ.

the study shows that people who have have had covid or the vaccines are MORE likely to be infected than those who have not.

end of story on this aspect of the vaccine.
It & previous infection makes people MORE susceptible to new strains.
Interesting fact.

Thanks God, the new strains are weaker.

It wasn't a study. Nothing of what you claimed can be true if it was not a study. Show me I'm wrong and I will concede the point.

[revelarts]

It wasn't a study. Nothing of what you claimed can be true if it was not a study. Show me I'm wrong and I will concede the point.
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/articl...alse#407193740 (https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292?login=false#407193740)

[fj1200]

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/articl...alse#407193740 (https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292?login=false#407193740)

The post in question is from the threat assessment that contained the statement about the new variant.

[revelarts]

The post in question is from the threat assessment that contained the statement about the new variant.
the SUBJECT of the topic is the accuracy of the statement.
"the study shows that people who have have had covid or the vaccines are MORE likely to be infected than those who have not."

that is a simply fact, and the CDC's "poorly worded" statement reflected the fact to most readers without a problem.

[fj1200]

the SUBJECT of the topic is the accuracy of the statement.
"the study shows that people who have have had covid or the vaccines are MORE likely to be infected than those who have not."

that is a simply fact, and the CDC's "poorly worded" statement reflected the fact to most readers without a problem.

It wasn't a study. You are incorrect in your assessment.

https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/covid-19-variant.html

[AHZ]

Now, now, talk like that... You two are hanging an awful lot on two letters. Given that it said "or" then the statement should hold the same for either part to be used to cover the whole.

But I'm not a teacher so I'm guessing one will validate whether my logic holds there or not.


it means AND in this context.

[SassyLady]

It wasn't a study. You are incorrect in your assessment.

https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/covid-19-variant.html
Regardless of whether there is a study or if it's just a reference to a study ... I have question for you fj ...

Do you believe those who have had the vaccine are more susceptible to the new variants than those that have not had the vaccine?

If you don't believe it then where are you getting your info to prove that those who are vaccinated are not susceptible?

[Kathianne]

Regardless of whether there is a study or if it's just a reference to a study ... I have question for you fj ...

Do you believe those who have had the vaccine are more susceptible to the new variants than those that have not had the vaccine?

If you don't believe it then where are you getting your info to prove that those who are vaccinated are not susceptible?

I'm not fj, obviously. I think from what I've been reading here, not all that closely truthfully, but it seems the data is trending towards those that have had covid or the vaccine are more likely to get it than someone with no previous infection or vaccine. Is that right?

I don't see why anyone here, fj or yourself or rev or anyone would have to prove anything about susceptibility to covid via any means. To the best of my knowledge, none of us are science researchers or were prior to retirement. Now do I think that both yourself and Rev are armed with much more knowledge on covid and alternative treatments than most laypersons. I do respect that, yet I still would go to my doctor if I had a serious question.

At this point in time, it does seem to me that some of this could be for all intents and purposes it's moot. Covid virus and variants are possibly at the potency or less than serious cold or mild flu. No, I wouldn't get a vaccine booster. Do I believe that the vaccine could cause or have caused adverse effects, I do believe that's undeniable at this point.

[SassyLady]

I'm not fj, obviously. I think from what I've been reading here, not all that closely truthfully, but it seems the data is trending towards those that have had covid or the vaccine are more likely to get it than someone with no previous infection or vaccine. Is that right?

I don't see why anyone here, fj or yourself or rev or anyone would have to prove anything about susceptibility to covid via any means. To the best of my knowledge, none of us are science researchers or were prior to retirement. Now do I think that both yourself and Rev are armed with much more knowledge on covid and alternative treatments than most laypersons. I do respect that, yet I still would go to my doctor if I had a serious question.

At this point in time, it does seem to me that some of this could be for all intents and purposes it's moot. Covid virus and variants are possibly at the potency or less than serious cold or mild flu. No, I wouldn't get a vaccine booster. Do I believe that the vaccine could cause or have caused adverse effects, I do believe that's undeniable at this point.

I'm just curious as to whether fj argues a point because he detects an error in the original premise/statement or if he truly believes it doesn't exist because he has seen no proof that satisfies him. I just wanted to see what he personally believes and what he bases that belief on. Apparently we use different sources than he does. Seems he gets hung up on semantics.

Could care less if he wants to be vaxxed or not.

[fj1200]

it means AND in this context.

That must be how you justify completely misreading a sentence.


Regardless of whether there is a study or if it's just a reference to a study ... I have question for you fj ...

Do you believe those who have had the vaccine are more susceptible to the new variants than those that have not had the vaccine?

If you don't believe it then where are you getting your info to prove that those who are vaccinated are not susceptible?

It's not a study, it's not a reference to a study. It's a one-page blurb about something that happened from a week prior. Do you understand that first?

Nevertheless I have no idea but my guess is that having the vaccine does not make one more likely to get covid. But anyway that's not what the thing said.


I'm just curious as to whether fj argues a point because he detects an error in the original premise/statement or if he truly believes it doesn't exist because he has seen no proof that satisfies him. I just wanted to see what he personally believes and what he bases that belief on. Apparently we use different sources than he does. Seems he gets hung up on semantics.

Could care less if he wants to be vaxxed or not.

You could ask me or just assume incorrectly like some around here. I tend to argue a point when someone makes unsupported conclusions.

[revelarts]

Lost in the shuffle.

and there's more...



Here's something new.
"CIA offered hush money to analysts who found COVID-19 originated in Wuhan lab, whistleblower says
WASHINGTON (TND) — The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency offered hush money to analysts to cover up their findings that COVID-19 likely originated in a Wuhan, China laboratory, according to new whistleblower testimony.
A senior-level CIA officer testified to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic that six members of a CIA team came to the discovery of the disease's origins, according to letters dated Tuesday. The CIA then allegedly offered individuals bribes to the six members for them to change their findings to conclude that the virus had transferred to humans from animals...."
ABC NEWS (https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/cia-offered-hush-money-to-analysts-who-found-covid-19-originated-in-wuhan-lab-whistleblower-says-pandemic-testimony-william-burns-brad-wenstrup-mike-turner-ohio-biden-meta)

......

Looks like Faucii was invited to the CIA offices.. but not logged in as such... to "HELP" with the CIA's "independent" review.:rolleyes:

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.26-SSCP-Letter-to-HHS-OIG-Re.-AF-Movements.pdf



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6_J9OQXUAArNvA?format=jpg&name=medium

[Kathianne]

Lost in the shuffle.

and there's more...



Looks like Faucii was invited to the CIA offices.. but not logged in as such... to "HELP" with the CIA's "independent" review.:rolleyes:

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.26-SSCP-Letter-to-HHS-OIG-Re.-AF-Movements.pdf



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6_J9OQXUAArNvA?format=jpg&name=medium

Considering what we've seen regarding Hillary and Trump, this doesn't surprise me as it should. I'd hope they'd get to the bottom of all this, but I doubt that will happen.

[Kathianne]

Back to OP:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/10/04/fifth-circuit-to-dhs-shut-down-big-brother-n582325

[SassyLady]

Back to OP:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/10/04/fifth-circuit-to-dhs-shut-down-big-brother-n582325


The CISA, described as the “nerve center” of federal government censorship, is responsible for censoring the American public, facilitating collusion between the feds and social media companies, and interfering in our elections. Now, CISA, along with the Surgeon General, White House, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), cannot communicate with social media companies for the purpose of policing speech, according to Federalist Contributor and Editor at Large of Real Clear Investigations Benjamin Weingarten. The court’s original opinion, which addressed the White House, FBI, CDC, and Surgeon General, did not include CISA.

The court stated that CISA “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech,” according to an excerpt providedby Weingarten.


Blocking most of the deep state cabal. They will try to get around it by using Fact Checkers backed by NGOs.