85.7% of Covid Deaths in Canada Were Among the Multi-Vaxed from Aug to Sept of 2022. Jabbing 85% of the Population Didn't Reduce Deaths

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Now that Pharma's focus is on creating other jabs using mRNA tech, I think the tech is nowhere near ready for use in humans.

But what do I know?  I'm just a lowly Goddess.

Well i don't think it was ever supposed to be at this point.  I think it was pressed into service as a 'covid killer', but that's not what it was being developed for. 

Ironically i'd always heard the great hope for mNRA tech when it was fully developed was as a CURE for cancer. But i'd never heard anything suggesting it was ready for prime time yet. 

I think they just realized traditional vaccines weren't going to work for Covid and they saw the panic out there and thought 'hey - this SHOULD do the trick more or less, and they'd pass it as an emergency measure...."

Honestly i think it was fairly effective against first gen covid.  And to a degree against delta.  At least for those people who were at risk due to other conditions such as age or diabetes or whatever. 

But they managed to whip the world into a frenzy and sold billions and billions of doses that probably weren't necessary.  ka-ching.  

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

that's not what it was being developed for. 

This is very true. 

Genetic therapy has been a work in progress for like 20(?) years, in the hopes of curing genetic diseases - like Cystic Fibrosis, Marfan Syndrome,  Turner and Klinefelter Syndromes.  These diseases are caused by either missing or damaged parts of the DNA strand.

mRNA genetic therapies, it was hoped, would be able to replace missing parts of the strand or fix damaged strands.

The reason they were never brought to market in spite of 20 years of trying, was certain hurdles were never able to be overcome. Generally, a pharma product will be brought to market in about 10 years time.

These are not "vaccines".  They are genetic therapy injections.

But how much of the public would have rushed to get them, if anybody in authority had told the truth about them?

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think they just realized traditional vaccines weren't going to work for Covid

Also true.  Even the flu shots are iffy - they have to "guess" which strains will dominate each year and hope they pick the right one.  Also, vaccines have never proved very efficient at getting rid of coronaviruses - it's been tried.

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Honestly i think it was fairly effective against first gen covid.  And to a degree against delta.  At least for those people who were at risk due to other conditions such as age or diabetes or whatever. 

Possibly.  But eyeball's claim that it saved "millions!" is ridonkulous.

My ex-hubby, who recently passed away from heart attack at age 48, took 2 jabs to keep his job.  He was overweight, but when I saw him a few months before he died, he told me he had not felt well since he got them and worried that he would die of heart issues after seeing the studies that showed the jabs affect cardio.

He did eventually get covid, after getting the jabs and did just fine.  Maybe he would have died from covid (from being overweight) had he NOT got them.  

"Correlation does not mean causation" works both ways, though.

You can't say millions were saved by the jabs, when the reality is that 99.5% of people weathered covid just fine, jab or not.

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ka-ching.  

It was a great way to experiment with the technology AND make billions while doing so.

[Aristides]

Just had a booster today.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

systemic distribution

I think this is the biggest problem, as well.  The wide range of AE's for these injections is astonishing - it's literally every system of the body - neuro, cardiac, reproductive, thrombo.....

It's because the LNPs take that spike, literally.....everywhere.

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Just had a booster today.

Great!

Hope you got a good batch.

[Aristides]

This was my seventh.

You drink your Kool-Aid and I’ll drink mine.

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You drink your Kool-Aid and I’ll drink mine.

Sticking with the science is working fine for me, thanks. 😄

I do find people who still expect accolades and head pats for getting jabbed, a bit amusing.  Not many of you out there these days.

Edited May 14 by Goddess

[Aristides]

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Sticking with the science is working fine for me, thanks. 😄

I do find people who still expect accolades and head pats for getting jabbed, a bit amusing.  Not many of you out there these days.

Like I said, you drink yours and I’ll drink mine.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Like I said, you drink yours and I’ll drink mine.

** pats you on the head **

Such a good boy!

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Possibly.  But eyeball's claim that it saved "millions!" is ridonkulous.

Obviously. But in fairness Most of eyeball's claims are ridonkulous which is appropriate as he's usually being an ass when he makes them.   

[Goddess]

Today, based on evidence uncovered during the US Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, and testimony given directly by Peter Daszak himself, the US Department of Health & Human Services has commenced debarment proceedings against Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance - who has been funded by Fauci to do gain-of-function experiments at the WIV and who is at the heart of, and likely responsible for, the covid outbreak.

EcoHealth will now face the immediate governmental-wide suspension of taxpayer funds, including a hold on all active grants.

Good start.

Now we need justice.

Also, Fauci has been recalled to testify again at the Committee.

[WestCanMan]

On 5/15/2024 at 12:42 PM, Goddess said:

Today, based on evidence uncovered during the US Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, and testimony given directly by Peter Daszak himself, the US Department of Health & Human Services has commenced debarment proceedings against Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance - who has been funded by Fauci to do gain-of-function experiments at the WIV and who is at the heart of, and likely responsible for, the covid outbreak.

EcoHealth will now face the immediate governmental-wide suspension of taxpayer funds, including a hold on all active grants.

Good start.

Now we need justice.

Also, Fauci has been recalled to testify again at the Committee.

Sounds like a fall guy to me.

He's the Kevin Clinesmith/Justin Morneau of covidgate. 

"Oh look, there was one kinda bad guy, but one with really good intentions, but everyone else was totally legit. There's nothin' left to see here folks."

He'll spend zero days in jail and have zero dollars worth of assets seized. 

Funny how big of a story that was. It was all over the MSM news. 😉

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

He'll spend zero days in jail and have zero dollars worth of assets seized. 

Sometimes you get Al Capone for tax evasion.

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Sometimes you get Al Capone for tax evasion.

Yeah, but the point is that they're not trying to "get" anyone.

They want a fall guy that they can pin everything on, in order to protect everyone.

Now they can say: "All the bad stuff was just him, acting alone. No one else was involved in anything improper, immoral or illegal. Look, he confessed and said that he did it all by himself! He said that Fauci et al were completely innocent!"

Then, for playing the game correctly, he gets the Kevin Clinesmith treatment: no time in jail, not even disbarred from practicing law, he just pleads guilty and then carries on as if nothing ever happened. 

[Goddess]

FOIA'ed info that has come up in the Subcommittee testimony by Lawrence Tabak:

From the emails:

"I learned from our FOIA (freedom of information act, the legislation that allows citizens to demand to see the work of the government) lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA'd but before the search starts so I think we are all safe. plus, I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail."

“we’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns and if we did, we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them, we would delete them.”

This is destruction of evidence in the face of investigation. It’s also the use of untracked unofficial emails for official business which is supposed to be a NO NO. And, obviously, this all pales in comparison to the underlying actions it was intended to conceal.

It was a bad day all in for NIH, Ecohealth, and Teflon Tony at congress.

Rep. James Comer:

"Finally, emails show that Dr. Moranz would share internal discussions regarding upcoming FOIA releases with Dr. Daszak. He would then help Dr. Daszak craft responses to documents being released in these FOIAs. Are those actions consistent with NIH policies?"

Then they lied.

It was relentless.

And they viscously attacked those who asked questions because they knew they were guilty but needed to play the victim.

An awful lot of good people got horrendously maligned and canceled trying to drag this into public view and belief.

 

If this gets swept under the rug and Fauci and Collins and Morens and Daszak and Baric and that hobbit Hotez skate, we’re in real trouble.

If they can walk away from this, literally anything can happen.

If there is no accountability for this, it’s just plain over. The last congresscritter out, please turn off the lights.

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

They want a fall guy that they can pin everything on, in order to protect everyone.

The emails are pretty damning and all their names are on them.

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If this gets swept under the rug and Fauci and Collins and Morens and Daszak and Baric and that hobbit Hotez skate, we’re in real trouble.

If they can walk away from this, literally anything can happen.

I guess we'll see if the MSM in North America decides to cover:

1. the story of how Fauci's scientists were caught red-handed and found responsible for the outbreak of a pathogen that "killed millions of people", ruined the lives of hundreds of millions more, and destroyed entire national economies in 2020, and how Fauci covered it up, along with the help of the MSM and social media, or
2. if they follow the story about Trump's non-disclosure agreement payments to Stormy Daniels back in 2016. 

The suspense is killing me...

[Goddess]

[WestCanMan]

37 minutes ago, Goddess said:

At this point it's a joke to consider our MSM any better than Xinhua, TASS, Al Jazeera, or NoKo news. 

[Goddess]

All cause weekly mortality in Canada, for both sexes, 0-44. This is historically the healthiest citizens.

2018 - Green - before the pandemic

2022 - Orange - peak pandemic. 80% vaccinated.

2023 - Blue -  200 more young people are dying each week compared to 2018. That's a 60-70% increase, while our population only increased by 12% in the same period.

Provisional Deaths in Canada Dashboard (statcan.gc.ca)

Edited May 17 by Goddess

[Goddess]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

They want a fall guy that they can pin everything on, in order to protect everyone.

I just was reading this:

The Jig Is Up: It’s Time for Accountability for the Origin of COVID-19 (substack.com)

In a recent essay on the hearing, David Robertson, Ph.D., laid out the case for holding Daszak accountable for his role in covering up the possible origins of COVID-19.

“There is a risk,” Robertson cautioned, “that investigators will be content with laying blame exclusively at the feet of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance. Making Peter Daszak the fall guy would fail to hold accountable the scientists and institutional funders who enabled his reckless research in Wuhan.”

He added:

“Whatever responsibility Daszak and researchers in Wuhan may bear for the pandemic, some of the most prominent officials and science institutions in biomedical research funded and promoted these experiments.

“Some of those very same officials then consistently misled the public about the possibility that research funded by US agencies may have contributed to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”

Robertson told The Defender he hopes the ban announced today, “is a sign that investigators are willing to pursue this issue, rather than an indication that they have found an individual/organization they’ll be happy to pin everything on.”

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

I just was reading this:

The Jig Is Up: It’s Time for Accountability for the Origin of COVID-19 (substack.com)

In a recent essay on the hearing, David Robertson, Ph.D., laid out the case for holding Daszak accountable for his role in covering up the possible origins of COVID-19.

“There is a risk,” Robertson cautioned, “that investigators will be content with laying blame exclusively at the feet of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance. Making Peter Daszak the fall guy would fail to hold accountable the scientists and institutional funders who enabled his reckless research in Wuhan.”

He added:

“Whatever responsibility Daszak and researchers in Wuhan may bear for the pandemic, some of the most prominent officials and science institutions in biomedical research funded and promoted these experiments.

“Some of those very same officials then consistently misled the public about the possibility that research funded by US agencies may have contributed to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”

Robertson told The Defender he hopes the ban announced today, “is a sign that investigators are willing to pursue this issue, rather than an indication that they have found an individual/organization they’ll be happy to pin everything on.”

I couldn't possibly agree more with "David Robertson, Ph.D."

• some of the most prominent officials and science institutions in biomedical research funded and promoted these experiments.

  “Some of those very same officials then consistently misled the public about the possibility that research funded by US agencies may have contributed to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”

 

Regardless of whether or not this goes anywhere, it does my heart good to see a Dr saying publicly the exact same thing that I've said here 1,000 times, only to be flamed by low-IQ, credulous covid10ts.

 

Even if Fauci believed with all his heart, mind and soul that the covid virus came from the unlikely bat-pangolin-human trio, he still had the moral and ethical obligation to disclose the fact that there was another, possibly more likely source of the virus, that being a lab experiment which Fauci had personally approved funding for - on behalf of American taxpayers - in his capacity as NIH Director, just a stone's throw from the wetmarket. 

The fact that social media was banning all talk of the BSL4 lab, and that the MSM also chose to hide that from the public, is the epitome of Orwellian. Big Brother just gave us all the mushroom treatment, then forced our youths to take a dangerous/lethal injection that they didn't need at all, and which served literally no purpose whatsoever for the greater good. 

I'm pretty sure that by the time this is over, I will be asking for a lot of high-ranking people in our public health service to be put to death. 

[Venandi]

On 5/17/2024 at 11:39 PM, WestCanMan said:

The fact that social media was banning all talk of the BSL4 lab, and that the MSM also chose to hide that from the public, is the epitome of Orwellian.

There are other examples too but this particular one strikes me as the poster child for what a frightened population is capable of swallowing and supporting.

A moments consideration of the qualifications of some who were de-platformed at the mere suggestion of it (as a possibility) should now give people serious cause to reflect... yet it doesn't.

For anyone with a passing tactical interest in information management techniques (veterans and serving members perhaps), this was a master class in what can be accomplished when resources are brought to bear in a coordinated fashion.

The manufactured public ridicule of all things "anti-vax," was a measurement of success and a QA means of monitoring the effectiveness of messaging, it also provided an effective venue for modifying that message to achieve maximum effect.

It seems that once a majority (or statistically significant portion of the population) commit to weaponized rhetoric and allow hateful, ill informed comments to become the norm, it's hard for those (in this case the majority) to rationalize walking it back and admitting to the possibility that they maybe (perhaps or possibly) got it wrong.

It's a wonderfully effective tool... the fact that it takes soooooooooo long to factually disprove an alleged event or occurrence  (usually 2 years or more) certainly helps too. You can see that right here on the forum.

Personally, I watched this single aspect of the process with great interest. I expected it to be more difficult to coordinate and more costly to those who deliberately did so than what it has proven to be. Fascinating on one hand but certainly scary on the other...   

And here's the real kicker, all that was ever needed to oppose, and by virtue of opposing thwart this effect were thoughtful questions asked in a polite (and inquiring) manner. So... it's noteworthy that sensible questions were effectively banned, that wasn't an accident BTW.

On most of the major topics, and without any prior knowledge, only about two paragraphs worth of reading could have generated the same questions I asked within the ranks of the rabid pro-vaxx community. Just basic stuff like:

- What do lipid nanoparticles do? (two paragraphs). 

- What does the blood brain barrier do? (two paragraphs).

- What about spike protein toxicity and inflammation? (two paragraphs)

- What prevents systemic distribution of a toxic spike protein in the presence of LNPs? (two paragraphs)

-Possible effects of multiple immune system responses (in vaccinated individuals) to a mutated virus that the vaccine doesn't protect against and the associated inflammation that might cause? (that one might be a full page).

POOF, 20 minutes of reading and most people would likely have had the same questions I did.  I didn't (and actually still don't) know the answers and maybe the concerns I had were groundless, I was open to being convinced.

But, and it's a pretty large BUTT, that didn't happen, and the reason it didn't happen was because the f------ questions were banned and those asking them were punished and ridiculed. 

Later, watching the manufactured ridicule surrounding Ivermectin and reading comments like "are you a horse?" sealed the deal for me. It also earned those information managers a reluctant tip of my hat for a diabolical job well planed, well coordinated and effectively deployed on relatively short notice.

I predict we'll be hearing from them again in the future...

 

 

 

Edited May 19 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, Venandi said:

 It also earned those information managers a reluctant tip of my hat. 

The assertion that a default reaction to challenges to convention are put down via a vast conspiracy is unfalsifiable.

That's not to say that the public was never lied to, or that so-called science types didn't close ranks, behave tribally and so forth...

But if you're trying to do a post mortem on the failures of the system to question and be objective, I think that the bar has to be higher than what you're setting.

We can and should be skeptical of public officials, and accept that tribalism and ideology is in all of us when examining their statements.  But we also can and should be even more skeptical of strangers who make extreme statements about a system that generally works.

[Venandi]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But if you're trying to do a post mortem on the failures of the system to question and be objective, I think that the bar has to be higher than what you're setting.

Not the system per se, the people (meaning the majority of voters) who supported and enabled it. Without them, the effort would have been fruitless even in the presence of a compliant media. 

It really comes down to managing (and by managing I mean exploiting) fear to accomplish an objective. Fear and anger are powerful motivators that can be manipulated by either side of an agenda driven campaign. The success or failure of those efforts depends largely on access to resources and deployment strategy with access (and control) being dominant considerations.

Im off again, but perhaps you could point out a few examples where government objectives (say mass vaccination, mandates etc) weren't supported by the media and/or big tech. Off the top of my head I can't.

Blocking dissenting opinion, limiting rational (and polite) discussion whilst summarily executing any and all questions that start with "wait a minute now" wasn't an accident IMO. It was a deployment strategy and it was a scared population in the reticle. The answer to why is... because it works. 

The tool of choice to accomplish the suppression of discussion (in addition to banning it) was fact checks (and I'm being kind there) that were invariably prefixed with "there is no evidence to suggest." 

Remember all those doctors that would walk a mile for a camel? Getting that done is more audacious (and devious) than it is difficult IMO. 

"The system" didn't ask questions because they already had answers, all they needed was acceptance, and they got it. 

 

Edited May 19 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Not the system per se, the people (meaning the majority of voters) who supported and enabled it. Without them, the effort would have been fruitless even in the presence of a compliant media. 

It really comes down to managing (and by managing I mean exploiting) fear to accomplish an objective. Fear and anger are powerful motivators that can be manipulated by either side of an agenda driven campaign. The success or failure of those efforts depends largely on access to resources and deployment strategy with access (and control) being dominant considerations.

Im off again, but perhaps you could point out a few examples where government objectives (say mass vaccination, mandates etc) weren't supported by the media and/or big tech. Off the top of my head I can't.

Blocking dissenting opinion, limiting rational (and polite) discussion whilst summarily executing any and all questions that start with "wait a minute now" wasn't an accident IMO. It was a deployment strategy and it was a scared population in the reticle.

The tool of choice to accomplish the suppression of discussion (in addition to banning it) was often fact checks (and I'm being kind there) that were invariably prefixed with "there is no evidence to suggest." 

Remember all those doctors that would walk a mile for a camel?

 

Well my response is in the previous post.  

Do you think that the medical associations would do nothing if a doctor started saying cigarettes were harmless? Or that homosexuality was a mental illness?

I'm not going to dive in to details of vaccines, because I'm not an expert and I have a modicum of trust in the system so I'm really part of the problem in your eyes.

But I think that people can still have a discussion on the meta level, discussing the public sphere and how it can/should operate. 

I don't trust the masses of 2024 to be any more rational than in 1989 France.  So what do I do in the current situation?  I recognize that any groupthink is a risk, but I accept that risk vs epistemic chaos.

The wisdom of publics isn't perfect, but it's a better approach than that of the mob IMO.

Edited May 19 by Michael Hardner

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The wisdom of publics isn't perfect

What I'm suggesting is that It had no chance to shine. Even my poorly articulated grade 13 biology questions were met with ridicule, usually by people who couldn't even spell LNP.

Any contrary minded information at the Phd level instantly became misinformation, its authors de-platformed, villainized, fired and deregistered by professional associations who in some cases seem to be singing new hymns now. Scanning the horizon, that might just be a future problem, maybe there's something here to learn.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

...it's a better approach than that of the mob IMO.

There was only one mob that truly mattered, and it was frightened voters. Without them, little traction could have been gained by other entities.

I understand the motives of the other players in this and I'm not surprised by their conduct... but the horrid performance of neighbours and acquaintances, people on social media etc was disappointing, I didn't expect it. And perversely, many of those same people now condemn (at least some) of what they once vigorously supported, in some cases it's almost as if they would have you believe they never supported it in the first place.

I'd offer the dismal uptake of vaccine boosters (something like 18%) as a symptom of that change of heart. The lack of trust in previously trusted institutions and greater vaccine hesitancy in previously trusted vaccines is as problematic now as it is predictable. 

Have to run. Cheers.

Edited May 19 by Venandi