Tippaporn

17 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Has it occurred to anyone else on this forum that climate change denialism is not incompatible with National Socialist ideology? The idea being that, yes, climate change will result in global famines and wars over dwindling resources and habitable land, but that white people with their material resources and intellectual capabilities will be in the best position to adapt to these changes and exploit the changed environment.

 

That thinking is straight out of National Socialist ideology, i.e., that all of life is a struggle to survive, and only the best will survive. There are probably some people reading this saying to themselves 'sounds pretty good to me,' but the only problem is that there will be plenty of genetically inferior white people who will be culled in the process, killed off in the famines or killed off defending the homeland against the zombie apocalypse of invading climate refugees, or embarking on wars of territorial conquest.  

 

Like the average Josef Frankenheimers of 1930's Germany who realized only when it was too late that they would bear the brunt of Hitler's delusional thinking, Trump's working class and poorly educated MAGA supporters will be the ones who end up paying a dear price, and they will also be reviled for generations to come for having enabled his climate change denialism.

Wow!  Sounds like you've got a great storyline.  With a bit of work I think you can turn your post into a best selling dystopian novel.  Your post shows great creative imagination.  Granted, heavily on the negative side.  But hey, doom and gloom sells well.  Just curious.  Will there be any survivors?

Sarcasm aside, there are so many fallacies  contained in your viewpoint that it would be difficult which one to begin with.  I'm leaning towards the climate change denialism but then that would be going off topic since so-called climate change undoubtedly had nothing to do with these fires.  Which is the topic.

2 hours ago, transam said:

Why didn't Trump fix all your woes during 2016/20.....?  🤔

Nice video, riclag.  

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.

On 12/30/2024 at 8:10 AM, soalbundy said:

When one believes something it is admitting one doesn't know, you don't believe you are aware, you know it. As for being demeaned nobody can do that, one can only demean oneself. Criticism is merely the opinion of someone about oneself or ones own opinions. All religious beliefs are opinions and therefore open to criticism, indeed many scientific theories have an unproven basis on which the theory is based, quantum mechanics for example, the equations work but nobody really knows why, as Professor Feynman put it, " If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you haven't understood it". My opinion is that all religions have a kern of truth packaged in myths and distortions pointing to a truth that the mind can't comprehend, Even Buddhism which is more of a philosophy than a religion (much respected by Einstein by the way) has some ridiculous stories woven into it, people need wonders and miracles for metaphysics and religious leaders keep the opium rolling, it's a nice little earner.

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.

On 12/26/2024 at 4:47 PM, soalbundy said:

Yes I can agree with that but only to a certain extent, 2+2 still makes 4, if someone says it makes 5 I will call them out on it, I will also ridicule flat earthers because it goes against known knowledge.

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.

7 hours ago, Hummin said:

Wise word, very wise word, considering our previously talks about beliefs and beliefs systems. 

 

Logic is an easy word to pronounce, but practice logics, or common sense, seems to be a different matter for most

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.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Much to agree with. The best thing I did during covid was to NOT have a Mickey Duck rushed medication that had not gone through rigorous testing over years.

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.

9 hours ago, candide said:

The topic is the WHO and I keep focused on it.

Are you implying that I haven't?

On 12/26/2024 at 5:57 AM, Tippaporn said:

Admittedly, it looks to be a pretty chart, coloured very nicely.  Now show me in quantifiable terms the impact the WHO had on reducing the loss of life during the pandemic.

If what you say is true then why haven't you answered my first question to you?

9 hours ago, candide said:

And sorry if I stick to facts. I can understand it's may be kind of boring g for 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.

9 hours ago, candide said:

You keep making  baseless claims about the WHO, and when proven wrong you start splitting hairs. Like you just did.

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.

On 12/26/2024 at 5:57 AM, Tippaporn said:

Anyway, dispense with all of the pretty charts and stacks of reports produced by the culprits themselves.  Show me some quantifiable evidence of the WHO's efforts reducing fatalities.

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.

9 hours ago, candide said:

When you make claims on this forum, it's your duty to back up these claims, and not me to waste my time disproving each and every of your claims.

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.

12 hours ago, candide said:

My comment on Ivermectin was about Covid-19. I did not comment about ither [sic] use.

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.

9 hours ago, candide said:

I have provided the list of experts, and they appear to be quite qualified and experienced. If you want to challenge their qualification, prove it. It's not my job to disprove any baseless speculation you may come up with.

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.

29 minutes ago, candide said:

Have you looked at the lists?

 

Here are the first two names on the first list.

Dr Didier Houssin

President AP-HP International, Subsidiary of Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris France

Members

Dr Martin Cetron

Director, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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.

34 minutes ago, candide said:

If it's not enough for you, I guess you are able to use Google and find more details, such as below:

 

Dr. Didier Houssin

President of the French Evaluation Agency for Research and Higher Education (AERES), since May 
2011. Former Director General for Health, France Ministry of Health (2005-2011). A Surgery 
Professor at Paris's Descartes University since 1988, Professor Housin returned recently to the 
Research and higher education Fields after many years in the Public Health sector. A liver surgery and 
transplant Specialist, including for children, he served as Executive Director of the Établissement 
Français des Greffes (the French transplant agency) from 1994 to 2003, as surgery Head at Paris's 
Cochin hospital, from 1998 to 2003, as the Paris Hospitals' medical policy Director, from 2003 to 
2005, and as Health Director General at the French Ministry of Health in March 2005, a position he 
kept until May 2011. During this last period, he was also the interministerial delegate for Pandemic 
Influenza in France.
Professor Houssin has a wide ranging experience in the research and higher education: researcher
fields at the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (1982-1988), as university
surgeon leading a surgical research laboratory (1985-1996), and director of the French national
doctoral training in surgical sciences (1991-1995). He authored several original scientific publications 
on liver transplants and surgery, transplant immunology, and gene therapy, as well as two books: a 
document on Organ transplantation and an essay on the phenomenon of Emergenc

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.

21 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Actions have consequences. What is your alternative? Think it through.

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.

28 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

MPox, Ebola are just some of the infectious diseases which  have entered the USA and  Europe.

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.

33 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

How would you control and prevent the diseases from spreading? WHO is the only entity which sends  people to keep the diseases from spreading. 

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.

47 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

And before you say travel restrictions, consider the practicality of enforcement. Near impossible.  UK has thousands of nationals who visit high risk regions and who return. Thousands more visit places like Thailand and are exposed to people who  are infected. That is how much of the covid infection came to the UK.

The world can be a scary place.  Keep yourself safe.  Ultimately it's up to you anyway.

28 minutes ago, candide said:

. . . so let's start with the most simple one.

 

You are again showing your ignorance of the WHO despite making definitive judgments about it.

 

You just need to look at its website.

 

https://www.who.int/groups/covid-19-ihr-emergency-committee

 

https://www.who.int/groups/covid-19-infection-prevention-and-control-guidance-development-group

 

https://www.who.int/about/governance/executive-board

(the positions are rotated at the board, so it may not be the same persons as in 2020/21).

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.

13 minutes ago, candide said:

Too long to reply to all your comments at the same time  . . .

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?

On 12/26/2024 at 3:48 PM, candide said:

Horse dewormer, hydrochloroquine, vaccines are not safe, etc...

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.

On 12/26/2024 at 3:48 PM, candide said:

Horse dewormer . . .

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:

On 12/26/2024 at 3:48 PM, candide said:

. . . vaccines are not safe . . . Are you serious?

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.

On 12/26/2024 at 3:48 PM, candide said:

Your claims are not supported by the scientific community.

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.

On 12/26/2024 at 3:48 PM, candide said:

You are just parroting the propaganda fed to you.

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.

On 12/26/2024 at 3:48 PM, candide said:

Exoerts [sic] used by WHO are usually provided by their resprctive [sic]  natioal [sic] health organisations. That includes countries such as the U.S., Germany Japan. etc...

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 . . .

On 12/26/2024 at 3:48 PM, candide said:

The experts you indirectly mentioned have been discredited in their own country.

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.

20 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Davis Crockett, 5th Cousin. That and a few baht will get me a cup of coffee here in Thailand.

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

2 hours ago, candide said:

You are making stuff up. 

Am I?

2 hours ago, candide said:

The warning you pointed out was about faksified vaccines as clearly expressed. AstraZeneca was the second vaccine approved by WHO in February 2021. It was lso included in the COVAX initiative.

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.

3 hours ago, candide said:

WHO is by definition a forum in which what you claimed was not discussed was actually discussed.

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.

3 hours ago, candide said:

The functioning of the WHO was certainly not perfect, but it didn't happen as you claimed it did.

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/

5 minutes ago, rumak said:

Oh yes... the good news is that the shots were manufactured in many many different facilities ,  and if "conspiracy theories"  are once again correct,  the thousands of batches produced were often very different.  That is why there were pockets of population where results were more catastrophic. 

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.

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 

That was just one round.  (But certainly not round 1).  They'll look at what worked and what didn't and be back.  After they quietly pass laws and implement new rules they can threaten us with next time.

 

Before it's all said and done, they'll be chipping newborns, monitoring exhaled air in public places, and calling again for vaccine passports to move freely.

 

Edit:  Rand Paul, in his 2024 Festivus Report, revealed the gub'ment was spending $millions to develop butt (anal) recognition technology, so they can tell who pinched that last loaf in public toilets.

 

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.