Goddess

And yet here you are again. With nothing to offer but personal insults. Again.

I'm single-handedly derailing the internet? With peer-reviewed medical studies. WOW. You are fuquin' delusional. Please. I'm asking you again to STOP DERIALING THIS THREAD. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CLICK ON OR READ THREADS WITH TOPICS THAT YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN.

This point has been lost in all this - it is a point that involves medical ethics. The safety and efficacy standards for medical interventions for HEALTHY people, must be much higher than for unhealthy people. We don't recommend chemo to prevent cancer because the chemo itself is not good for the body. A person who is battling a terminal disease or illness will naturally be happy to assume more risk from an intervention because the cost/benefit analysis FOR THEM is quite different. The medical ethic that has been lost during covid is not doing the cost/benefit analysis for anyone. Forcing a medical intervention on HEALTHY people where the benefit is low or unknown and the risks are unknown, is completely different and has always been properly viewed as medical malfeasance.

There are many studies that answer this. On the Trickle thread, someone said that the virus causes more myo than the vaccine and I posted at least 5-6 studies that show otherwise. I doubt they changed their mind at all, so kudos to you for actually following the science. ? The only thing I will caution you about, if you're interested in the studies and data - is to first check the conflicts of interest and work history of the authors. The only study that the person on my thread posted, that said myo was higher from the virus, was funded by Pfizer, authored by people funded by Pfizer. I also have information on there about how to read medical studies and what to watch for. Up til now, it's really only small, independent doctors and scientists conducting unbiased studies. Now those smaller studies are being combined into metastudies, so the data is becoming much more clear and undeniable. A lot of the best, most well-put-together, unbiased, non-Pharma funded studies have been done in countries with no horse in the race - the Nordic countries, Thailand and India for example. Japan, as well. Have fun. ? I hope you find more studies and want to discuss them. I hope I see you on the Trickle thread.

I have a whole thread of scientific data and studies that lots of people ignore. I covered your "epiphany" more than a year ago.

Well, you show up on threads you have no interest in, only because I started them or posted on them and then you follow me around from thread to thread, with nothing to add to any of the topics except to insult me on a personal level. So, yes. I think it's pretty obvious that you hang on every word I say. ?

So you didn't read the Health Canada bulletin. Why am I not surprised? Then you can continue to ignore the information and to lie about there being NO vaccine deaths in Canada. I've actually been expecting your accusation. I've lived a lot of places and also have a large online friend pool, since I play an online game with the same group of about 20 people for the last 15 years. I am active in the vaccine injured community as well, due to my sister's injury and subsequent lifetime disability. I also highly doubt that anyone would confide in you if they were vaccine injured or suspected a freind or relative was dead from the injections. I also know you openly reject any science or data that shows the injections as anything less than 100% safe and 95% effective. I'm asking you AGAIN - please stop derailing my thread.

I showed you the official count of deaths from vaccine in Ontario, directly from the government. That's just one province. So why do you keep repeating this lie?

For perspective, Health Canada Flu Watch reported 10 influenza deaths in the 0-11 age group in 2018. That's pre-covid.

Him still talking about how "effective" the injections are. ? He's jabbed multiple times and still afraid of gettting covid. Effective? Noooooooo

Oh I see. That's why you follow me around the board insulting me on everything I say. Somebody has to do it eh

Letter from the Florida Surgeon General requesting more transparency from the CDC: document (floridahealth.gov) And the State of Florida also issued a Health Alert on cvoid-19 vaccine safety: Health Alert on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety | Florida Department of Health (floridahealth.gov)

If anyone is interested in reading - these are the two publicly available Pfizer-ATI-MCDC-DOD-FDA-HHS manufacturing contracts that have been disclosed to the public. Redacted, of course. 2020.07.20-base-agreement-pfizer-contract-56-p-exh-a-jackson.pdf (wordpress.com) 2020.07.21-dod-ati-pfizer-technical-direction-letter-ota-w15qkn-16-9-1002-35-p.pdf (wordpress.com) There is also a "Project Agreement" mentioned in these documents that is currently being FOIA'ed.

Also, the new chick at work who just started in November - 22 y.o. - who is triple vaxxed, was off all last week with her SECOND bout of covid. She said it was way worse than the FIRST time she had it, which was after her 2nd vax. She's back this week, but definitely very lethargic. And another one at work had to take yesterday off because the wife has had her period for months and months straight, ever since her booster shot and had to go to the hospital for a blood transfusion.

You know you don't have to click on threads you don't want to read, right?

Thread by @MarkChangizi on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

While the Poor Get Sick, Bill Gates Just Gets Richer (thenation.com) ^^^ Is this really "philanthropy"? ^^^ These investments, amounting to more than $250 million, show that the world’s most visible charity, and one of the world’s most influential voices in the pandemic response, is in a position to potentially reap considerable financial gains from the Covid-19 pandemic. Revelations of the Gates Foundation’s financial stake in Covid-19, which Bill Gates does not appear to have publicly disclosed in dozens of recent media appearances, speak to broader criticisms about the lack of transparency in the foundation’s increasingly central role in the pandemic. “Who are they accountable to? They don’t even have a governance structure that’s clear,” notes Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser to Doctors Without Borders. “Increasingly, I see less information coming from the Gates Foundation. They don’t answer most of our questions. They don’t make their technical staff available for discussions with us when we’re trying to learn more about their technical strategy [on Covid] and how they’re prioritizing certain things.”

"Our messaging doesn't change with time. That's why we're still recommending Tylenol for pregnant women, Oxy for back pain and leeches for fatigue." ?

Another Dr. makes a U-Turn on the jabbers: It was the menstrual irregularities and the many mechanisms for WHY it is happening, that did it for him.

2023_Simandan-Rinner-Capurri-accepted-for-publication-The-Academic-Left-human-geography-and-the-rise-of-authoritarianism-during-the-COVID-19-pandemic.pdf (brocku.ca) Abstract: In this paper, we critically analyze the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting not only the breadth of knowledge geographers have already contributed to this assessment, but also the surprisingly limited critique within geography, social sciences and the broadly defined “Academic Left” of the authoritarian dimension of the public health policies of 2020 onwards. We conclude with a number of research questions for the aftermath of the pandemic, with the hope that they will help spur the growth of a new wave of anti-authoritarian Leftist geographical thinking that reaffirms the centrality of human rights and civil liberties to making the world a better place. Conclusions and further research We end this paper by highlighting four themes at the core of a possible agenda for further research and scholarship in human geography and beyond. First of all, we decried the lack of systematic cost-benefit analysis in the governance of the pandemic, but we are just as much concerned with the difficult to quantify “hidden costs” of non-pharmaceutical interventions. What is the longer-term impact on our collective psyche of reducing one another to potential vectors of disease and repeatedly engaging in the practice of social distancing (cf. Simandan, 2016; Furedi, 2020)? Similarly, mask mandates were pushed on the unwilling with the exhortation that “it is the least that we can do”, that they are cost-effective, and that they constitute a mere “minor inconvenience” (cf. Kisielinski et al., 2021). Leaving aside questions about mask effectiveness discussed above as well as the rampant ableism of mask mandates (Capurri, 2022; Martin et al., 2020; Saint and Moscovitch, 2021), we cannot help but wonder about their hard to measure psychological and political costs (Kowalik, 2021; Shapiro and Bouder, 2021; Strongman, 2021). As Crawford (2021: 1) has put it, “by the nakedness of our faces we encounter one another as individuals, and in doing so we experience 23 fleeting moments of grace and trust. To hide our faces behind masks is to withdraw this invitation. This has to be politically significant”. Furthermore, an estimated 1.5 billion disposable masks found their way into the oceans in 2020 alone (Phelps Bondaroff and Cooke, 2021), adding to the harmful impact of plastic pollution on the earth’s marine ecosystems (Amuah, 2022). Appraising the environmental along with social and economic costs (and possible benefits) of non-pharmaceutical interventions presents an enormous research challenge (see also Turcotte-Tremblay et al., 2021). Second, critical phenomenologists, sociologists, psychologists, philosophers, and geographers need to carry out research documenting the relationship between values, moral(izing) rhetoric, and the emergence of dangerous forms of technologically-enhanced tribalism and dehumanization during the pandemic (see also O’Connor et al., 2021; Ye, 2021). Governments often outsourced the policing of the noncompliant to the “responsible” citizens, by encouraging reporting and/or shaming of the noncompliant in the name of the greater good. This irresponsible license to openly bully one’s fellow humans while feeling good about it (me = “grandma saver” vs. you = “grandma killer” or “variant incubator”) seemed to have been underpinned by two interlocked revaluations: (1) the rebranding of the “vice” formerly known as fear or cowardice into the “virtue” of responsibility, civic-mindedness, solidarity, and being “pro-science”; and (2) the rebranding of the virtue of standing up for freedom and human rights into the vice of toxic masculinity, being anti-social, “anti-science”, psychopath, selfish, criminal, or a right-wing extremist. This dynamic produced pernicious social geographies along new axes (e.g. pro maskers/anti-maskers; pro-vaxxers/anti-vaxxers). The compliant were deplored by the noncompliant as obedient “sheep”, whereas the noncompliant often were referred to by the compliant as “plague rats”. Who benefited from sowing those social divisions? Prior research has 24 repeatedly indicated that dehumanization is an early warning indicator of worse things to come (“re-education”, segregation, extermination; cf. Vaes et al., 2021). Why did our elites selectively exercise “an abundance of caution” to prevent COVID-19 deaths, but not to arrest our descent down the slippery slope of dehumanization and toxic social divisions? Third, we noted the lack of proportionality in the (mis)management of the pandemic, but we acknowledge that getting the balance right was especially difficult in the early months when the magnitude of the actual risk was not yet fully established. This prompts us to ask: to what extent, and for how long, is it acceptable to invoke uncertainty as justification for authoritarian rule? Furthermore, given that uncertainty presents itself as a range of possible outcomes, what is the intellectual justification for focusing on the worst-case scenario, independent of its actual likelihood (cf. Furedi, 2008, 2009; Malviya, 2021)? In psychotherapy, patients who assume that the worst-case scenario will happen are said to commit the cognitive distortion known as catastrophizing (Waltman and Palermo, 2019). During the pandemic, however, people who refused to dwell on the worst-case scenario were often dismissed as “denialists” (Ferguson, 2021). What is the relationship between catastrophizing and the intellectual footprint of the precautionary principle (Stefánsson, 2019)? Does the precautionary principle run the risk of becoming the favourite excuse of tyrants promising to do whatever it takes to keep us safe from real and imagined dangers (e.g., Greenhalgh et al., 2020)? The often-heard phrase “out of an abundance of caution” was unintendedly ironic because the narrow-mindedness of minimizing only one type of risk (COVID-19 deaths and “long COVID”) regardless of the many other resulting risks (economic, political, psychosocial, medical, etc.) strikes us as reckless if not outright criminal (Baral et al., 2020). Science and Technology Studies scholars (Jasanoff, 2020) and philosophers (Rescher, 2018) have repeatedly noted that the relationship between knowledge 25 and uncertainty is often counterintuitive, such that more knowledge often generates more uncertainty, not less. Each new fact we learned about COVID-19 triggered an aura of related questions, that prompted new research, which brought answers that led to yet more questions. This expanding intricate web of knowledge-and-uncertainty means that authoritarians, if left unchecked, can always invoke uncertainty to justify emergencies and restrictions. Finally, we also need a sustained collaborative research effort that investigates why the Academic Left lost sight of established anti-authoritarian thinking during the pandemic and to what extent geographical differences shaped the varied forms and degrees of pandemic-related authoritarianism. What has happened in China is very different from what has happened in Sweden, and what has happened in New York is very different from what has happened in Florida, in spite of the homogenizing influence of institutions such as the World Health Organization or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same scientific evidence has been read very differently by various national health organizations, and that wide variance of interpretation itself is a clue to the propagandistic nature of attempts to depict a monolithic image of “what the science says”. We expect that geographical difference also plays a role in the positioning of the Academic Left vis-à-vis the pandemic responses in different countries, as the very meaning of being politically to the Left might differ across linguistic and administrative settings. Our hope is that, as we collectively engage in the soul-searching and frank discussions needed to answer these research questions, we will witness the growth of a new wave of anti authoritarian Leftist geographical thinking that reaffirms the centrality of human rights and civil liberties to making the world a better place.

The Pfizer fraud is starting to come out. This is good. It means the contracts each country had with Pfizer can be declared null and void. Startling Evidence Suggests BioNTech and Pfizer Falsified Key Data: Part 1 (trialsitenews.com) This "significant drop in RNA integrity" is likely what is causing the uptick in prion diseases, like Jakob-Creutzfeldt syndrome (Basically Mad Cow, nearly 100% fatal and kills very quickly). Prion diseases, as I explained here, are when the RNA "folds" improperly. Since each dose is not regulated for RNA integrity, it also explains why some people seem okay after the injections and others are not. The article explains why the Western blots submitted to authorities were likely fabricated.

Looks like some in the mainstream media are starting to wake up. I posted the Cochran study they are referring to here: GREEN: Trudeau government still peddling COVID misinformation (msn.com) Lots of points scored for the "conspiracy theorists" and "misinformation spreaders" here.

My son called me last night, very upset. He just got back from a trip to Edmonton to visit friends there. One of the friends he visited was a young man - 33 y.o. - who used to play in the band with my son but moved to Edmonton to join another band, just before covid. I'll call him "Chris" here. Within the last year, Chris started a Go Fund Me because he had gotten covid and was unable to work, either with the band or at his regular job. My son contributed to the Go Fund Me. When my son visited Chris this week, it was the first he had seen him since just before covid started. My son was very upset, he said Chris "looked like death" and was down to about 100 lbs. Chris admitted to my son that he never had covid. He is vaccine injured. But if he had put THAT on the Go Fund Me, it would have been taken down and no one would have contributed. Chris knows he's going to die soon and that it is because of the inoculations. My son knows this was likely the last time he will ever see Chris.