Jump to content

First a trickle....Now a flood

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Did you complain when you were force-fed covid fear by the media for the last 2 and half years? Or you just don't like the science part now that the results are coming out?

Feel free to not click on any thread you're not interested in.


interesting how I was "force-fed"... I was not aware of anyone putting a gun to my head forcing me to consume their content. Maybe there was a gun and this is just some episode of The Twilight zone and I could not see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's stay on track though. The inquiries need to investigate the claims that gain of viral function research (even if claimed for a different virus) has been conducted; at least to the extent that public funding delivered; in a remote facility outside of strict democratic checks and controls.

When and if confirmed, there are two logically alternative chains of events:

1. GOF research + bat corona virus (lab a known research center) -> no strict checks and controls -> more,more,more results quicker, quicker -> oops I spilled it, should I report it (and lose my job, possibly face sanctions)? -> no it's OK just some sneezes -> now let's go to the wet market -> (and do it again, and again) -> oops -> attempt to cover up -> world pandemic.

2. Unknown animal host -> still not known after three years of intense research -> develops a highly unusual strain of corona virus ready to jump to humans, why? how? -> but no early transmissions or confirmed contacts with the carrier host confirmed or known -> why attempting cover up instead of immediate measures required by pandemic protocols? -> pandemic.

Based on the finding plus any additional evidence that is being released, one can establish an international panel of citizens, discuss and vote which of the two is more plausible. And this could be the best answer we could get in a long while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, myata said:

The inquiries need to investigate the claims that gain of viral function research (even if claimed for a different virus) has been conducted;

I actually think the GoF thing is a distraction.

The "pandemic" was pretty much a nothing burger that destroyed the economy, allowed former democracies to become more authoritarian, bankrupted many businesses, allowed for the greatest wealth transfer in the history of humanity and gave "some people" insight into how much freedom people would give up in the name of "safety" and how to manipulate them into doing that.  We are only beginning to calculate the damage.

For instance:

Ghost children: the pupils who never came back after lockdown | The Spectator

Pandemic litter could be lasting legacy of COVID, study warns | CTV News

The inoculations are nothing that was promised, they don't prevent anything.  But they ARE doing massive damage.

The question is:  WHY was this done?

Because the same people who have called the shots through all this nonsense are the same people who have preached population reduction and have long histories of eugenics in their family backgrounds, I am suspect of the motives behind all this destruction.  Governments saw both an opportunity to increase power and control, and wealth transfer.

Early treatments for covid using proven, harmless, non-prescription medications THAT WERE WORKING, was not just poo-poo'ed, they were actively suppressed, including destroying stocks of them so people had no access to them and taking licenses away from doctors who saw their benefits.  Again, WHY?  This is one of the most sinister things that I cannot understand.

Based on what the censored and silenced doctors and scientists were saying, I said a year and half to 2 years ago that right about now - people would be dying in alarming numbers, but not from covid.  And this is exactly what is happening.


Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dialamah In the thread about Rebuilding and what we can do better and your comment that you would want to see MORE censorship, especially of MD's, and after hearing what the doctor testified at the NCI in the video I posted above,  my question to you is:

WHY do you feel that frontline MD's should be censored and have no say or opinion but bureaucrats without credentials should be making policies and dispensing information?

What is the benefit to the public in silencing and censoring MD's on the frontlines who are trying and testing treatments and seeing what is working or not working?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sorry, it has to be another, different preprint, reaching the opposite conclusion. No positive animal samples. No evidence of animal to human transmission, however some that the virus was actively circulating among humans in late December 2019.

Looks to me like the animal origin crowd wants to jump at every straw however unlikely and press their theory by sheer volume. Science, honest and genuine one doesn't work that way though. Or not supposed to.

"In summary, this study provided convincing evidence of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Huanan Seafood Market during the early stage of COVID-19 outbreak".Samples collected Jan-Feb, 2020 923 environment, 457 animal

73 environment positive, 56 in western zone

no significant difference between products

"these results suggested that SARS-CoV-2 might have been circulating in the market, especially the western zone, for a period of time in December 2019"

"All the 457 animal samples tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid,"

"The abundance of Homo sapiens showed the correlation to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 4), which highly suggests the SARS-CoV-2 might have derived from Homo sapiens in the HSM. No animals were concluded, implying that no animal host of SARS-CoV-2 can be deduced"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable that you can get a thousand of hits on "the most convincing evidence" yet without one quoting the original source. Difficult to believe that we are in this, 21st century. Still one, Nature Reports, did reference it: "Genetic evidence of susceptible wildlife in SARS-CoV-2 positive samples at the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market, Wuhan: Analysis and interpretation of data released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control", Andersen, Worobey et al., posted on Zenodo 20.03.2023.

Facts first and only, the discussion in the next post

1. "On March 4, 2023 samples were discovered in Gisaid public database of Coronavirus genetic information... (more than full three years after most of the samples were collected - m.)

2. "We further recognized that is was the data underlying the [earlier preprint, see above]

3. The samples were later withdrawn by the contributor - in accordance to the terms of use, resulting in a conflict of the authors with the administrators of Gisaid.

"We contacted an author of the (earlier preprint) and were told that we could conduct an independent analysis. [] On 11th of March we discovered that data was made unavailable [in accordance with Gisaid terms of use]"

4. Key points of the piece cite a discovery of co-occurrence (not correlation - m.) of animal genetic material (in the withdrawn samples -m.) but mention no new evidence on the origin and direction of transmission: animal to human or vice versa.

5. A public claim was made of the presence of "putative intermediate animal hosts" at the time of the developing epidemics in the market - generally accepted in other words. Is it based on any direct evidence, or if not, what is it then?

Conclusion: study cites evidence that wild animals were present at the same physical location as corona genome at the time of developing epidemics based on withdrawn, possibly incorrect, physical evidence.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independent assessment.

1. There's no factual evidence. The samples, contradicting the earlier analysis were withdrawn by the authors. It could have been as simple as human error, a wrong, contaminated sample. Is this even science, already?

2. How is this "the most convincing evidence yet", as you read in a hundreds if not thousands of pieces? How can it be?! Are we still living in a logical, rational Universe?

3. A possibility that some animals that lived for a long time in close, dense environments were infected right in the hotspot of developing epidemics, and spread it further is nothing new.

4. No arguments presented on the origin and initial transmission of the infectious agent.

5. The community needs to consider cited public claims like "putative intermediate animal hosts" -  who "generally accepted" this? Is it still about science; does science work, and supposed to work in this way?

To sum: the whole piece is based on withdrawn physical evidence, possibly incorrect or contaminated, reporting no new results on the origin of the human coronavirus. Some of the statements left the domain of fact and rational logic based science and into the sphere of ideology, the only correct, and pre-known to some, truth. Such periods happened in science before, and never to its benefit.

There's a reason this opus couldn't be posted on a more reputable preprint platform: cannot prove anything with the evidence that doesn't exist. Why these researchers put their names on this is beyond me. Scientists respecting their profession and reputation though should keep the position based strictly on verified evidence; logical arguments; defendable in any scientifically valid critical examination. This is the only way science has been able to work so far.

And the last but not least, important: how did this piece of nothing, a news storm raised out of bare vacuum, based on no valid evidence ended up as "the most convincing evidence" just google raccoon dog? If we don't can't figure out who, how and why is making it happen, what Universe are we living in already, and did we even notice the transition?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Links Pandemic’s Origins" right. A reputable edition that millions will read leaving an impression and perception, even if seen casually. There was patented nothing about the origin in the opus, the evidence was withdrawn not to mention that the samples were taken at least a month, likely months after the first cases of human infection. What Universe are we living in? Are we past the line of objectivity, and the reality itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can try to see how it works though, it may not be such a formidable task as catching the elusive but still putative, "intermediate host".

Quoting the good doctor, "He said that the team was still analyzing the data and that it had not intended for its analysis to become public before it had released a report".

Right. It just unfortunate that it became public by being posted on a public platform.

Next it became more public with someone (The Atlantic, why be shy) stumbling on it, accidentally - of was an unfortunate tip?

And now it became way more public, with Nature Reports reprinting an opus based on an invalid, withdrawn evidence. Take that out, and there's nothing in it. No news.

But wait, more to come. Now with the media storm raised out of nothing vacuum, reputable editions will be strongly influenced to publish it, may even cause a race. As they published the claimed results of the Russian vaccine, amazing (on paper, that will suffer anything you put on it) till it hit the reality.

And if, that sounds more like then, it is published, the good doctors would spread it around, and push it as it happened already as the only evidence that has been peer reviewed. The cycle complete: from vacuum nothing to peer certified and stamped "evidence".

In other words, of course not intended we have to take good doctors on their professional word, but it looks very much like they are using a developing public hype (created entirely accidentally or ...) to give weight to a premature report based on invalid, at the time of release, evidence. And that wouldn't be the first, one can recall another well known good doctor procuring a research with certain predetermined conclusion, then citing it, as you guessed, "peer reviewed evidence". A coincidence, "co-occurrence"? Or a pattern? Or, already a practice? How do we know?

It is sad, and scary to see what state of integrity some branches of science are coming to these days. It cannot work and it won't work. And it certainly carries problems and risks, in a number of ways, to the society.

Edited by myata
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 3:18 AM, myata said:

That was and is a matter of professional code and standard: medical, and journalism. Apparently, and thanks to the virus however it originated the conclusion can hardly be avoided: we don't have it any longer. With the right rationale and incentive, anything goes. We are in a new territory, and age. As a matter of fact.

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.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the practices like outlined above, I wouldn't trust the good doctors with my cat for two minutes (should you?). We need to see and review all evidence, thoroughly, objectively and impartially. Nothing less could give anybody with a sound mind even minimal confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This comes immediately after the exposure of yet another disgrace undermining trust in public health institutions. It turned out the February 2020 Lancet article calling the lab origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus a "conspiracy theory" was itself the true conspiracy, contrived behind closed doors contemporaneously with a March 2020 publication in Nature. If that coordinated media campaign was designed to conceal malfeasance by Drs. Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci—who, as leaders of America's National Institutes of Health, reportedly sent American tax dollars to fund China's dangerous gain-of-function research and circumvent Obama administration-introduced restrictions—we may be witnessing the deadliest cover-up scandal in history."

Pretty damning accusations (the link two posts above). Just maybe the good doctors could focus their attention on restoration of the trust, answering the questions of the public openly and honestly, and disproving any false accusations with verifiable evidence. Rather than coming up with more creative stuff of similar credibility value. Their choice though. We can only observe and take notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Recent Achievements

    • jatt47 went up a rank
    • Nexii earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Canadian_Cavalier went up a rank
    • Contrarian earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Canadian_Cavalier went up a rank
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...