Jump to content

Spike in the numbers of Covid cases in hospitals and deaths


Recommended Posts

On 10/9/2023 at 3:13 PM, Zeitgeist said:

What about Sweden?

Sweden did the right thing. Ignore the big pharma covid hoax and lie. Only dummies will believe that the covid bullshit was all for real. 

I have mentioned this many times here before that in Oct. 2019, globalist Bill Gates called for a meeting in New York called Event 201. The meeting was all about the possibility of a future pandemic happening one day. Well, low and behold, Gates got his one day pandemic. In March 2020, we ended up with a covid virus, and the rest is history. 

If you or anyone else here are not able to connect the dots, and see the conspiracy here, well you are all really out to lunch. Covid was a planned plandemic. Lucky for the Swedish people, their government did not go along with all the covid globalist big pharma bull crap that was foisted on the rest of the world. The Sweds dodged a big pharma globalist created covid virus bullet. ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 3:35 PM, blackbird said:

I trust the medical experts I have heard.  There are many of them.  I don't have the time or reason do start doing a pile of research myself.  We must trust the authorities.  No reason for not believing them.

And I trust the medical experts I have heard. Yes, there were plenty of them. Maybe you should take the time to checkout what the other side of the alternative media and experts had to say about covid. Anybody who trusts authorities these days, is an absolute fool. There are plenty of reasons as to why politicians, the MSM, and those so-called authorities should never be believed anymore. They have all become bought off and paid for professional liars. Just saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

And I trust the medical experts I have heard. Yes, there were plenty of them. Maybe you should take the time to checkout what the other side of the alternative media and experts had to say about covid. Anybody who trusts authorities these days, is an absolute fool. There are plenty of reasons as to why politicians, the MSM, and those so-called authorities should never be believed anymore. They have all become bought off and paid for professional liars. Just saying.  

So why do you trust a small minority of Covid deniers and reject the advice of the great majority of experts?  Do you not believe that vaccines have saved millions of lives over the past century?

I have a grand daughter that is an anti-vaxxer.  I feel sorry for her kids who are never vaccinated against all the diseases that could occur.  Things like whooping cough, measles, chicken pox, small pox, influenza, just to name a few.

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

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So why do you trust a small minority of Covid deniers and reject the advice of the great majority of experts?  Do you not believe that vaccines have saved millions of lives over the past century?

I have a grand daughter that is an anti-vaxxer.  I feel sorry for her kids who are never vaccinated against all the diseases that could occur.  Things like whooping cough, measles, chicken pox, small pox, influenza, just to name a few.

Because of all of the reading and researching that I have done myself, and because of my listening to what other medical professionals had to say about covid, I quickly learned that this covid turned out to be one big hoax and a lie ever perpetrated on mankind. This is why I am a covid denier.

Event 201 told me the whole story about the covid plandemic. It was not about any virus. It was all about pushing big pharma vaccines, who btw, made hundreds of billions from pushing their vaccines on innocent people where some have paid a heavy price for those who took the covid vaccines. We were all lied to about covid. Believe it or not. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

So why do you trust a small minority of Covid deniers and reject the advice of the great majority of experts? 

1) There's not a small minority of anti-vaxers. Several millions of people didn't take the jab, and many millions who did take it only did so because they wanted to live like free citizens, and they're not getting the boosters. 

2) you don't even know what an anti-vaxer is - the term literally has nothing to do with the covid jab

3) It's not even the "great majority of experts" that peddle the pseudovax, that's just an MSM talking point, and Drs get cancelled for telling the truth about the jab. Medical professionals are literally afraid to tell the truth in our country. Go figger. 

Quote

Do you not believe that vaccines have saved millions of lives over the past century?

Stop conflating the covid pseudovax with actual "vaccines" which "confer immunity to pathogens" you lying sack of crap.

The TB, polio, meningitis and smallpox vaccines absolutely saved countless millions of lives. The word "vaccine" has a very real meaning just because of those vaccines. They were a Godsend. 

The definition of vaccine actually contained the phrase "confers immunity to a pathogen" before the jab came along.

It literally has to be dumbed down to: "allegedly provides slight resistance to a pathogen" to account for the fact that after vaxing 85% of our country, covid deaths went up by 30% and 86% of the victims were 'vaxed" multiple times.

Quote

I have a grand daughter that is an anti-vaxxer.  I feel sorry for her kids who are never vaccinated against all the diseases that could occur.  Things like whooping cough, measles, chicken pox, small pox, influenza, just to name a few.

Now you're conflating the proper usage of the term "anti-vaxer", which your granddaughter is, with the tarded-down version of the term which actually means "not dumb enough to believe in the pseudojab BS".

Here's the thing, Blackbird, by using the word "vaccine" on the pseudojab, you're actually cheapening the word to the point where young people get the impression that 'vaccines are basically so useless that you have to force people to take them'

Your improper use of the word vaccine and the term anti-vaxer probably contributed to the fact that your great-grandkids don't have protection against pathogens which are still roaming this planet, which can kill them.  

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 3:35 PM, blackbird said:

I trust the medical experts I have heard.  There are many of them.  I don't have the time or reason do start doing a pile of research myself.  We must trust the authorities.  No reason for not believing them.

Why do you believe these experts, but not biologists who study evolution? 
 

BTW, you couldn’t be an expert in viruses if you didn’t understand (believe in) evolution.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why do you believe these experts, but not biologists who study evolution? 
 

BTW, you couldn’t be an expert in viruses if you didn’t understand (believe in) evolution.  

 The account of creation in Genesis precludes evolution.

 It has also been debunked by trustworthy scientists.

I would strongly recommend you read the book "Darwin's Universe - From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing, Survival for Nothing" by Yan T. Wee

Excellent book going into various subjects that debunk evolution.

You can get it on Amazon.ca.

_____________________________________________

I never claimed to be an expert in viruses.  I trust the experts. 

I don't see any connection between evolution and viruses.

Viruses do mutate and form different variations.  That is why we have different kinds of Covid viruses.

That is not evolution.

 

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong.. it happens. However, I do not see quite the intense reaction to covid this second time around. The governor and other leaders where I work have already came out and stated that there will be no vax mandate and very unlikely to have a mask mandate. Since that time.. mid August 2023, there has not been any more correspondence about it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why do you believe these experts, but not biologists who study evolution?

Biologists study biology.  I'm not sure they "study evolution".  What is there to study?  Evolution never happened as Darwinism claims.  There are no transitional fossils to prove the theory that one species evolved from a different species.  If it were true, one would think the earth's layers that contain fossils would be full of transitional fossils.  But they don't exist.  So the claim that man evolved from some slime in a pond is nonsense of the highest order.  No proof exists.

One important point:

"It isn't rational to argue that the world which is based on cause and effect is itself uncaused."   

Everything has a cause.  Therefore the universe and life had a cause.  It didn't just happen.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Biologists study biology.  I'm not sure they "study evolution".  What is there to study?  Evolution never happened as Darwinism claims.  There are no transitional fossils to prove the theory that one species evolved from a different species.  If it were true, one would think the earth's layers that contain fossils would be full of transitional fossils.  But they don't exist.  So the claim that man evolved from some slime in a pond is nonsense of the highest order.  No proof exists.

One important point:

"It isn't rational to argue that the world which is based on cause and effect is itself uncaused."   

Everything has a cause.  Therefore the universe and life had a cause.  It didn't just happen.

IMO it's quite likely that a lot of evolution happened during some of the extinction-level events that happened over the last few hundreds of thousands of years, due to inbreeding or to a sudden environmental change which made certain physical accoutrements of males/females more attractive (more likely to survive).

Sometimes being big is an advantage, sometimes being small is an advantage, sometimes being smart is the most important attribute, or fast, or stamina, etc. In some parts of the world being fat is still considered very sexy. 

During periods where the population was low the amount of fossil remains would be far more scarce. 

That's just my opinion, but I'm always right. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

IMO it's quite likely that a lot of evolution happened during some of the extinction-level events that happened over the last few hundreds of thousands of years, due to inbreeding or to a sudden environmental change which made certain physical accoutrements of males/females more attractive (more likely to survive).

Sometimes being big is an advantage, sometimes being small is an advantage, sometimes being smart is the most important attribute, or fast, or stamina, etc. In some parts of the world being fat is still considered very sexy. 

During periods where the population was low the amount of fossil remains would be far more scarce. 

That's just my opinion, but I'm always right. 

The theory of evolution is just that, a 19th century theory, by Darwin.  It is sometimes called Darwinism.  It is actually more of a religion.  It is not really science.  It has never been proven.  But Darwinism has been taught as scientific fact to millions of school kids in the past century.  It is accepted by many people as a scientific fact, which is far from the truth.

But many people believe it because it sounds good and they don't know any better.

Some very bright scientists have studied it and come to the conclusion it cannot be true.  It just doesn't properly explain things and the evidence for it doesn't exist.  Of course diehard Darwinists will claim otherwise.  But experts can easily debunk their claims too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The theory of evolution is just that, a 19th century theory, by Darwin.  It is sometimes called Darwinism.  It is actually more of a religion.  It is not really science.  It has never been proven.  But Darwinism has been taught as scientific fact to millions of school kids in the past century.  It is accepted by many people as a scientific fact, which is far from the truth.

But many people believe it because it sounds good and they don't know any better.

Some very bright scientists have studied it and come to the conclusion it cannot be true.  It just doesn't properly explain things and the evidence for it doesn't exist.  Of course diehard Darwinists will claim otherwise.  But experts can easily debunk their claims too.

Sure. It's more likely that before a speck of dust or molecule of Oxygen existed, an omniscient omnipotent being just magically willed itself to life. I'm gonna go with that, because it's a proven theory from what, 4000 BC? That's way better than a 19th century theory. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Its a text book example of evolution.

Have you ever read a text book on evolution versus creation?

There are thousands of articles which debunk the theory of evolution.  Many article also talk about cells, viruses, etc.  Viruses are not considered to be a complete life form.  They are kind of an intermediate between a living cell and some protein.

quote

First, we need to look into what a virus really is. We may regard a living cell (for example, a cell in your skin or liver or other tissue, or a bacterial cell) as a very, very complex chemical factory. This factory is capable of many functions, including that of reproducing itself. Directing all this machinery is a blueprint, which is the coded information contained in the molecule DNA (sometimes RNA). A virus is very different—it consists of a protein ‘shell’ or coat, containing a small amount of this ‘blueprint’ material (RNA or DNA). Note that it has no ‘factory’ of its own—it cannot move itself, it has no power source, and it has no machinery with which to duplicate itself.

When it latches onto a cell the material it contains is released into the cell, and the information on the ‘blueprint’ takes over and starts to direct the cell’s factory, which starts to manufacture many copies of the virus. The cell eventually swells and bursts, releasing lots of new viruses to start the process all over again. So we see that a virus is nothing much more than a package containing a code, which takes over from the cell’s code so that that cell then makes more code-containing packages. The cell is destroyed in the process. (See diagram below.) Many semantic arguments have raged over whether a virus can be called a living thing or not. This is one reason why many people feel it is sort of ‘half-and-half’—therefore a good candidate for a kind of transitional stage between life and non-life. Whether you call it living or not is a matter of definition, however—I hope to demonstrate that however you define life, the virus can in no way be used as an evolutionary ‘intermediate’. The reason is simple—it needs to have all the complex machinery of a living, cellular organism available to it! Without a fully functioning, living cell, the virus cannot reproduce (or should we say, arrange its own reproduction). So, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, a virus will not appear before a cellular creature is on the scene. Viruses do not really fit anywhere on the evolutionary ‘tree of life’, since they are obviously not the ancestors of one-celled creatures. (And how can they be their evolutionary descendants?)

Virus reproduction - virus floats towards the wall of the cell Virus reproduction - the virus attaches itself to the cell Virus reproduction - penetration into the cell's cytoplasm
  Virus reproduction - viruses being produced in the host cell Virus reproduction - viruses released to destroy more vistims

So we see, then, that any changes which might occur in viruses have very little, if any, apologetic value for evolutionists trying to show us how a fish changed into an amphibian, for instance. This is the third point which could be made in response to Dr Jones’ assertion. The final point relates to the argument one hears (in this case applied to bacteria as well) that a change in a disease-causing agent converting it from a minor nuisance to a serious health threat would be a major evolutionary step. Surely, says the argument, this could not be labeled ‘horizontal change’ or ‘change within the kind’? Once again, though, we will see that this has very little relevance to evolutionary apologetics.

unquote

for the whole article go to:

Origin of Viruses (creation.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's more likely that before a speck of dust or molecule of Oxygen existed, an omniscient omnipotent being just magically willed itself to life.

Nobody who believes the Bible believes God willed himself to life.  That's not the definition of God.

In Biblical theology, God is understood as being omniscient, omnipotent, as you said, but also He is eternal.  That is the only way of looking at it that makes sense.  If he is eternal, then it stands to reason he has infinite power to create the material universe.  Omnipotent means infinite power.  So according to the Bible he simply spoke the universe into existence.  The Bible uses those simple terms so that the reader can understand.  It is not magic.  Magic is actually a different concept.  The Bible teaches God is a spirit that is present everywhere.  God is not part of the material universe which He created.

Does this make sense?  Every effect has a cause.  One of the basic principles of logic.  The universe is an effect and therefore had a cause.  The cause is God.  No scientist has come up with a plausible explanation.  Even some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed in God because it makes sense.  We are here because someone, i.e. God created us and placed us in his created universe.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, there isn't a single one that's even come close.

Well, I don't believe in evolution.   I accept the account in Genesis.  You have your mind made up not to consider anything but the false theory of evolution.  Your choice.

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, there isn't a single one that's even come close.

And you've never really read any one of the thousands of articles, right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

And you've never really read any one of the thousands of articles, right.

Not a single one of them. I have faith in science and if there'd been anything of substance that had turned evolution science on its head I'm quite certain I would have heard about it by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

if there'd been anything of substance that had turned evolution science on its head I'm quite certain I would have heard about it by now.

There are literally thousands of articles and videos that debunk various aspects of evolution.  You have chosen not to read or watch any of them.  Why would you hear about them if you don't even attempt to avail yourself of them?  Creation.com has thousands of articles and videos.  You chose to remain in the dark.

By the way there is a scientist from the UK/South Africa whom I had the personal honour of meeting years ago and seeing a series of his slide presentations on various aspects of the creation-evolution debate.  He once believed in evolution, but had his eyes opened about 45 years ago and since became an expert on the subject of creation versus evolution.  He travelled to different countries to speak at various conferences on the subject.

He has or is on a website and you can read tons of information on there.  This is a valuable source of information.

Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Of course that would only be Darwinism or the theory of evolution.

Yes turning these on they're head would be huge news. You don't get that?

 

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You learn nothing that way.

I'd learn as soon as I started reading what the media was reporting on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes turning these on they're head would be huge news. You don't get that?

Why don't you watch the debate, The God Delusion, between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox on youtube?   Richard Dawkins is a famous evolutionary biologist and author.  He is a well-known defender of the theory of evolution.  

 

 

Edited by blackbird
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.

Guest
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.


×
×
  • Create New...