Goddess

The people who live Down Under mostly live clustered near the coasts, where there is access to water. The Eastern Coast includes the most well-known cities like Melbourne and Sydney. Darwin sticks up on the North Coast, and is an important naval center. There’s virtually nothing civilized at all in the middle of Australia except a tiny town called Alice Springs, which sprouted up at the only spot where water can be found. But Perth, a big city of two million people, along with a few nearby smaller towns making up about four million total souls, lies isolated on Australia’s Western Coast, protected by a massive, impenetrable desert. Western Australia might as well be on an island. There are very few ways to get there, so when that province locked down for covid, they had possibly the best access control in the world. And as the article explained, Western Australia locked down early, before covid got there, and even reached 90% vaccine rates before it ever experienced the pandemic. How the ‘hermit kingdom’ became the world’s control group for the largest vaccination trial ever - Umbrella News The story’s news is that the province just released its vaccine surveillance report for 2021 — when there was ZERO covid there — and guess what? The province experienced an ‘exponential increase’ in adverse events, with hospitals struggling to keep up with the carnage. Here is the official chart of REPORTED adverse events that were turned into Western Australia’s Vaccine Safety Surveillance (WAVSS) system, which is their version of VAERS: According to Umbrella, despite the near-total absence of covid cases, in the second half of 2021, Western Australia media regularly reported that WA hospitals were overwhelmed, right as adverse events peaked. It was a pandemic of vaccination. The highest month for adverse event reports was October — the very same month workplace mandates issued, vaccine eligibility expanded to anyone 18 and over, and walk-in vaccinations came online. Only 16 cases of covid were reported in October. On October 31st, WA Premier Mark McGowan told reporters that hospitals were “under enormous pressure,” but said it was baffling to understand why that was. Just baffling. Adverse events for covid vaccines were reported in Western Australia at almost 24 times the rate of adverse events for all other vaccines — combined.

I don't even post all the studies and datasets that are out there. But the ones I do post, are good. And they're all saying the same thing right now. You guys come here, ignore the studies and data, post a CBC headline and a personal insult in rebuttal and strut around like you proved something. How am I supposed to take any of you seriously? And you think I'M the id-iot? 🙄

Support your view. That's all you have to do. It's actually one of the rules of this forum. I post 47 studies and datasets that say a certain thing. Your view is the studies and datasets are wrong. Fine. Have a different view. I don't care. But if you want to come here and state your view, then SUPPORT your view. And pick something that supports your view that ISN'T an MSM headline.

Yes, I use data. The data doesn't "fit a narrative." The data says what it says. You can ignore it, or you can continue to quote CBC headlines. Entirely up to you, dude.

But I HAVE been right about everything. And you've been wrong about everything. You do understand that you all participated in a medical experiment for which there were no long-term studies or data and that now the studies and data are coming in, right? If you don't want to know what the results were of the experiment you participated in, then don't come here. But don't come here and slag on me for posting the resultant studies and data. For someone who participated in a medical experiment and has zero interest in how it's going, you sure show up here a lot.

Or: They didn't refuse. They wanted the medicine but the government banned it and lied to the public about it being only for animals.

National Citizen's Inquiry, Toronto, Day 1 - Full testimony. I'll also post some snippets of Day 1 that the NCI posted.

Mark Oshinkie - Dispatches From a Scamdemic There’s nothing intrinsically virtuous, epistemologically sound or sensible about taking the position midway between two poles. The soundness of the center depends on where the poles are set. One, or both, of the poles can be completely undeserving of serious consideration. If I say it’s good to drink one beer a day and my friend says you should suck down 12, that doesn’t mean it’s right to consume six. Unfortunately, during Coronamania, most people hewed to some perceived center and sought comfort in the bosom of the crowd. Despite the obvious extremism and illogic of locking down/masking/testing/injecting everyone to “crush” a respiratory virus with a clearly limited risk profile, most people went along with society-wide “mitigation” because their peers, the media and ostensible experts endorsed these measures and because these measures seemed incremental and temporary. By reciting—and then quickly disregarding—the obvious problems caused by the various forms of mitigation, those who went along convinced themselves that they’d adequately considered these problems and could righteously adopt the ostensibly centrist media and government pro-lockdown/mask/test/vaxx, etc. stance. To them, a cursory mention of mitigation’s downsides made their view balanced and “nuanced.” Though mostly, they wanted others to like them. Week after week, people re-drew their line in the sand regarding which government restrictions or mandates were tolerable. Their degenerative—and factually groundless—rationalization process went something like this: “True, we’ve never confined people to their homes over a virus and doing so seems destructive and dystopian. But it’s only two weeks; to flatten the curve, and all.” “It’s sad that people can’t hold the hands of loved ones dying in hospitals. But if it saves just one life, then I guess some people should die alone.” “I doubt that masks work and I don’t like wearing one. But doing so couldn’t hurt. And I don’t want to cause a scene.” “People should be able to gauge their own risk and gather with family or friends, attend funerals or worship. But it’s safer if we all just use Zoom instead.” “Yes, printing 6 (or 8 or 10) trillion dollars might cause impoverishing inflation and a deep recession. But we’ve got to help those who lost their jobs due to lockdowns.” “Sure, it seems silly to wear masks in restaurants until food arrives and then take them off for an hour. But every little bit helps.” “Kids should be in school because they’re not at risk. But maybe they should close the schools for three months, because some kids might infect some teachers.” “I know I’m not at risk and I don’t know what’s in these shots. But I’m willing to take them because I want to ‘stop the spread.’ “It’s obvious that on-line school doesn’t work and that kids desperately need social time. But I guess it’s OK if they close the schools for another year, just to be safe. And kids are resilient.” “I think it’s morally wrong and unconstitutional to make people take shots by threatening to fire them. But if it means we can ‘get back to normal,’ it’s worth it.” And so on. It was all so equivocal and senseless. But most people went along, largely because they feared others’ disapproval. And they thought that the majority was right, because, well, it was the majority. The Japanese say that “The nail that sticks up will be hammered down.” The unwillingness to question the many absurd, destructive mitigation measures reflected a fear of being ostracized or labeled “an extremist.” Spineless people were far too willing to placate the histrionic extremists who supported locking down a country, closing schools and testing, masking and vaxxing everyone. Many governments refuse to bargain with terrorists. But Americans let their media and government terrorize them. And once Mitigation Mania began, people reacted as if they were negotiating with their captor/government. They told themselves that, “If I only make the next concession, they’ll make this whole nightmare end.” They didn’t understand that their Dear Leaders weren’t playing that game and weren’t bound by either truth or good faith. For decades, many have insisted that Americans were morally obligated to vote because young men shed their blood fighting for our rights. But from mid-March, 2020 to the present, when governments took away many basic rights, e.g.: to assemble, to travel, to worship, to express themselves in public forums without censorship, and to reject unwanted medical treatments—plus the government’s dilution of voting rights by authorizing fraud-facilitating vote-by-mail—people forgot about all those 20 year-olds who came home in boxes. By paying lip service to the harm caused by the ludicrous and destructive mitigation measures, but nonetheless going along with these measures, people could see themselves, and have others see them, as thoughtful centrists. Heaven forbid that they take, and hold, an independent, reasoned stance that might bother some people. By degrees, and in order to avoid social disapproval, most people gave away their, and other peoples,’ rights. Direct observation and studies have shown that this forfeiture was all pain and no gain. Predictably, none of the widely-supported mitigation measures yielded public health benefits. All caused deep, lasting harm.

COVID-19-Associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review - PubMed (nih.gov) One of the most common objections we hear in response to obvious vaccine injury is that “covid causes myocarditis too.” Doctors often trot this lame canard out to justify taking the vaccines even though myocarditis is now officially recognized as a side-effect of the shots. “But you can get myocarditis from the virus too, so the risk evens out,” they babble semi-coherently. It's an irrational argument anyway, because serious covid is a risk you can or may avoid, but taking the shots ON PURPOSE is a risk you definitely encounter. But the researchers of this study conducted a systematic review of 50 autopsy studies and dissected 548 hearts of patients who died of or with covid. They frequently found tissue edema and necrosis, and roughly two thirds of autopsied hearts had detectable covid virus in the cardiac tissue. But NONE of the hearts had extensive myocarditis as the cause of death. Zero. This meta-review should end the debate over whether covid can cause fatal myocarditis. Despite finding the virus in heart tissue, the researchers did NOT find it was causing any significant inflammation. The only new proven cause of heart damage is covid vaccination.

W.H.O. Do You Trust? | Opinion (newsweek.com)

This is part of in interview with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, author of "The New Abnormal". He is a professor of medical ethics who has been vocal from the beginning about the violations of ethics that have taken place. And he was censored for speaking up. In his book, he expands more on this topic of medical ethics, but this 7 min excerpt from the interview basically lays out what you just said.

I've been thinking about this comment. And topic. The idea of walkable, transit-friendly, human scale communities is, of course, a pleasant vision. What makes me doubt the underlying motive of them is that they are not installing new parks, recreational facilities, better transport or up-to-date amenities for this pleasant vision. So far the infrastructure for 15 min. cities consists of barriers, surveillance cameras and restrictive technologies.