Tippaporn

Is this the same science that came up with the 6-foot distancing during Covid to stop the spread? Where are your academic qualifications? LOL. As if that is any kind of a guarantor of competence, ability, or especially honesty.

Does anyone know what this post is about?......don't say dumb ideas. It's about the people who believe in dumb azz ideas. Since you claim that you're clueless as to what this post addresses then that's the evidence that you're one of those people. No wake up call for you? No five alarm bells ringing nonstop in your head? Rose coloured glasses do that to people, I hear. Dude, you mean to tell me that this uncontained fire and the massive destruction it's caused and is still causing - not simply the property casualty but the human suffering - has nothing to do with the policies of the woke California Democratic "leadership" in California who control the state with an iron fist? Now that's a dumb azz idea.

Tipp ,its All in the Main Stream Media constant leftest propaganda as well, many are activist pretending to be journalists. Dumb ideas commonly cause pain. Yet some people here still promote them. The ruling class of California is first in class for dumb ideas. Yet some people here still can't see them for what they are; dumb ideas. Dumb ideas are ideas that don't work. LA is burning down. That should be a wake up call that brings attention to all of the dumb ideas. And the dumb azzes in charge who implement the dumb ideas should immediately be tossed out. Newsom, the LA mayor, and the fire chief would be a good start. Unfortunately, doing that wouldn't change a thing. Because the dumb azzes who voted for these dumb azzes, because they believe that their dumb azz ideas are actually workable and still believe in their dumb azz ideas, will simply vote for the next dumb azz who promotes the same dumb azz ideas. So, nothing ever changes in California. I find the most laughable posts to be the ones that attempt to convince that this mass scale tragic travesty could not have been avoided by applying human agency. Those are the posters who altogether missed the wake up call. Maybe it's to avoid having their dumb azz ideas scrutinized because they don't want to change their dumb azz ideas. Not enough pain for them yet. BTW, these fires are nowhere near being contained. Much more pain to come.

Show the proof that this was caused by climate change. If you can't, and you can't, then you're detached from reality.

Sunday morning commentary. LA is burning down. People are extremely resistant to change. At least some are. Oftentimes they don't change until the pain not to is significantly greater than the pain to change. Human nature? Nah. It's all in the schooling.

I'd comment but this topic matter would take us a long way from the topic subject matter of the OP. Needs to be it's own separate thread. Something like the God thread but with religion not at all being the focal point.

As long as you accept being ridiculed by others for what you believe then go ahead and do so. The old adage, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, applies here. Or another well known truism, what comes around goes around. Just don't complain when you're the one being harshly ridiculed. And demeaned.

Beliefs trump logic, or rational thought, most every time. Most do not understand what beliefs are. Nor do they understand their effects. If they were to even grant that they have effects in the first place.

It's beyond me how anyone could have taken the mRNA gene editing therapy as it was never before tried on humans. Other than some testing. But not for Covid. No long term studies at all. Fortunately for myself, I've never been afraid of dying. So I wasn't in a scared sh!tless frame of mind and could therefore think clearly. Taking in all of the facts, which certainly included pharma's sordid history amongst many other factors, not taking the shot was a no brainer. And here I am today, no worse for the wear. I pity the people who'd rather not have taken it but were unduly coerced. Whether it was to keep your job or travel or any other reason where one didn't really have a choice. Those who were scared sh!tless because they feared death, well, they made their bed and must now lie in it. Of course those who took the jabs and the entire regimen of boosters and came away unscathed will laugh at this post. To those who laugh I hope that some of the side effects don't take years before they show themselves. I'm not so mean spirited that I have any wish that their mean spiritedness comes home to roost some day. I wouldn't wish adverse events on anyone.

Are you implying that I haven't? If what you say is true then why haven't you answered my first question to you? You claim you deal in facts. Where are the facts on this question? The WHO didn't live up to it's billing on the Covid pandemic at all. You tell me that's false yet can't produce any facts that show otherwise. And contrary to your derogatory imaginings, no, I'm not bored in the least. You then have the audacity to claim that you've proved me wrong. My claim being that the WHO was ineffectual during the pandemic. They were late to call the pandemic - only after it was global common knowledge, they didn't arrest the spread, and neither did they offer up any solutions to reduce the death toll. For you to prove those "baseless" claims wrong, which are indeed historical facts, then you need to provide the facts which show those claims to be false. You haven't yet. I've asked you twice now for factual evidence that "proves me wrong." Both times the question went unanswered. The topic is "Trump’s Transition Team Eyes Swift WHO Exit, Sparking Global Health Concerns," is it not? Does Trump share my mind on the ineffectual nature of the WHO, too? Might that be the reason he doesn't want to spend $220 million a year on an organisation that doesn't fulfill it's purpose? Why I'm dead on topic. Wouldn't you agree? In fact, I'll go further than claiming that the WHO was ineffectual. It can be contested that they were indeed harmful. Harmful in that they poo-pooed two potential mitigations that some doctors found success with. And they pushed the "one solution only" mRNA gene editing therapy despite the unknown risks of a never before tried therapy. If all of the reports of adverse events do get proven to be related to the mRNA shots, and if the reports of the deaths are also proven to be linked to it, then the WHO would be a guilty contributing partner in this travesty of a human tragedy. As I've said before, we should soon find out what that truth is. You disparagingly referred to Ivermectin as merely a horse dewormer. Didn't I provide you with literature which dispels that falsity? Didn't I ask you if that information helped change your view of Ivermectin as purely a horse dewormer? Did you reply to that last question? No, you didn't. You simply blew it off as not having any usefulness against Covid-19 by disparaging it with a misleading statement. You, my friend, were merely parroting what "officialdom" and the MSM were telling you. I provided you with a list of experts, too. My list is one of reputable and accomplished folks who were dragged through the mud and sullied for the crime of daring to dispute the mRNA gene editing therapy claims. They, too, had stellar bios previous to Covid-19. The point being that a qualifying bio may, to use your own word, only be an appearance. I did not make any baseless speculation about any of the people on your lists. My only point, and it's a valid one, is that unless you know everything there is to know about them then you cannot automatically settle on an informed opinion from their bioa alone. You really have no earthly idea who these people truly are. Any one of them could be another, say, Michael Yeadon. A guy with an impressive bio. Again, because I raise that quite practical aspect then the raising of it doesn't magically transform it into baseless speculation of a derogatory nature. My point, again, is that providing a bunch of bios on people is, in essence, and in practical terms, worthless. Tell me that valid point goes over your head. This is looking to me to be a case where you're doing all you can to not concede on any of your beliefs and have no real interest in finding out whether your beliefs have any true worth via an open dialogue that challenges them. And you complain when you do come up empty. Defence, defence, defence. That's about it, innit?

I've gotta say, candide, you grade very poorly at answering direct questions or addressing inconvenient but salient points. But to your credit you do excel at keeping the conversation on specific topics and issues for which you already have scripted answers. It's beginning to feel like I'm on a merry-go-round with you where it's impossible to resolve any difference of opinion because nothing ever gets fully addressed. You once again failed to answer direct questions. In fact, thus far you've completely skipped over responding to my post previous to the one you are replying to now. What gives? Why the avoidance on your part. I have no problem addressing your posts line by line. Yes. I have. Yet again, the lists are meaningless as name and rank tell you nothing. If you were to be captured in a war and all you gave was name and rank you'd be asking to be tortured. It's information which illuminates very little. I've already explained this to you. No comment from you, though. If there is any information about any of these people that is damning then you won't be able to "use Google." Which is the point of doing research. To find that information about these people that they will never tell. Such as where their funding comes from. Or what affiliations they have with others in the industry which could be conflicts of interest. And so much more. Pre-Covid you could find similarly glowing backgrounds of people like Michael Yeadon, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Peter McCullough, and many other respectable doctors, researchers and experts who have been attacked and vilified because they had different views on many of the issues concerning the pandemic. So what does your provided information about these two individuals tell you? Nothing.

April 7, 1948. That is the date of the WHO's birth. Question: How has it been possible that the world survived pre-WHO? There's an old adage that says no one is indispensable. Question: Did the WHO put an end to the Covid-19 pandemic? Or did it naturally run it's course. Think it through is right. Oh, no! New diseases! That's a first in this world. How did the world cope previously? Or are these "red alerts" merely given to ensure the eternal need for the WHO? Self preservation? We all know how that works. A different example to perhaps bridge the understanding. Show me a military that plans for peace. As soon as they did so they'd be planning for their obsolescence. They did a crack up job on Covid-19. Yup. They sent people and stopped it before it ever got out of China. Okay, they didn't. But they did after it got to Thailand. No? How about Italy? Nope. Theory is all well and good but it's reality that matters. And the reality is that the WHO failed to stop the spread of Covid-19 globally. They couldn't even slow it. But they're sure to get it right next time. All you need is faith. The world can be a scary place. Keep yourself safe. Ultimately it's up to you anyway.

Great. We've got names. That's a start. And their current positions. Okay. If you were hiring and that's all an applicant listed on their CV then that would be good enough for you to make a determination as to whether to hire them or not? The links are worthless as they don't provide any real information about these people. At least you could have commented on my point about making assumptions. For it certainly seems all of these characters meet with your approval based solely on name and current position. I take it all else about them are glowing assumptions. Or do "seals of approval" suffice for you and automatically relieve you of any responsibility to dig a bit deeper? But I guess that's the purpose of "seals of approval." You don't have to think about it any further yourself. You can simply give your blind trust, then sit back and enjoy your cold beers and whatever else occupies you without any worry. All is in good hands. Do you see any potential problem with that attitude? I do. Now that's what I would call ignorance. Purposeful at that.

LOL. How convenient of an excuse so as not to have to address salient points. It's typical, though. Raise any facts for which there are no legitimate counters and they end up being ignored via turning the discussion in another direction. Well, what say you now about Ivermectin? Do you still consider it strictly a horse dewormer, thus being an animal product then use for humans for any purpose is, well, laughable? Simple question. I assume you read the link. It was quite informative. Has that new information changed your mind? Or at least inserted some formerly absent doubt about the narrative being pushed regarding it?

That is so 2021, candide. It's been four years since the rollout of the mRNA gene editing therapy. The volume of research done over that time is staggering. Your statement appears to come from someone who has been living in a cave all this time. That you still identify, and tout, Ivermectin strictly as an animal product is to falsely portray it as a pejorative. It's human uses have long been hailed. This is straight up shameless dishonesty from you. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Ser. B, Physical and Biological Sciences 2011 Feb 10;87(2):13–28. doi: 10.2183/pjab.87.13 Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective [. . .] Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. [. . .] In reality, ivermectin’s role in human medicine effectively began in April 1978 inside the Merck company, several years before the drug emerged on the Animal Health market. The highly potent bioactivity of a fermentation broth of an organism isolated by the Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, which had been sent to Merck’s research laboratories in 1974, was first identified in 1975. The active compounds were identified by the international multidisciplinary collaborative team as the avermectins, with the subsequently-refined ivermectin derivative being designated the optimal compound for development. [. . .] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3043740/#:~:text=Originating from a single Japanese,for Animal Health in 1981. Scroll down to the section entitled "Development of ivermectin for human use." No one was laughingly and pejoratively referring to Ivermectin as a horse dewormer back in '88 when Ivermectin began relieving the millions of sufferers of onchocerciasis, or river blindness, in many parts of the undeveloped world. Consequently, in December, he [director of Merck scientists Dr. William Campbell] proposed to the Merck Laboratories’ Research Management Council that “an avermectin could become the first means of preventing the blindness associated with onchocerciasis” and that “discussions be held with representatives of WHO to determine the most appropriate approach to the problem—from the medical, political and commercial points of view”. You, candide, have had every opportunity to avail yourself of this information but chose instead to do nothing more than ignorantly parrot the narrative of "officialdom" and their propaganda bullhorn, the MSM. You ask me: I turn the question back to yourself. Four years have passed since the rollout of the mRNA gene editing therapy and you are here suggesting the impossible as a valid reality. That given the immense volume of research performed in that time not one stitch, not one iota of negative, counter-narrative findings has any merit. All of it is 100% false. The probability of that being true is a literal impossibility. If the true definition of "conspiracy theorist" is the act of promoting an impossibility as an actual reality then does that definition not fit you? I would say so. Views within science are eternally in conflict. As it should be. What your intention with the above statement is meant to achieve is to divide those conflicting views into two camps: one group who hold one view and another group who hold an opposite view. Since you fall into one of those groups then you consider your group as the legitimate scientific community and the other group you label as the pseudo scientific community. By what authority? Why the authority which you've vested in yourself by yourself. I challenge your self anointment. If you don't like it, well, tough on you. You ain't not God. And neither did any god grant you that sole authority. That truth hurts immensely as you kick and scream that your "truth" is the truth. We're about to find out soon which is the true propaganda. My bets are that the one doing the parroting is you. And if I had to provide evidence for that it would be the fact of your highly disingenuous "horse dewormer" label for Ivermectin. Whilst true it is, however, not the whole story. The MSM has done a fabulous job of keeping the rest of the truth of that story out of public consciousness. And you fell for it. Shame on you. Well, then, inform us as to who these individuals are. Of course you can't. Without any knowledge of who these experts are . . . most critically their names, their funding sources, and their professional and personal affiliations (not merely confined to institutions but other individual players in the field - directly or indirectly - as well) . . . your statement is absolutely meaningless. For it is based entirely on assumptions of a most general and broad nature. Perhaps the gravest faulty assumption being that all of these experts are infallible. The second one being that they are all incorruptible and purely altruistic. The third being that they are beyond any pernicious influence. The fourth being . . . No, they haven't been discredited by their own countries. They've been discredited only . . . only . . . only by the opposing camp. Your camp. Since your camp is the one who is broadly and currently in power then that allows you to illegitimately declare what is truth and what is not truth. You've thus far have been able to get away with it. The MSM bullhorns and censorship have been your greatest assets, along with the stupidity of so many of the plebes. When the power eventually shifts, though, and as people become informed to heightened levels, there will be a drastic reordering ot the "truth." And there will be hell to pay. Unfortunately, I suspect you will find yourself on the wrong side of history.

Will Thailand be your "last stand?" LOL. Assuredly, this is where I will go down in flames.

Am I? Falsified vaccines? Never heard of them. What are they? Was China making knockoffs again? The warning was for bogus products for prevention, treatment, detection and cures, using the WHO's own vernacular. In other words, targeting mitigations using Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, for instance. Or rather, especially. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Hydroxychloroquine 28 March 2023 WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. This recommendation is based on findings from 30 trials with more than 10 000 COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce mortality, the need for or duration of mechanical ventilation. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine#:~:text=WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID,or duration of mechanical ventilation. WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials 31 March 2021 The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials. This recommendation, which applies to patients with COVID-19 of any disease severity, is now part of WHO’s guidelines on COVID-19 treatments. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials The WHO continues to make these claims to this day: COVID-19 vaccines are safe. Strict precautions are in place to help ensure the safety of all COVID-19 vaccines. Before receiving validation from WHO and national regulatory agencies, COVID-19 vaccines were subject to rigorous testing in clinical trials to prove that they meet internationally agreed benchmarks for safety and efficacy. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice Given the data on adverse events and deaths linked to the mRNA gene editing therapy it is preposterous that the WHO continues to not only make the claim that the "vaccine" is safe but even more so is the claim of meeting benchmarks for efficacy. Come on, candide. We all know that the "vaccine" has been a total flop on efficacy. It neither prevents transmission or ensures protection against the virus. Setting aside all other issues concerning the WHO, the mere fact that they are still making these claims and still pushing the drug is reason enough to completely write off this bureaucratic organisation as credible, let alone effective. I have no doubt that the WHO did have their cadre of experts but they shunned and excluded so many respectable experts because those experts would not automatically fall in line. So they had panels of yes men. They refused to listen to anyone with different ideas. Kinda like you, eh? My claim is valid. Well, kudos for begrudgingly admitting at least that much. LOL. "Not perfect." I like your euphemism. I would use stronger language that would more accurately describe their performance. Our differences of "opinion" will never get resolved on this forum. Perhaps only in courts of law. That is my sincere hope. This crime cannot be treated as water under the bridge. If no crimes then why the call for amnesty? You're well aware of how this call was resoundingly rejected by the public. For damn good reasons. Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty Let’s focus on the future, and fix the problems we still need to solve. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/

Early on I heard discussions about the differences being observed about the batches. It was suggested that since the mRNA therapy was new and never before used publicly, especially at this scale, pharma didn't really have any firm idea about dosages. The idea was that pharma was experimenting with the dosage in real time in the real world. Now the reasoning was that no single location could be flooded with a single dosage else if the dosage were to be wrong then it would be quite evident to the public due to the concentration of adverse events. So different dosages were spread around in different batches. I'm not convinced that this is true, and though talked about neither was this theory taken as true by those theorising, although I would not put the deviousness out of the realm of possibilities for these people who are truly sinister and without morals. With proper investigations I'm sure that if true then it will come out in the wash.

I dunno. I'm sensing a major shift in public awareness that's very real. If the perps in this crime do get held to account I would say that there will be no more bite at the apple for these people. Largely due to the fact that they'd be behind bars for a very long time. I predict this con could only ever be repeated once enough time has elapsed to where this episode has passed from the consciousness of future generations and the world is awash with a new stock of unsuspecting suckers. As they say, history doesn't repeat but it sure does rhyme. I personally believe that this shift in public awareness will put an end to much, much more of this liberal madness that has seemed to take hold of the world in an iron grip. An infinite number of genders, for instance. Porn in schools, for example. Big changes coming, in my view, as long as us folks don't let up on the gas pedal.

We've yet to get to the accountability phase of this massive human tragedy. Once the scales have been tipped and suppression of the truth becomes impossible we can well imagine the scale of the criminality and the means by which it was implemented. I doubt we'll ever learn the true numbers of those who were injured or killed by the mRNA gene editing "therapy." Rough estimates will have to suffice. Those rough estimates, though, will be awe inspiring nonetheless. Just as we will never know the true numbers of deaths from the Wuhan virus itself. Massive games were played with the attributions of death which can never be fully corrected. According to Wiki the death toll stands between 7 and 35 million. That would be an average of 21 million plus or minus 14 million. The margin of error for that accounting is mind boggling . . . 66% either side of the estimated number. What fool would ever believe that any number that has ever been given by anyone has even the remotest chance for any degree of accuracy. Neither will we ever know the true number who died, or more bluntly, were killed due to the insane protocols that were put into place, such as prescribing Remdesivir, hooking people up to ventilators, and sending Covid victims with initial symptoms home, telling them not to come back until it was too late for them. Do we have the WHO to thank for that? Where were they in fulfilling their mandate? Similarly, to believe the number of "lives saved" thrown out there by the pro-vaxxers would be just as ludicrous. Nobody knows. And it can't even be guessed for it's a question that's impossible to answer. For any true answer would have to know what would have happened had someone not taken the injection. Sorry to anyone who claims to know the answer because now you're in the realm of unknowable probabilities. Anyone daring to make a claim of "lives saved" can only do so disingenuously.

In my opinion the Overlords ultimately failed. The people did rebel as evidenced by the massive protests in every western country against forced shots and penalties if resisted. Towards the end Austria was a case in point. They were ready to roll out stiff penalties for those who would defy their tyrannical edict. They caved shortly before it was to go into effect. The Overlords certainly had success early on. But in the end they failed. Accountability comes next.

And here's the chart from the peer reviewed study which successfully challenges all arguments for the continued use of the mRNA gene editing therapy. There are those here who staunchly promote the mRNA gene editing therapy for one major reason and one major reason only; they've take the entire regimen of shots and are still breathing with zero perceivable side effects. Thus their conclusion that the drug is safe is unassailable in their view. They are, after all, the living proof of the drug's harmlessness. What they fail to consider, or perhaps purposely ignore, is the fact that no bad drug ever kills all who take it. But this chart makes defending the continued use of the Covid "vaccine" to be insanely irrational. And just as insanely irresponsible.