Jump to content

First a trickle....Now a flood

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Probably not. Maybe it's because no one likes you, and you have no friends?

I clearly said I know hundreds of people I can refer to as friends, associates and family.  

How many people do you know who've suffered all the death and disease Goddess points to in her circles?  I've lived and worked in the same small tight community almost my entire life.  I'm quite certain I'd have heard about it if dozens of people were suddenly dying of mysterious causes.  I don't see the flood that should be washing over us by now according to this thread. Is it still a matter of just wait it'll be any time now?

In addition to all the death and injury from vaccine that I haven't seen is the fact I don't know anyone who's even died of COVID - which tells me the measures and vaccines worked.

What's your experience been? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

What's your experience been? 

We know several women who experienced menstrual issues after the vaccine. My wife knows one young lady who died suddenly. Doesn't mean it was the vaccine for sure, but I'm generally suspicious of it and the way government rolled this out. It should not have been forced upon us. It should have been highly recommended, and that's it.

I don't know anyone who died of covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms.

There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list.


Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP)
Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor)
Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV)
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee)
Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner)
Dr. Rima Laibow
Dr. Naomi Wolf
Dr. David Martin
Dr. Luc Montainger
Dr. Roger Hodkinson
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
Dr. Judy Mitkovitz
Dr. Carrie Madej
Dr. Vernon Coleman
Dr. Ben Tapper
Dr. Michael Lake
Dr. Christiane Northrop
Dr. Simone Gold
Dr. Sean Brooks
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai
Dr. Jane Ruby
Dr. Ryan Cole
Dr. Kevin Stillwagon
Dr. Afzal Niaz
Dr. Rashid A.Buttar
Dr. Paul Thomas
Dr. Vanessa Passov
Dr. Jessica Rose
Dr. Christopher Rake
Dr. Charles Hoffe
Dr. Mark Mcdonald
Dr. Jeff Barke
Dr. Andrew Kaufman
Dr. Manuel Alonso
Dr. Amir Shahar
Dr. Patrick Phillips
Dr. Bryan Ardis
Dr. Franc Zalewski
Dr. Daniel Griffin
Dr. Zandra Botha
Dr. Rochagné Kilian
Dr. Joseph Mercola
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler
Dr. Henry Ealy
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
Dr. Michael Palmer
Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD
Dr. Harvey Risch
Dr. Steven Hotze
Dr. Dan Stock
Dr. Sam Duby
Dr. Francis Christian
Dr. Chris Milburn
Dr. John Carpay
Dr. Richard Fleming
Dr. Gina Gold
Dr. Kevin Corbett
Dr. Michael Mcdowell
Dr. John Witcher
Dr. Jim Meehan
Dr. Chris Shaw
Dr. Anne McCloskey
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
Dr. Christiana Parks
Dr. Robert Young
Dr. Amandha Vollmer
Dr. Judy Wilyman
Dr. Michael McConville
Dr. Stella Immanuel
Dr. James Nellenschwander
Dr. Julie Ponesse
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi
Dr. Paul Cottrell
Dr. Lee Merritt
Dr. Rochagne Killian
Dr. Larry Palevsky
Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo
Dr. Hilde de Smet
Dr. Elizabeth Evans
Dr. Brian Hooker
Dr. Joel Hirschhorn
Dr. R. Zac Cox
Dr. Mohammed Adil
Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg
Dr. Johan Denis
Dr. Daniel Cullum
Dr. Anne Fierlafijin
Dr. Kevin Corbett
Dr. Pior Rubis
Dr. Pascal Sacre
Dr. Nicole Delepine
Dr. Lorraine Day
Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli
Dr. Nour De San
Dr. Kelly Brogan
Dr. Hervé Seligmann
Dr. Annie Bukacek
Dr. Mark Brody
Dr. Steven LaTulippe
Dr. Mark Trozzi
Dr. Scott Jensen
Dr. Byram W. Bridle
Dr. Andrew Wakefield
Dr. Larry Palevsky
Dr. Tom Cowan 
Dr. Dan Erickson
Dr. James Todaro
Dr. Joe Lapado
Dr. Richard Bartlett
Dr. Ben Edwards
Dr. Pierre Kory
Dr. Heather Gessling
Dr. Bryan Tyson
Dr. Richard Urso
Dr. John Littell
Dr. Scott Jensen
Dr. Ben Carson
Dr. Peter Schirmacher
Dr. Zandra Botha
Dr. Pamela Popper
Dr. Tom Barnett
Dr. Theresa Long
Dr. Nancy Burks
Dr. Russel Blaylock
Dr. Shiv Chopra
Dr. Suzanne Humphries
Dr. Tori Bark
Dr. Meryl Nass
Dr. Raymond Obamsawin
Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot
Dr. Robert Rowen
Dr. David Ayoub
Dr. Boyd Hailey
Dr. Roby Mitchell
Dr. Ken Stoller
Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien
Dr. Frank Engley
Dr. David Davis
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych
Dr. Harold Butram
Dr. Kelly Brogan
Dr. RC Tent
Dr. Rebecca Carley
Dr. Andrew Moulden
Dr. Jack Wolfson
Dr. Michael Elice
Dr. Terry Wahls
Dr. Paul Thomas
Dr. Stephanie Seneff
Dr. Richard Moskowitz
Dr. Jane Orient
Dr. Richard Deth
Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic
Dr. Chris Shaw
Dr. Susan McCreadie
Dr. May Ann Block
Dr. David Brownstein
Dr. Jayne Donegan
Dr. Troy Ross
Dr. Phillip Incao
Dr. Robert Mendelson
Dr. Theressa Deisher
Dr. Sam Eggertsen
Dr. Peter Doshi
Dr. Shankara Chetty
Dr. Elizabeth Eads
Dr. Kurt Malhom
Dr. Carolyn Bosack
Dr. Heiko Shoning
Dr. Aseem Malhotra
Dr. Patricia Lee
Dr. Daniel Nagase
Dr. Mobeen Syed
Dr. Bruce Patterson
Dr. Randi Juanta
Dr. Phillip McMillan
Dr. Peter Gotzche
Dr. Kurt Malholm
Dr. Sam Sigoloff
Dr. Suzanne Humphries
Dr. Ariyana Love
Dr. Pierre Gilbert
Dr. Nathan Thompson
Dr. Scott Youngblood
Dr. Peterson Pierre
Dr. Darell Wolfe
Dr. Mary Tally Bowden
Dr. Thomas Ynges
Dr. Guido Hofmann
Dr. Anne Mcclosky
Dr. James Grundvig
Dr. Amanda Vollmer
Dr. Kevin Stillwagon
Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito
Dr. Bruce Boros
Dr. Steven Gundry
Dr. Ray Page
Dr. Tess Lawrie 
Dr. Andreas Noack
Dr. Mark Hobart
Dr. Peter Campbell
Dr. Peter Johnston
Dr. Eric Nepute 
Dr. Bradley Campbell 
Dr. Joseph Yi
Dr Robert Morse ND
Dr Piotr Witczak (biolog)
Dr Jerzy Jaskowski 
Dr H.Czerniak 
Dr. Anna Martynowska
Prof. Dolores Cahill
Prof. Retsif Levi
Prof. Maria Majewska- neurobiology.

Dr. Laura Braden

Dr. Vinay Prasad

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to uncensored platforms, many of the above doctors and scientists have substacks where they discuss the latest medical studies and they host spaces where several of them can get together and discuss.

I like that they understand we're not all scientists and they break things down for laypeople. (Except Dr. Jessica Rose - man, that lady knows her stuff and often thinks faster than she speaks. Her science is a total  deeeeeeep dive 🤣)

I like that they encourage critical thinking and discuss the merits and flaws of each study and how studies can be improved to reach certain endpoints. I've learned a lot.


Is how science is done.


You can continue to follow Trudeau and Tam:  "We'll do all the thinking around here. Shut up and obey us, you herd of tax cattle."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination | medRxiv

The CDC defines people as being “up to date” on their vaccines if they have had at least one dose of the new “bivalent” vaccines, which are the ones the so-called “health agency” has been pushing lately. These are the new and improved jabs including both the original Wuhan-style spike protein as well as the new Omicron flavor.

It’s double the fun. Two spikes in one! And it’s worth every penny you pay for it, too.

Anyway, the hardworking Cleveland Clinic researchers, bless them, looked at 50,000 of the hospital systems’ own employees and compared bivalent jab uptake with covid positive status. Here’s what they found:

Among 48,344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date”.


To be clear: People who take the bivalent shot get MORE covid.


Bwahahaha! It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.

The media convinced a lot of gullible people the worst thing that could ever happen to them was catching covid. And now, their magic shots appear to actually INCREASE the chances they will catch the dreaded disease.

I can hear the desperate rejoinder already. “But, but, but,” they’ll stammer, “the bivalent shot decreases risk of hospitalization and death!” Well, maybe, maybe not. Opinions on that vary. But either way, the person who DOESN’T GET COVID has the LOWEST risk of serious illness and hospitalization, since they never encounter the risks to start with.

In other words, even if it’s a lower relative risk, by getting covid more often, the boosted have INFINITELY higher risk of serious illness and death than the unboosted who don’t catch the virus in the first place.

Not to mention what the phenomenon suggests might be going on in boosted people’s immune systems.

There’s another point. The Bivalent shot works backwards. It’s almost like the shot was never designed to prevent covid in the first place.


It is very clear from Figure 1 in the preprint that the risk of getting COVID-19 is lower if you are not up-to-date (red). As time progressed (from the end of January 2023), the disparity between the two groups becomes more apparent. Who here is surprised?

Ultimately, the authors found that the prior ‘infection’ (and robust immunity acquired from said infection), was deterministic of future COVID-19 status, ie: lower risk for COVID-19.

Infection is superior to injection with regard to COVID-19 repeat infections.

Therefore it is not surprising that not being “up-to-date” according to the CDC definition was associated with a higher risk of prior BA.4/BA.5 or BQ lineage infection, and therefore a lower risk of COVID-19, than being “up-to-date”, while the XBB lineages were dominant.

And finally, the authors write:

It is now well-known that SARS-CoV-2 infection provides more robust protection than vaccination.³

Yes, it is well-known. It was well-known before. Vaccination can ever only hope to be second best to natural immunity, and that is not just my opinion.

It's the opinion of the VAST MAJORITY of vaccinologists, but they've been silenced and censored.  So all the MSN groupies and followers of anti-science drivel that came out of the CDC, probably don't know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2023 at 11:20 AM, Goddess said:

It's about money. Not public health.

Wakey wakey.

Big corporate interests and humongous governments have gone together like peas and carrots forever.

Wakey wakey? Seriously?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Big corporate interests and humongous governments have gone together like peas and carrots forever.

Wakey wakey? Seriously?


If you know this already, then why do you act like Big Pharma and government are suddenly champions of scientific integrity and ethics?

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

On 6/19/2023 at 2:20 PM, Goddess said:



Not covid, but there are tons of stories like this that show the shenanigans that go on because the FDA is in bed with Big Pharma.

It's about money. Not public health.

Wakey wakey.

"Trust your doctor!"  :P


Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If you know this already, then why do you act like Big Pharma and government are suddenly champions of scientific integrity and ethics?

I don't act like that but here's the thing, how do you know they're such monstrous villains they'ed happily kil and injure millions in their desire to, as you often say, control you? You don't. As I so often point out the means to monitor our government to the extent that you, I or anyone could prove this sort of collusion beyond a doubt with a smoking gun simply doesn't exist. You've allowed this humongous gap between knowing and imagining to fill up with some of the fakiest news and ridiculous conspiracies in the known universe. As for me, I don't think anyone is competent enough to pull off much of what you're alleging without cocking it up. Instead I mock your imagination and point to the lack of transparency as a leading cause of people like you rapidly populating society and contributing to the proliferation and spread of so much misinformation and nonsense.

You simply assume that any scepticism for your nonsense is support for this collusion and authoritarianism. The state of suspended disbelief you exist in is inhabited by globalist conspiracies that invoke WEF, Soros, aliens, commies and Nazis and who knows what sort of boogymen.

Get a grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2023 at 5:40 PM, eyeball said:

Get a grip.

Oh please.  You've supported every shenanigan, every lie.

You're only on this thread because I think deep down, you know.

You know people were lied to, had their lives destroyed and were manipulated for profit.  And know SUPPORTED EVERY INCH OF IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Evolutionary implications of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for the future design of vaccination strategies | Communications Medicine (nature.com)

Mass vaccination was the “pillar of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” But critics such as Geert Vanden Bossche warned that mass vaccination might trigger mass evolutionary pressures, thus accelerating pathogen mutations, thus accelerating pathogen mutations. The Belgian virologist was summarily dismissed, censored and blacklisted by mainstream science and its media channels as an overreacting crank. However, here, an intellectually gifted duo based in Russia and Holland raise the specter that based on their modeling “mass vaccination might accelerate SARS-CoV-2 evolution in antibody-binding regions compared to natural infection at the population level.” In what should be a must read for decision makers in vaccination, the authors both review the most important factors shaping vaccination strategies during the COVID-19 crisis, while also probing the implications of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on virus evolution in light of accumulated knowledge and in the context of viral evolutionary theory. Their analysis raises the specter of a reality involving the evolution of rapidly mutating antibody-binding regions. Finally, the pair acknowledge the need for their own assumptions to be validated, while also pointing to the need for the research necessary to design potential future advancements in both vaccination and broader vaccination strategy.

Researchers from Singapore represented by NWS Chew, and colleagues at National University Heart CenterYong Loo Link School of Medicineconducted a systematic review and meta-analysis accessing PubMed, Embase, Research Square, MedRxiv and LitCovid databases and relevant papers identified up to June 29, 2021, covering at least half a year of the mass vaccination response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Targeting myocarditis cases and COVID-19 vaccination with specific inclusion criteria, the Singapore-based study authors include consecutive patients admitted in a tertiary hospital in Singapore between January 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021, with the onset of cardiovascular manifestations within 14 days after the COVID-19 vaccination procedure, included retrospectively.

Published in the journal QUJ, a British peer-reviewed medical journal which was established in October 1907 as the Quarterly Journal of Medicine in late 2021, this study result indicated mounting concern even at that earlier time during the pandemic as to cardiovascular risk associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, especially with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine among younger males. 

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

COVID-19 vaccines: history of the pandemic's great scientific success & flawed policy implementation | Zenodo

The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States’ COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, blunders, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. How can a single intervention simultaneously represent one of our greatest pandemic successes but also encapsulate real limitations? Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would benefit most — the elderly and high-risk — alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least — young, healthy Americans — is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come.

Link to the PDF:

COVID 19 Vaccines history_Zenodo.pdf


Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Oh please.  You've supported every shenanigan, every lie.

Shenanigans? Oh, you mean the globalist conspiracy of brain-washing thought-controlling bank-account closers who poisoned me with vaccine that is intended to control and or kill me - any time now or so you've told me.

Of course I'm %100 with that. Who wouldn't be?

I'm merely torn between the communist/capitalist Nazi/facsist coalitions in charge of everything.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Covid Consensus, leftist historian Toby Green and Leftist economist Thomas Fazi explain that the Covid overreaction disproportionately hurt the poor, the young and women, both in the Third World and in wealthier nations. Those who, like me, had, from March, 2020 forward, predicted such disparate impact were dismissed as “non-experts” and “grandma killers.”

Spoiler alert: as the authors observe, grandmas and grandpas worldwide lived miserably during the Covid overreaction. Millions died after having been deprived of visitors and affection, masked and confined in a tiny room for the last months of their lives. Legions of the elderly just gave up and died deaths of despair.

In the first half of this 448 page book, the authors outline, and then debunk, the “Covid consensus,” i.e, the false, single narrative—or “doxa”—that governments, media, and Pharma collaborated to sell to a gullible public that, in turn, embraced an extremely destructive overreaction.

To wit, the Consensus fearmongers repeatedly, dishonestly asserted that Covid seriously threatened people of all ages, could be spread by the asymptomatic, lacked any effective treatment and could be controlled by lockdowns until the development and universal injection of an experimental vaccine. Spreading these keystone lies entailed deliberate statistical distortions and aggressive censorship to squelch informed and reasoned dissent, including “mitigation” criticism presented by highly-credentialed people. The perpetrators of this massive fraud characterized the various “mitigation” measures as a “war” and told people that“We’re all in this together.”

As the authors, and those whom they quote, observe, nothing could have been further from the truth. The Covid response clearly divided people in the US, and internationally, into winners and losers.

The Scamdemic further impoverished the First World poor and further enriched the rich: Big Tech, the financial sector and Pharma. Astra-Zeneca, Amazon, Black Rock, Course Hero, Moderna, Pfizer, Tesla, Vanguard, Zoom and other mega-companies cashed in, big-time, during the locked down/vaxxed up era. So did other CARES Act beneficiaries, such as Covid test makers and administrators. At least 50 new Med/Pharma billionaires were created using taxpayer-derived Covid subsidies.

In contrast, grocery store workers and other “essential” laborers worked hard for what they got and had their wages and savings effectively cut by 17% as Covid inflation devalued their already limited resources. During the Scamdemic, the wealth of pre-Covid billionaires increased at ten times the rate as it had during the past two decades; the past two decades had already given rise to record numbers of billionaires. Meanwhile, laptoppers and teachers skipped their commutes and missed no paychecks or meals. Poorer people, especially those in poorer countries, were multiple times more likely to lose jobs, deplete savings to pay basic bills or go hungry and, as did millions, die of malnutrition.

The authors observe that the opportunistic Covid overreaction was enabled by, and built upon, a combination of several contemporary technological forces or trends: concentration of wealth and media, computer screen workplaces replacing production of tangible goods (and an attendant lack of awareness that makers of material goods still existed), the increasing atomization/physical isolation of the Internet Era, the blurring of the line between public and private realms, emergence of both surveillance and excessively medicalized societies, the revolving door between the government and private/Med/Pharma sector, a multi-decade, a media-induced public mindset of overlapping crises and a generalized death phobia. With these elements in place, Covid propaganda was easy to sell to a gullible public and lockdowns/school closures, and facilitated the mask/test/quarantine/vaxx crusades.

Green and Fazi spend the book’s second half enumerating the many harms caused by the mitigation policies, which they see as having been driven by anti-Trump politics and money-making motivations of the already-rich, such as Gates and the Tech/Pharma juggernauts. The authors often cite statistics to show that the interventions not only failed but caused tremendous harm, especially to low-income families, whose parents—mostly mothers—lost their jobs, had little or no savings, lived in cramped dwellings that were not meant to be continuously occupied and who suffered from domestic abuse. Pregnancies among home-bound teens also increased.

The authors point out, as many had predicted, that the mitigation caused far more health damage than it prevented. Locking down and closing public places lessened physical activity and sun exposure. Thus, hundreds of millions of people gained weight and generated much less immune-boosting Vitamin D. Lockdowns also deterred many from having routine examinations that would have diagnosed cancers, heart ailments or other problems that, untreated, worsened and killed people.

Importantly, while the authors cite many statistics regarding bad health outcomes, impoverishment and income and educational stratification, they keep it human. They specifically describe scenarios that caused billions of flesh and blood people to suffer.

They write, for example, about the practical, daily effects on those, such as street and market vendors and those who lost work in the arts, the hospitality, garment, travel, beauty and wedding industries and tens of millions of small-scale entrepreneurs and countless members of the informal economy, all of whose livelihoods depended on humans gathering.

They also write about the sharp drops in “remittances” sent, in normal times, by US workers to their underemployed, low-income families in other nations. Predictably, as immigrants to the US and Europe lost their jobs, remittances to those in Africa dropped 25%. One would suspect that this trend extended to much of Latin America, the Caribbean and less prosperous parts of Asia. If you don’t make money in the US, you can’t send it home.

The authors discuss the learning losses sustained, worldwide, by “remote learning” schoolkids whose families lacked computers—and the lifelong impairment of income/socioeconomic mobility after falling behind educationally, special-ed kids who couldn’t get the in-person attention they needed, kids kept inside for months—ostensibly for their safety—the many youths who committed or considered suicide, and more. They quote a Tweet posted, on his last day of work, by a doctor who worked with American children during the Scamdemic: “All I have to say is that we have broken young people socioeconomically, mentally, biologically and spiritually. We will see the repercussions of our actions for years to come.”

The “vaxxes” sold by the government and media did even more than cause many injuries and deaths among injectors, while these unneeded shots simultaneously failed to protect them. Governments in the US and abroad have paid hundreds of billions to be vaxx-scammed. The consummately evil Gates, and his ilk, continue to strive to make vaxxes the central element of poor nations’ public health strategies. The vaxx boondoggle/scandal ignores that the lack of adequate food, clean water and sanitation are infinitely bigger problems in developing nations than are respiratory viruses. Allocating limited public resources to vaxxes instead of food, water and sanitation inefficiently and cruelly further shifts wealth from the poor to the rich.

In addition to economic and safety losses, Green and Fazi discuss the grave losses of basic rights and freedoms, interpersonal relationships and social institutions in the United States and abroad.

The authors observe, for example, that South Africans have traditionally spent much energy and percentages of their modest incomes to pay proper tribute to the deceased because their lives have been so challenging. Thus, depriving the poor of the opportunity to gather and send their beloved into the next realm took from South Africans one of their few opportunities to live with dignity. Instead of caring for the decedent’s body and dressing the deceased in splendid attire, many dead Africans were hauled away unceremoniously in plastic bags.

Green and Fazi properly and unequivocally point out that all of these problems were foreseeable from the outset. In so doing, they expressly reject the revisionist, exculpatory notion that those who pushed these measures “couldn’t have known” that things would turn out this badly. Those who predicted such poor outcomes were deprived of audiences or platforms.

The authors summarize the past three years thusly, “Essentially, the world’s poor paid with their livelihoods and futures for the attempt to control a disease which for them was a minor risk in their daily lives.”

The self-described Leftist authors’ scathing critique of the Covid interventions echoes the criticisms offered by most on the Right over the past three years. Green and Fazi ream the materially and politically privileged “neo-authoritarian” Left for supporting the Covid interventions and thus, wrecking the lives of the poor about whom they profess to care.

This criticism applies both to Leftist political leaders and their Democrat, Socialist and Green Party constituents. As Thomas Frank observed in Listen, Liberal (2016), today’s American Leftists are affluent, de facto segregated laptoppers who affirmatively abandoned the working class over three decades ago; Frank cites an early 1980s DNC memo declaring this party policy shift. Democrats threw over blue-collar “deplorables” in favor of a college-pedigreed, monied donor class devoted to culture wars that stick thumbs in the eyes of their former base. For political gain, both the New Left’s leaders and their faithful followers fervently and disgracefully supported Coronamania’s economic dislocation, lockdowns and school closures.

Given the structural problems and political and economic opportunism that led to the terrible social and economic outcomes of the past 39 months, and how passively and badly people reacted to the government and media misinformation campaigns during that time, the authors foresee a dark future of egregious government/corporate misconduct that will heap much more of what the novelist Junot Diaz called “Fuku” on the growing ranks of the poor. And on the shrinking middle-class, as well.

In the Introduction of his bestselling book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie told readers that his book’s lessons were so important that people should reread that book every year. The lockdown/school closers/maskers/vaxxers of the world and the politicians, public health experts and media who conned them should be required to do the same with The Covid Consensus. They deserve detailed, lifelong reminders of the deep suffering they caused via their strident support for the failed, disingenuous mitigation measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Shenanigans? Oh, you mean the globalist conspiracy of brain-washing thought-controlling bank-account closers who poisoned me with vaccine that is intended to control and or kill me - any time now or so you've told me.

Of course I'm %100 with that. Who wouldn't be?

I'm merely torn between the communist and capitalist factions in charge of everything.

I've been right about everything.  And you've been wrong about everything.  And now you're mad.

 I wasn't right and you wrong because of a lucky coin toss. 

I followed science.  You followed Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Government.  So don't pretend you don't like them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration vindicated, but much too late | National Post

Though it did not explicitly say so, the CDC has embraced the core principles of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) — a document I coauthored along with Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University and Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford in October 2020. The GBD called for focused protection of vulnerable people (e.g., the elderly) and lifting lockdown restrictions so that the less vulnerable could live more normal lives. The declaration provided numerous concrete suggestions about how to protect the vulnerable until widespread population immunity was achieved.

Now, in January 2023, it is time to fully embrace the hard lessons to be learned from the CDC’s years-long failed pandemic management. Prudence requires that politicians and public health officials consider the harms of policies adopted at least as seriously as their putative benefits. Pandemic strategies should never again privilege the laptop class and other affluent populations over the poor. Public health should eschew wishful thinking, fearmongering, and policies that effectively divide society into clean and unclean. Protection of the vulnerable, whoever that may be in the next pandemic, should be the linchpin of pandemic management. And lockdowns should be consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Barnstable study - surprisingly conducted by the CDC - was in the summer of 2021.

So let's reflect on what the "experts" and politicians KNEW at that time and yet stubbornly and maliciously clung to.

Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

In this study, the authors examined all reported cases of COVID in this region for a month. They identified 469 positive cases with 74% of them being found in fully-vaccinated individuals. This was very close to the the COVID vaccination rate among Massachusetts residents at the time (69%). The authors concluded that that vaccinated people were just as likely to catch and spread the virus. This study was used to substantiate a new recommendation by authorities to reintroduce mask mandates at the time (even for vaccinated individuals). The study firmly concluded that these shots may have personal benefits but they were not going to stop transmission. Again, this was in the Summer of 2021.

This fact was also proven by looking at the data that was coming out of Israel by the Summer of 2021. Israel was one of the first countries to vaccinate their population. Even though the majority of their country was vaccinated and that the country had rolled out the first controversial vaccine passport, Israel saw their COVID cases and COVID hospitalizations reach record levels in the Summer of 2021. The country would see more infections, deaths and hospitalizations than at any time before the vaccine was available. And this was before Omicron existed.

There was also the fully vaccinated cruise ship, where they all got covid.

We had these studies and real-world before our leaders chose to start dividing us. Justin Trudeau knew the science. But when he started campaigning in September 2021, he went directly on the attack against unvaccinated Canadians. Joe Biden would do the same. The political opportunities were to great to pass up. The majority of society would follow suit.

Despite what the science said…

Keep that in mind as you watch Trudeau's red-faced, spit-spewing rant here - that he knew the shots didn't stop transmission or prevent infection.

It’s an understatement to say that the world’s scientific community knew that the vaccines were not going to solve the pandemic.

It’s an understatement to say that our leaders purposely tried to force this shot and/or shame those of us who viewed it differently.

They may have been correct in assuming that the shots could act like a therapeutic and alleviate the symptoms for many. But the preposterous idea that we needed to throw away all our societal norms in order to elevate our vaccinate rate from 80% to 90% was a mistake. The ones who supported this idea were complicit. We would end up firing everyone who didn’t take the shot. We would ban them from travelling. We would forbid them from entering almost all public spaces. Families were torn apart.  People couldn't say good-bye to dying loved ones.  Because they wouldn’t take a therapeutic product which we definitely knew did not stop transmission of this virus.

That’s why it doesn’t matter who was right on these vaccines. It doesn’t matter if the vaccine ends up being proven helpful or not. What matters is that only one side of the debate forced their un-scientific, harmful beliefs onto the other. The ones opposing vaccine mandates didn’t want to take away the right of consenting adults to take advantage of mRNA technology.  We all just wanted everyone’s personal medical choices to be respected. The way they have always been respected before 2020.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New emails show COVID vaccine mandates were based on a lie | Washington Examiner

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and former NIH Director Francis Collins were aware of, and discussed, “breakthrough cases” of COVID in January 2021 — right when the vaccines became widely available. In her email, Walensky says that “clearly,” it is an “important area of study,” links to a study raising the issue, and assures the person she is sending it to that Dr. Anthony Fauci is looped into these conversations.

However, in public, Walensky was saying something quite different. Two months after discussing this data, she said vaccinated people “don’t carry the virus” and “don’t get sick.”

We now know that was not true and that Walensky herself knew it was not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View of Annual All-Cause Mortality Rate in Germany and Japan (2005 to 2022) With Focus on The Covid-19 Pandemic: Hypotheses And Trend Analyses (sciencexcel.com)

A new peer-reviewed study confirms that the drastic spike in deaths since 2020 have a direct link to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Worrying Conclusion:

‘From this point of view, it seems possible that a high vaccination rate has contributed to an increased all-cause mortality in some countries.’

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

  • Recently Browsing

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