It would be boring to agree on all your points of your other texts, @zyx066, but here I have to politely disagree with some points in this one:
In fact, the new variants are here for one reason and one reason alone; the virus was given a chance to mutate simply because world-wide not enough people got vaccinated in time.
The new variants are a pure propaganda ploy. There are no proof of any new variant as there is no virus isolated. Even the ‘fact-checkers’ cannot say that, because it isn’t isolated. The best they can do is lying over Irish journalist and activist Gemma O’Doherty report, using words as identified and studied but they do know it is NOT isolated.
Even if there were new variants, all the medical science until 2019. knows that mutating viruses are less and less dangerous with every new mutation. The thing is simple: Media are in hands of Big Pharma, and they are peddling a scare story to get rich – as you have said in the text. But they do not care to make a real vaccine, since there is no real danger. Therefore you have a dangerous six-months garbage labeled as ‘vaccine – the only thing that can save us’. You have suppressing stories of Ivermectin and other proven, cheap and effective drugs, you have metallic particles in Moderna ‘vaccines’ and you have a growing number of deaths after ‘vaccination’ all over the World.
You can’t stop the Capitalist destructive madness by agreeing with its lies.
Yes, we will have to politely disagree here. I'll refer you to the responses given by @altleft and add some facts that are available for all to see: 1) vaccinations have existed since the late 18th century when people were injected with the relatively mild cowpox virus as protection against smallpox, 2) covid-19 is not a hoax, we all have someone in our circle of family, relatives and friends who's gotten it, my wife and mother-in-law for example, 3) variations almost ALWAYS arise with viruses as relatively simple organisms adapt relatively quickly, like the flu for example, of which we have a new variation almost every year, 4) although big pharma has every capitalist incentive to exaggerate the negative effects of ANY disease, that doesn't mean all diseases are fake, this should be obvious, and 5) we've all, or almost all been vaccinated as kids and if our parents had exhibited the same irrational panic and fear of vaccinations we see now, maybe you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
vaccinations have existed since the late 18th century when people were injected with the relatively mild cowpox virus as protection against smallpox,
The 18th century was not very much different from ours in terms of having scientists compete against each other in their ambitions to make a difference in this world. You can count on the very fact, that those scientists, which promised the bigger market won the competition. Robert Koch had relations to the King and politicians at his time. When he made experiments with the soldiers of the army and caused too much damage on his "volunteers", he was said to stop those experiments. Which he did, only to continue them in Africa (if I remember correctly).
Every form of disease could be deadly, yet isn't deadly, once you let the disease happen. But if you wish it not to happen, you'll never know if you'd survive or die by it. In the same way, you have no knowledge about whether people survived through vaccines or if they survived by not having had them. If you vaccinate 95 percent or 100 percent humans, there is no chance to prove that it worked, for you don't know if those who did not receive vaccination, would have lived despite not having it.
I did not buy the claims of todays scientists of a highly deadly disease. Human vanity, greed and anxiety plays a huge role within the sciences, so it's excluded from their realm of publishing and language used. While it remains a part of their thinking and feeling.
Usually I stop in front of a red light. But the thing is, I would stop whether there is a red light or not, when the streets were busy. If it's unclear which rule is given, I behave as I see the actual situation needs it.
I ignored red lights a couple of times in my life. It was during night, no traffic whatsoever, quiet streets, no pedestrians or other vehicles on the road. I felt like an idiot to wait until it was green and so I violated this rule.
If you are truly interested in those sources where the virus theory is handled differently, I might direct you to Tracy, who runs a blog where the theory is being questioned: @active-truth is her username. I myself read german papers, even from the Max-Planck-Institute, a paper from the end of the 90s, where it was summarized that it neither could be proven nor unproven, and remains uncertain.
There are no proof of any new variant as there is no virus isolated. Even the ‘fact-checkers’ cannot say that, because it isn’t isolated.
This is completely false. It takes less than 2 minutes searching on the internet to determine this is false. Scientists have genetically sequenced all the well known variants of covid 19. The original one was sequenced at the beginning of the pandemic. Here's an article discussing the sequencing of one in Korea, but it is easy to find more of them: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/
Even if there were new variants, all the medical science until 2019. knows that mutating viruses are less and less dangerous with every new mutation
This is also not true. Random mutations can be more or less dangerous than the original. That is just common sense, the changes, after all, are random.
As to the variants that persist over time (due to "Darwinism"), they can sometimes be less deadly (because the most deadly can wipe out their host species entirely in area, making it more difficult for them to spread). But they can also be more deadly, if they originally weren't super deadly to the point where they rapidly kill hosts before they can spread the virus. What is predictable, though, is that the long-lasting variants will be ones that spread easier (more infectious).
This is also not true. Random mutations can be more or less dangerous than the original. That is just common sense.
It is truth written in the medical textbooks. It has become ‘common sense’ from 2020. I‘m sure you will believe anything Big Pharma and their corporate media says, and will never ask for example, why there are no excessive deaths or any medical alert in Florida. Or ask them to explain the miracle of mankind’s survival without a ‘vaccines’ all until 2019. Or why it is necessary to hide the Ivermectin news and results.
OMFG, I just watched your "video evidence" (it didn't take me that long, cause after about 5 seconds I already guessed the content, and could just skip to the relevant section which is a sound bite from a chinese scientist with a tagline on the screen that says "they didn't isolate the virus").
This is just a repetition of the same idiocy that the link I sent you already refuted. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to read that, because its "coming from the Rothchilds" or some such bullshit.
All the while you continue to ignore all the papers that do show that many scientists (not just some scientist in Wuhan at the very beginning of the pandemic) have not only "isolated" the virus, they have genetically mapped multiple variations of it. What is mind-boggling to me, is that you don't seem to understand that even if your understanding of that video was correct (and it appears to be incorrect as the fact check article is much more plausible), that would still not mean that no one since then has been able to isolate and genecically map the virus. So again, I will ask you, are you claiming that all those scientific papers are just lies? Yes or no? And if you think they are all lies, can you find a virologist or DNA expert that is contradicting those claims to the mappings of the variants in a scientific paper?
(not just some scientist in Wuhan at the very beginning of the pandemic)
Of course, you didn’t watch it carefully. Prejudice won’t help you. The interview was done on January 23rd 2021, a year AFTER the ‘many scientists paper show they isolated the virus’. Dr. Wu Zunyou is an official of a Chinese CDC, so he should know if the virus was isolated. But I suppose you don’t believe Chinese CDC? Let’s see who is lying here. How about US CDC as an arbiter? They have posted this Lab Alert at their site:
Here is a screenshot in case they have changed something in the meantime:
Another ‘multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses’ means that the current FDA-authorized COVID-19 test could not differentiate between those two viruses, which means the virus is NOT isolated. If you need more detailed explanation, it is at this link:
False papers are thriving in the Coronavirus Hoax. The most known, notorious case is the case of a fake company called Surgisphere, whose ‘experts’ were a science fiction writer and an adult content model! A porn-star! Fake study about hydroxychloroquine that tried to discredit the tested drug was retracted from the Lancet magazine after only 13 days, but the corporate media never published the retraction, and are still citing it. And you still religiously believe those lies without even trying to pose a serious questions?
Ok, so you're referring to an idea that is so uncommon that you can only find it in some special medical book that has been removed from a youtube video? I suggest you read more, watch videos less, if you want good information.
It is not a special textbook – it is a standard textbook from the Medical Faculty of a Belgrade University. And she was also reading an excerpt saying that a natural immunity is always stronger then a vaccine immunity, which means that those who were infected does not need vaccine at all. Yes, this is a book, and I was sending that video because it was the easiest form available for everyone to see. You ask YouTube why they banned it.
And since you love to read, you’ll have to find textbooks in your language, instead of referring to ‘common sense’ you’ve got from corporate media, without asking how common it can be.
Also, your idea about not believing the chinese CDC is laughable. As you should have probably guessed, the first genomic mappings of sars-cov-2 were performed by Chinese scientists. They were, after all, the first ones to have access to samples. I ran across the paper at one point (it is highly cited by other scientists who have since mapped their own samples in different countries) and I can probably find it again if you will actually look at it.
I think you just don't understand the meaning of what he is saying, because you lack context. I actually read more on this particular interview in the past and the explanation for this soundbite in full context was quite reasonable, but it would take me some time to find it again.
Please do share this explanation, @altleft, I’m all ears. The context is pretty clear imo, NBC reporter investigating “the origin of the virus” where the “first samples were taken.” When asked why Chinese authorities hadn’t shared the data they have, this was his response, “Well, they didn’t isolate the virus, that’s the issue,” and when asked, “What about animal samples” his reply was candid, “that doesn’t tell you anything,” because it is irrelevant where the samples are coming from if the virus hasn’t been isolated from those samples.
The context seems clear, the alleged emergence of a novel virus in Wuhan and the Chinese samples that were taken in patients from the Wuhan market where it allegedly all began. He’s clearly referring to the researchers who took and analyzed those samples, and he said they didn’t isolate the virus, but hey, maybe he didn’t actually mean what he said, maybe he actually meant that they did isolate it, and that something else was the issue. As small as a sound bite as it is, it’s pretty hard to misinterpret; he either meant what he said, or he didn’t, or there’s some other cryptic meaning of virus isolation that I’m missing here. So I’d love to hear that explanation of yours, I really would.
As you should have probably guessed, the first genomic mappings of sars-cov-2 were performed by Chinese scientists. They were, after all, the first ones to have access to samples. I ran across the paper at one point (it is highly cited by other scientists who have since mapped their own samples in different countries) and I can probably find it again if you will actually look at it.
Yes, this is exactly the point, and the Chinese official is saying those scientists didn’t isolate the virus. Am I missing something here? Genetic mappings of a virus that hasn’t been isolated and is thus only theorized to exist and to cause ‘Covid19’ (ie. Genetic mappings of RNA found in samples which may or may not be viral RNA of a virus which may or may not be new) does not prove that these non-purified particles are a novel virus.
Concerning the “viral genome sequence” mapped in the widely cited Chinese paper you reference, the original Drosten-Corman study, linked in my initial comment response, clearly states:
"In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community."
Or maybe this first “viral genome sequence” originally released to the international health community and said to establish existence of the ‘virus’ is not the one mapped in the early Chinese studies, maybe the study you reference came shortly after, but are you going to try to tell me those studies did not base their findings around the original genetic sequence that did not come from a virus isolate taken directly from a patient? No matter how you spin it, the initial genetic mapping that birthed the “viral genome sequence” come to be known as the original ‘virus’ strain was not the genetic sequencing and mapping of an isolated virus, and thus no amount of genetic sequencing and mapping, no matter how widespread, inherently establishes the existence of new virus named ‘2019-nCoV’/‘SARS-CoV2’, which could only by accomplished with the scientific gold standard of virus isolation and purification.
Maybe this has since been done, and I am just not familiar with the more recent studies, so I’d love to see the papers claiming to have done so - I’ve already looked at several that alleged ‘isolation’ but did not in fact purify virus - but no amount of studies mapping and sequencing a ‘virus’ that has yet to be isolated serve to prove the existence of that alleged virus. I patiently await for those studies to be published or brought to my attention so I can concede that the theory this virus hasn’t been proven to exist is in fact mistaken. I have always been and remain open to this possibility; I only wish to see the evidence that this virus has actually been properly isolated accompanied by end-to-end sequencing of those purified virus particles. And with this in mind, yes I for one would of course look at the Chinese study you reference, I would very much like to know which one you speak of and see the contents for myself.
The virus had to be isolated (samples collected and grown in a lab) in order for vaccines to be made. I suppose you think that all the vaccines are just randomly made from ivermectin /s. You're using a single misunderstood sound bite to attempt to contradict an incredibly numerous set of reports of isolated covid 19. Here's an article with a link to an entire database of DNA mappings for covid 19, and I'll excerpt a relevant quote:
One of the largest curated international repositories of SARS-CoV-2 sequence data is hosted by GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data). As of September 2020, almost 100,000 full SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences, along with key contextual information (metadata) associated with each sequence, have been uploaded and shared on the GSAID SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Epidemiology (EpiCov) platform. NextStrain and NextClade open-source bioinformatics tools use GSAID data, allowing users to create highly customizable visualizations.
Next, you conflate isolating and genetic sequencing of a virus with PCR testing for that virus:
Genetic sequencing is a much more intensive task where you are determining the DNA sequence of a sample. A PCR test is just a method of analyzing a sample taken from a person to see if that sample contains a known DNA sequence.
And duh, of course, I've already read your conspiracy theory about PCR tests and the relevant quote from the CDC about PCR tests. Anyone who understands English well could understand that the CDC is suggesting moving to a test that can simultaneously test for covid AND influenza, instead of requiring two separate tests (a multiplexed test is a test that can test for two different conditions simultaneously).
Maybe the problem is you are not a native English speaker and were therefore confused by the word multiplexed? But even so, if you just bothered to read the second sentence after the sentence you highlighted, you should have been able to understand this. I'll retype it for you from your screenshot: "Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-cov-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into the influenza season." In other words, you can do two tests for the price of one with a multiplexed test. The suggested move from using the PCR test was because it was becoming flu season, an obvious and logical change to make at such a time, when diagnosing patients presenting symptoms that could be either covid or influenza.
And since you love to read, you’ll have to find textbooks in your language, instead of referring to ‘common sense’ you’ve got from corporate media, without asking how common it can be.
Most of my sources are scientific data, not corporate media. I'm not averse to using an article as a starting point for finding that data, but in most cases where I'm citing a source, you will find I generally am pointing at scientific data (or an article with links to that data), not some article written by a relatively clueless reporter. And the substance of my arguments are generally my own, just based on reasoning about the data itself. If you read my responses carefully, this should become obvious.
Your believe into a proven ‘fact-checking’ liars is a religious one.
I do not exactly understand what you're trying to say above. But it mostly seems to be off the real point anyways, so I'm not asking you to elucidate further.
But to the main point: there are many scientific papers published that show the DNA mappings of covid 19 variants. I linked you to one and I can easily find more if you like (I came across 4 or 5 immediately). Are you claiming that the authors of all those papers are just lying about mapping those variants?
And if so, why are you even later discussing "truth written in medical books" (with no actual citation to your bald assertion, I note) when it would then seem that you automatically dismiss any scientific papers that contradict your stance?
Are you claiming that the authors of all those papers are just lying about mapping those variants?
Which says that you didn’t watch that 6 minutes video from the link.
And if so, why are you even later discussing "truth written in medical books" (with no actual citation to your bald assertion, I note) when it would then seem that you automatically dismiss any scientific papers that contradict your stance?
I’ve sent Dr. Jovana Stojković reading her Medical textbook in a YouTube video, and YouTube removed it. That’s why I can’t send you anything. But the book exists. And in the meantime, ask yourself why YouTube did it.
No, I didn't watch a video. How about you just write a couple sentences that explain your position (i.e. just answer a simple question)?
Ok, so you're referring to an idea that is so uncommon that you can only find it in some special medical book that has been removed from a youtube video? I suggest you read more, watch videos less, if you want good information.
If the phenomenon of which there seems to be so much fear existed, you would probably have already experienced mass deaths in your life so far, you would have been a surviving witness to such an event.
Isn't the question justified, what could have also favoured the survival of the human species, outside of applied medicine?
Have you asked yourself the question, when did the mass-abolition by so-called vaccines begin and what made it popular? What has been forgotten is that the virus theory is an unproven theory even according to the most prestigious institutions like the Max Planck Institute. You'd have to take my word for it that I've read the paper and repeated its conclusion here. Otherwise, further conversation is probably rather useless.
Science lives from doubt, that is its strength. Where doubt is suppressed in favour of other interests, methods of application are established that date back a hundred or more years and have been seemingly practised unquestioned ever since - at least in orthodox medicine.
Instead of referring to this long tradition as a scientist and understanding the so-called Koch's postulates as established and applied without actually implementing them in one's own scientific enterprise, I consider it unscientific. I am not talking about the isolation of a virus, but about all the steps proposed at that time in the research of so-called viruses. "Isolation" is only the first step. Further steps would be needed to substantiate the theory of how transmission occurs. I will spare the details, otherwise the answer would be too long.
But let us accept as a moot point that the currently available scientific sources, however much they contradict each other, can both be understood as legitimate. If you want to be fair as a scientist, you give the other scientist room to examine your own theory and identify weaknesses that lead to further lively dialogue.
Where can we as viewers experience such a dialogue?
I freely admit that I am on the side of those scientists who relativise the lethality and the danger of this phenomenon. From a more detached perspective, I would think that where we do experience relativisation of the event, the argument about "who is right?" seems a luxury if only because otherwise we would be fighting for sheer survival. I think that is not the case. Given that vaccination has only been going on since the beginning of the year, and that all of last year people were not dying like flies without vaccination, I think that is a legitimate thing to say.
As I understand you, you take the opposite position. This is a dilemma. Based on this, what remains? How do you want to solve it? How do you want to establish fairness between one side and the other?
How much are you driven by the desire for everyone to be vaccinated and what do you think should happen if the resistance to such treatment remains? Do you allow those who do not hold your view the freedom of choice, including remaining in their usual places of work and social circles?
I'm surprised that you seem to exclude some things in this regard that are actually obvious; well, to me anyway :). An attempt at illustration: Let's assume we were dealing with a really deadly killer virus. What would have happened? Wouldn't so many people have died that their absence would have disrupted food supply chains? Weren't there still people transporting things from A to B, by ship, plane, truck and so on? And don't the delivered goods have to be taken by people and put on the supermarket shelves?
Since humans are not able to determine a phenomenon unambiguously in time and space (a view I hold), would we have noticed an unusually large number of sick and dying people before the news about this killer virus was published? In my way of thinking, catastrophes of the kind we have been presented with cannot be stopped, they happen contrary to what man is able to prevent.
How much do you accept media dissemination and the images of danger that come with it as influencing the human psyche? On a scale of 0-10 (0 = no influence, 10=absolute influence).
If you assume that human beings are able to perceive imminent danger clearly and at a specific point in time, then we would first have to discuss this question, wouldn't we?
From my point of view, modern man is dominated by the idea of not only being able to predict events of a planetary nature (natural disasters, plagues, etc.) but also to control them as he sees fit. But where an event did not occur in the first place (mass deaths), the question remains unprovable whether it did not occur due to human intervention or whether the intervention actually had less to do with it than assumed (or rather desired). Please feel free to read my latest post on this topic. I would like to know what you think about it.
It is certainly one of the most difficult facts to accept that people have such different views on life that understanding seems impossible. Perhaps it should be said that a three-year-old cannot understand an adult and vice versa, and that the space-time in which people arrive at answers and insights is almost inaccessible to all but oneself. Perhaps one should simply remain silent about such things. ... I have found that situations where I meet privately also proceed in such a way that one does not ask for one's view on the subject. And you can have a good evening together. I wonder if that will be the case again in work and public life. I wish it would.
So do I.
It's a matter of decision, is it not? Where you cut the line of information taken in and from there, what to believe and to decide upon. Facts leave room for interpretation, that's also a fact :)
People seem to be obsessed with the notion that you could deliver information of the same nature to all at once. This is impossible.
Let's say, you count 1000 people who showed up to demonstrate on the street.
This sentence already contains a subjective part, which can't be told to be a certain (but uncertain) fact. That is "who showed up to demonstrate". Did all the 1000 people appear to "demonstrate"? Did some of them just join the crowd for fun? If asked from an interviewer "Why are you here?", the answer could be "by coincidence, I happened to do my shopping here."
Yes, it is, in the sense for what facts are being used for. Facts never stand alone. They are taken up to do or explain something with them.
Let's say, you count 1000 people who showed up to demonstrate on the street. That is a fact. Now, what happens?
People put that into a context, they use it contextual in reference to their thoughts.
Some say, "1000 - Wow, that's a huge number!"
Others say: "1000 - Not many people showed up."
And others say: "1000 - In relation to what the demo was about, the number of people is weak."
If you'd left out to use that number for a context, the number would just stand there alone without any significance whatsoever. It remains meaningless, unless someone picks it up and puts it into a (his/hers/their) context.
"I consider the whole idea of objectivity to be a stumbling-block, a foot-trap, a semantic trick to confuse the speakers and the listeners and the whole discussion, right from the start. For objectivity, after all, as far as I understand Helmholtz's formulation, requires the locus observandi. There the observer must strip off all his personal characteristics and must see quite objectively - locus observandi! - see it as it is. And this assumption already contains fearful errors. For when the ¨observer strips off all his characteristics, namely language - Greek, Latin, Turkic, whatever - when he puts away his cultural glasses and is thus blind and mute, then he cannot be an observer, and he cannot narrate anything at all. The preconditions of his narration are taken away. To ascend to the locus observandi means: put aside all your personal qualities, including seeing, including speaking, including culture, including nursery, and now report something to us. Well, what is he supposed to report? He can't do that."
Some people might reject it: So we can only refer to the numbers, to the statistics, to the pure quantities of our observations. But who has ever read a scientific paper that does without any additional written language? Without an introduction and a conclusion or a summary? If we were given only the "pure numbers" about observed events, what would we do with them without linguistic references?
Again, von Förster:
"Sometimes the question arises: Tell me, you are talking about facts, aren't you? ... . And then I say, where does the word come from? From (latin) facere, from making. So a fact is a made affair, an invented affair. And then what is the difference with fiction?
It comes from fingere, which also means to build, to construct. So what is the difference between a fiction and a fact? When I report a fact, I am invited to doubt it. But when I speak of a fiction: the doubt never arises."
Thanks so much for visiting and the great response :-) I've responded to your post about What is a disaster? What means emergency?, which I can recommend to everyone. I hope that response answers most of your questions.
As the saying goes.. 'Amateur's talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics"
I heard numerous reports from early on about all manner of shortages of necessary materials and labor in this pandemic. There is simply not the manufacturing capacity on the planet to make alot of this stuff - esp. atthe speed and quantity to outpace the virus mutations. Many vax trials I follow are being held up by insane supply problems. When you add on the fact that it appears many of them need boosters.. I suspect this will remain a largely first world technology.
Sadly even solving this would not drive covid out.. it has animal hosts as well. We will be in a permanent fight with this one.
I understand your point, but I am not sure it is true in this case. It depends on if production would be higher or not if the patents did not exists. For most patents, I think it is fair to assume they restrict production, but in the case of covid vaccine patents, I think it is not completely clear, because of the money that is being poured into vaccine production.
Thank you for the link. It seems that answers the question. I think that even in the normal case, the patent system as it is designed is an abomination and should be eliminated. That it would be enforced at such a time is flat out insane.
You make a valid point. Since the whole discussion on the patents began, I've seen a lot of credible sources say that not the patents, but the complexities of the production processes are the bottleneck for up-scaling the number of doses. Here's one of the more recent explanations; it's not like manufacturing more T-shirts, and production can't be handed over to facilities that aren't well prepared to make this vaccine. But even if that's the case, in my opinion everything should be done to get other production facilities up to speed to help with the production, and that's something I don't see happening. I could be wrong, of course, but so far this reeks like an instance of "profits-over-human lifes," which is business as usual unfortunately...
It's deeper than that. The sole beneficiary of the exaggeration of the seriousness of the disease, repression of inexpensive therapies done by government are these vaccine companies. Now if the government's really serving big pharma, what they do makes sense.
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You have been a buzzy bee and published a post every day of the month.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the wordSTOP
It would be boring to agree on all your points of your other texts, @zyx066, but here I have to politely disagree with some points in this one:
The new variants are a pure propaganda ploy. There are no proof of any new variant as there is no virus isolated. Even the ‘fact-checkers’ cannot say that, because it isn’t isolated. The best they can do is lying over Irish journalist and activist Gemma O’Doherty report, using words as identified and studied but they do know it is NOT isolated.
Even if there were new variants, all the medical science until 2019. knows that mutating viruses are less and less dangerous with every new mutation. The thing is simple: Media are in hands of Big Pharma, and they are peddling a scare story to get rich – as you have said in the text. But they do not care to make a real vaccine, since there is no real danger. Therefore you have a dangerous six-months garbage labeled as ‘vaccine – the only thing that can save us’. You have suppressing stories of Ivermectin and other proven, cheap and effective drugs, you have metallic particles in Moderna ‘vaccines’ and you have a growing number of deaths after ‘vaccination’ all over the World.
You can’t stop the Capitalist destructive madness by agreeing with its lies.
Yes, we will have to politely disagree here. I'll refer you to the responses given by @altleft and add some facts that are available for all to see: 1) vaccinations have existed since the late 18th century when people were injected with the relatively mild cowpox virus as protection against smallpox, 2) covid-19 is not a hoax, we all have someone in our circle of family, relatives and friends who's gotten it, my wife and mother-in-law for example, 3) variations almost ALWAYS arise with viruses as relatively simple organisms adapt relatively quickly, like the flu for example, of which we have a new variation almost every year, 4) although big pharma has every capitalist incentive to exaggerate the negative effects of ANY disease, that doesn't mean all diseases are fake, this should be obvious, and 5) we've all, or almost all been vaccinated as kids and if our parents had exhibited the same irrational panic and fear of vaccinations we see now, maybe you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
The 18th century was not very much different from ours in terms of having scientists compete against each other in their ambitions to make a difference in this world. You can count on the very fact, that those scientists, which promised the bigger market won the competition. Robert Koch had relations to the King and politicians at his time. When he made experiments with the soldiers of the army and caused too much damage on his "volunteers", he was said to stop those experiments. Which he did, only to continue them in Africa (if I remember correctly).
Every form of disease could be deadly, yet isn't deadly, once you let the disease happen. But if you wish it not to happen, you'll never know if you'd survive or die by it. In the same way, you have no knowledge about whether people survived through vaccines or if they survived by not having had them. If you vaccinate 95 percent or 100 percent humans, there is no chance to prove that it worked, for you don't know if those who did not receive vaccination, would have lived despite not having it.
I did not buy the claims of todays scientists of a highly deadly disease. Human vanity, greed and anxiety plays a huge role within the sciences, so it's excluded from their realm of publishing and language used. While it remains a part of their thinking and feeling.
Usually I stop in front of a red light. But the thing is, I would stop whether there is a red light or not, when the streets were busy. If it's unclear which rule is given, I behave as I see the actual situation needs it.
I ignored red lights a couple of times in my life. It was during night, no traffic whatsoever, quiet streets, no pedestrians or other vehicles on the road. I felt like an idiot to wait until it was green and so I violated this rule.
If you are truly interested in those sources where the virus theory is handled differently, I might direct you to Tracy, who runs a blog where the theory is being questioned: @active-truth is her username. I myself read german papers, even from the Max-Planck-Institute, a paper from the end of the 90s, where it was summarized that it neither could be proven nor unproven, and remains uncertain.
I admire science, if it's not dogmatized.
This is completely false. It takes less than 2 minutes searching on the internet to determine this is false. Scientists have genetically sequenced all the well known variants of covid 19. The original one was sequenced at the beginning of the pandemic. Here's an article discussing the sequencing of one in Korea, but it is easy to find more of them: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/
And since you invoked fact checkers, here's a fact-check article that discusses the root of the misinformation on this topic: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-rna/fact-check-sars-cov-2-has-been-isolated-and-its-complete-genome-has-been-sequenced-idUSL1N2LS27P
This is also not true. Random mutations can be more or less dangerous than the original. That is just common sense, the changes, after all, are random.
As to the variants that persist over time (due to "Darwinism"), they can sometimes be less deadly (because the most deadly can wipe out their host species entirely in area, making it more difficult for them to spread). But they can also be more deadly, if they originally weren't super deadly to the point where they rapidly kill hosts before they can spread the virus. What is predictable, though, is that the long-lasting variants will be ones that spread easier (more infectious).
Your believe into a proven ‘fact-checking’ liars is a religious one.
https://odysee.com/@MarijaS:8/DOKTOR-WU-ZUNYOU-PRIZNAO-DA-NIKADA-NISU-IZOLOVALI-VIRUS-ZBOG-KOJEG-GODINU-DANA-MALTRETIRAJU-LJUDE:7?&sunset=lbrytv
It is truth written in the medical textbooks. It has become ‘common sense’ from 2020. I‘m sure you will believe anything Big Pharma and their corporate media says, and will never ask for example, why there are no excessive deaths or any medical alert in Florida. Or ask them to explain the miracle of mankind’s survival without a ‘vaccines’ all until 2019. Or why it is necessary to hide the Ivermectin news and results.
OMFG, I just watched your "video evidence" (it didn't take me that long, cause after about 5 seconds I already guessed the content, and could just skip to the relevant section which is a sound bite from a chinese scientist with a tagline on the screen that says "they didn't isolate the virus").
This is just a repetition of the same idiocy that the link I sent you already refuted. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to read that, because its "coming from the Rothchilds" or some such bullshit.
All the while you continue to ignore all the papers that do show that many scientists (not just some scientist in Wuhan at the very beginning of the pandemic) have not only "isolated" the virus, they have genetically mapped multiple variations of it. What is mind-boggling to me, is that you don't seem to understand that even if your understanding of that video was correct (and it appears to be incorrect as the fact check article is much more plausible), that would still not mean that no one since then has been able to isolate and genecically map the virus. So again, I will ask you, are you claiming that all those scientific papers are just lies? Yes or no? And if you think they are all lies, can you find a virologist or DNA expert that is contradicting those claims to the mappings of the variants in a scientific paper?
Of course, you didn’t watch it carefully. Prejudice won’t help you. The interview was done on January 23rd 2021, a year AFTER the ‘many scientists paper show they isolated the virus’. Dr. Wu Zunyou is an official of a Chinese CDC, so he should know if the virus was isolated. But I suppose you don’t believe Chinese CDC? Let’s see who is lying here. How about US CDC as an arbiter? They have posted this Lab Alert at their site:
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
Here is a screenshot in case they have changed something in the meantime:
Another ‘multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses’ means that the current FDA-authorized COVID-19 test could not differentiate between those two viruses, which means the virus is NOT isolated. If you need more detailed explanation, it is at this link:
False papers are thriving in the Coronavirus Hoax. The most known, notorious case is the case of a fake company called Surgisphere, whose ‘experts’ were a science fiction writer and an adult content model! A porn-star! Fake study about hydroxychloroquine that tried to discredit the tested drug was retracted from the Lancet magazine after only 13 days, but the corporate media never published the retraction, and are still citing it. And you still religiously believe those lies without even trying to pose a serious questions?
It is not a special textbook – it is a standard textbook from the Medical Faculty of a Belgrade University. And she was also reading an excerpt saying that a natural immunity is always stronger then a vaccine immunity, which means that those who were infected does not need vaccine at all. Yes, this is a book, and I was sending that video because it was the easiest form available for everyone to see. You ask YouTube why they banned it.
And since you love to read, you’ll have to find textbooks in your language, instead of referring to ‘common sense’ you’ve got from corporate media, without asking how common it can be.
Also, your idea about not believing the chinese CDC is laughable. As you should have probably guessed, the first genomic mappings of sars-cov-2 were performed by Chinese scientists. They were, after all, the first ones to have access to samples. I ran across the paper at one point (it is highly cited by other scientists who have since mapped their own samples in different countries) and I can probably find it again if you will actually look at it.
Please do share this explanation, @altleft, I’m all ears. The context is pretty clear imo, NBC reporter investigating “the origin of the virus” where the “first samples were taken.” When asked why Chinese authorities hadn’t shared the data they have, this was his response, “Well, they didn’t isolate the virus, that’s the issue,” and when asked, “What about animal samples” his reply was candid, “that doesn’t tell you anything,” because it is irrelevant where the samples are coming from if the virus hasn’t been isolated from those samples.
The context seems clear, the alleged emergence of a novel virus in Wuhan and the Chinese samples that were taken in patients from the Wuhan market where it allegedly all began. He’s clearly referring to the researchers who took and analyzed those samples, and he said they didn’t isolate the virus, but hey, maybe he didn’t actually mean what he said, maybe he actually meant that they did isolate it, and that something else was the issue. As small as a sound bite as it is, it’s pretty hard to misinterpret; he either meant what he said, or he didn’t, or there’s some other cryptic meaning of virus isolation that I’m missing here. So I’d love to hear that explanation of yours, I really would.
Yes, this is exactly the point, and the Chinese official is saying those scientists didn’t isolate the virus. Am I missing something here? Genetic mappings of a virus that hasn’t been isolated and is thus only theorized to exist and to cause ‘Covid19’ (ie. Genetic mappings of RNA found in samples which may or may not be viral RNA of a virus which may or may not be new) does not prove that these non-purified particles are a novel virus.
Concerning the “viral genome sequence” mapped in the widely cited Chinese paper you reference, the original Drosten-Corman study, linked in my initial comment response, clearly states:
"In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community."
Or maybe this first “viral genome sequence” originally released to the international health community and said to establish existence of the ‘virus’ is not the one mapped in the early Chinese studies, maybe the study you reference came shortly after, but are you going to try to tell me those studies did not base their findings around the original genetic sequence that did not come from a virus isolate taken directly from a patient? No matter how you spin it, the initial genetic mapping that birthed the “viral genome sequence” come to be known as the original ‘virus’ strain was not the genetic sequencing and mapping of an isolated virus, and thus no amount of genetic sequencing and mapping, no matter how widespread, inherently establishes the existence of new virus named ‘2019-nCoV’/‘SARS-CoV2’, which could only by accomplished with the scientific gold standard of virus isolation and purification.
Maybe this has since been done, and I am just not familiar with the more recent studies, so I’d love to see the papers claiming to have done so - I’ve already looked at several that alleged ‘isolation’ but did not in fact purify virus - but no amount of studies mapping and sequencing a ‘virus’ that has yet to be isolated serve to prove the existence of that alleged virus. I patiently await for those studies to be published or brought to my attention so I can concede that the theory this virus hasn’t been proven to exist is in fact mistaken. I have always been and remain open to this possibility; I only wish to see the evidence that this virus has actually been properly isolated accompanied by end-to-end sequencing of those purified virus particles. And with this in mind, yes I for one would of course look at the Chinese study you reference, I would very much like to know which one you speak of and see the contents for myself.
The virus had to be isolated (samples collected and grown in a lab) in order for vaccines to be made. I suppose you think that all the vaccines are just randomly made from ivermectin /s. You're using a single misunderstood sound bite to attempt to contradict an incredibly numerous set of reports of isolated covid 19. Here's an article with a link to an entire database of DNA mappings for covid 19, and I'll excerpt a relevant quote:
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/October/SARS-CoV-2-Sequencing-Data-The-Devil-Is-in-the-Gen
Next, you conflate isolating and genetic sequencing of a virus with PCR testing for that virus:
Genetic sequencing is a much more intensive task where you are determining the DNA sequence of a sample. A PCR test is just a method of analyzing a sample taken from a person to see if that sample contains a known DNA sequence.
And duh, of course, I've already read your conspiracy theory about PCR tests and the relevant quote from the CDC about PCR tests. Anyone who understands English well could understand that the CDC is suggesting moving to a test that can simultaneously test for covid AND influenza, instead of requiring two separate tests (a multiplexed test is a test that can test for two different conditions simultaneously).
Maybe the problem is you are not a native English speaker and were therefore confused by the word multiplexed? But even so, if you just bothered to read the second sentence after the sentence you highlighted, you should have been able to understand this. I'll retype it for you from your screenshot: "Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-cov-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into the influenza season." In other words, you can do two tests for the price of one with a multiplexed test. The suggested move from using the PCR test was because it was becoming flu season, an obvious and logical change to make at such a time, when diagnosing patients presenting symptoms that could be either covid or influenza.
Most of my sources are scientific data, not corporate media. I'm not averse to using an article as a starting point for finding that data, but in most cases where I'm citing a source, you will find I generally am pointing at scientific data (or an article with links to that data), not some article written by a relatively clueless reporter. And the substance of my arguments are generally my own, just based on reasoning about the data itself. If you read my responses carefully, this should become obvious.
I do not exactly understand what you're trying to say above. But it mostly seems to be off the real point anyways, so I'm not asking you to elucidate further.
But to the main point: there are many scientific papers published that show the DNA mappings of covid 19 variants. I linked you to one and I can easily find more if you like (I came across 4 or 5 immediately). Are you claiming that the authors of all those papers are just lying about mapping those variants?
And if so, why are you even later discussing "truth written in medical books" (with no actual citation to your bald assertion, I note) when it would then seem that you automatically dismiss any scientific papers that contradict your stance?
Which says that you didn’t watch that 6 minutes video from the link.
I’ve sent Dr. Jovana Stojković reading her Medical textbook in a YouTube video, and YouTube removed it. That’s why I can’t send you anything. But the book exists. And in the meantime, ask yourself why YouTube did it.
No, I didn't watch a video. How about you just write a couple sentences that explain your position (i.e. just answer a simple question)?
Ok, so you're referring to an idea that is so uncommon that you can only find it in some special medical book that has been removed from a youtube video? I suggest you read more, watch videos less, if you want good information.
If the phenomenon of which there seems to be so much fear existed, you would probably have already experienced mass deaths in your life so far, you would have been a surviving witness to such an event.
Isn't the question justified, what could have also favoured the survival of the human species, outside of applied medicine?
Have you asked yourself the question, when did the mass-abolition by so-called vaccines begin and what made it popular? What has been forgotten is that the virus theory is an unproven theory even according to the most prestigious institutions like the Max Planck Institute. You'd have to take my word for it that I've read the paper and repeated its conclusion here. Otherwise, further conversation is probably rather useless.
Science lives from doubt, that is its strength. Where doubt is suppressed in favour of other interests, methods of application are established that date back a hundred or more years and have been seemingly practised unquestioned ever since - at least in orthodox medicine.
Instead of referring to this long tradition as a scientist and understanding the so-called Koch's postulates as established and applied without actually implementing them in one's own scientific enterprise, I consider it unscientific. I am not talking about the isolation of a virus, but about all the steps proposed at that time in the research of so-called viruses. "Isolation" is only the first step. Further steps would be needed to substantiate the theory of how transmission occurs. I will spare the details, otherwise the answer would be too long.
But let us accept as a moot point that the currently available scientific sources, however much they contradict each other, can both be understood as legitimate. If you want to be fair as a scientist, you give the other scientist room to examine your own theory and identify weaknesses that lead to further lively dialogue.
Where can we as viewers experience such a dialogue?
I freely admit that I am on the side of those scientists who relativise the lethality and the danger of this phenomenon. From a more detached perspective, I would think that where we do experience relativisation of the event, the argument about "who is right?" seems a luxury if only because otherwise we would be fighting for sheer survival. I think that is not the case. Given that vaccination has only been going on since the beginning of the year, and that all of last year people were not dying like flies without vaccination, I think that is a legitimate thing to say.
As I understand you, you take the opposite position. This is a dilemma. Based on this, what remains? How do you want to solve it? How do you want to establish fairness between one side and the other?
How much are you driven by the desire for everyone to be vaccinated and what do you think should happen if the resistance to such treatment remains? Do you allow those who do not hold your view the freedom of choice, including remaining in their usual places of work and social circles?
Hi to you,
I'm surprised that you seem to exclude some things in this regard that are actually obvious; well, to me anyway :). An attempt at illustration: Let's assume we were dealing with a really deadly killer virus. What would have happened? Wouldn't so many people have died that their absence would have disrupted food supply chains? Weren't there still people transporting things from A to B, by ship, plane, truck and so on? And don't the delivered goods have to be taken by people and put on the supermarket shelves?
Since humans are not able to determine a phenomenon unambiguously in time and space (a view I hold), would we have noticed an unusually large number of sick and dying people before the news about this killer virus was published? In my way of thinking, catastrophes of the kind we have been presented with cannot be stopped, they happen contrary to what man is able to prevent.
How much do you accept media dissemination and the images of danger that come with it as influencing the human psyche? On a scale of 0-10 (0 = no influence, 10=absolute influence).
If you assume that human beings are able to perceive imminent danger clearly and at a specific point in time, then we would first have to discuss this question, wouldn't we?
From my point of view, modern man is dominated by the idea of not only being able to predict events of a planetary nature (natural disasters, plagues, etc.) but also to control them as he sees fit. But where an event did not occur in the first place (mass deaths), the question remains unprovable whether it did not occur due to human intervention or whether the intervention actually had less to do with it than assumed (or rather desired). Please feel free to read my latest post on this topic. I would like to know what you think about it.
Regards to you.
Good one.
It is certainly one of the most difficult facts to accept that people have such different views on life that understanding seems impossible. Perhaps it should be said that a three-year-old cannot understand an adult and vice versa, and that the space-time in which people arrive at answers and insights is almost inaccessible to all but oneself. Perhaps one should simply remain silent about such things. ... I have found that situations where I meet privately also proceed in such a way that one does not ask for one's view on the subject. And you can have a good evening together. I wonder if that will be the case again in work and public life. I wish it would.
i do my best to draw a clear line between "fact" and "opinion".
So do I.
It's a matter of decision, is it not? Where you cut the line of information taken in and from there, what to believe and to decide upon. Facts leave room for interpretation, that's also a fact :)
People seem to be obsessed with the notion that you could deliver information of the same nature to all at once. This is impossible.
FACT is not INTERPRETATION
INTERPRETATION is not FACT
I altered your two statements :)
Fact stands alone and waits for interpretation
Interpretation picked up fact
(but then: who put a fact to see it, in its first place? What motive caused him doing it?)
This sentence already contains a subjective part, which can't be told to be a certain (but uncertain) fact. That is "who showed up to demonstrate". Did all the 1000 people appear to "demonstrate"? Did some of them just join the crowd for fun? If asked from an interviewer "Why are you here?", the answer could be "by coincidence, I happened to do my shopping here."
Yes, it is, in the sense for what facts are being used for. Facts never stand alone. They are taken up to do or explain something with them.
Let's say, you count 1000 people who showed up to demonstrate on the street. That is a fact. Now, what happens?
People put that into a context, they use it contextual in reference to their thoughts.
Some say, "1000 - Wow, that's a huge number!"
Others say: "1000 - Not many people showed up."
And others say: "1000 - In relation to what the demo was about, the number of people is weak."
If you'd left out to use that number for a context, the number would just stand there alone without any significance whatsoever. It remains meaningless, unless someone picks it up and puts it into a (his/hers/their) context.
A fact is considered to be "objective", right?
I copy this from one of my latest posts:
First a quote from Heinz von Förster:
Thanks so much for visiting and the great response :-) I've responded to your post about What is a disaster? What means emergency?, which I can recommend to everyone. I hope that response answers most of your questions.
100% THIS.
As the saying goes.. 'Amateur's talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics"
I heard numerous reports from early on about all manner of shortages of necessary materials and labor in this pandemic. There is simply not the manufacturing capacity on the planet to make alot of this stuff - esp. atthe speed and quantity to outpace the virus mutations. Many vax trials I follow are being held up by insane supply problems. When you add on the fact that it appears many of them need boosters.. I suspect this will remain a largely first world technology.
Sadly even solving this would not drive covid out.. it has animal hosts as well. We will be in a permanent fight with this one.
I understand your point, but I am not sure it is true in this case. It depends on if production would be higher or not if the patents did not exists. For most patents, I think it is fair to assume they restrict production, but in the case of covid vaccine patents, I think it is not completely clear, because of the money that is being poured into vaccine production.
There are pharmaceutical plants in india begging for permission to manufacture the J&J style vax.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/30/india-wants-access-to-cheap-copies-of-covid-vaccines-so-why-is-australia-holding-out
Thank you for the link. It seems that answers the question. I think that even in the normal case, the patent system as it is designed is an abomination and should be eliminated. That it would be enforced at such a time is flat out insane.
I agree.
Legal Liability for potential harm was thrown out the window post-haste.
But exclusive $$$$ legal profit protection is somehow considered "essential".
COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP
You make a valid point. Since the whole discussion on the patents began, I've seen a lot of credible sources say that not the patents, but the complexities of the production processes are the bottleneck for up-scaling the number of doses. Here's one of the more recent explanations; it's not like manufacturing more T-shirts, and production can't be handed over to facilities that aren't well prepared to make this vaccine. But even if that's the case, in my opinion everything should be done to get other production facilities up to speed to help with the production, and that's something I don't see happening. I could be wrong, of course, but so far this reeks like an instance of "profits-over-human lifes," which is business as usual unfortunately...
There are pharmaceutical plants in india begging for permission to manufacture the J&J style vax.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/30/india-wants-access-to-cheap-copies-of-covid-vaccines-so-why-is-australia-holding-out
It's deeper than that. The sole beneficiary of the exaggeration of the seriousness of the disease, repression of inexpensive therapies done by government are these vaccine companies. Now if the government's really serving big pharma, what they do makes sense.
There are pharmaceutical plants in india begging for permission to manufacture the J&J style vax.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/30/india-wants-access-to-cheap-copies-of-covid-vaccines-so-why-is-australia-holding-out
View this link to see why these "vaccines" are a bad idea anyway: https://vsecretscc.com/episode-1-live
sometimes you can approach the logical incoherence from multiple angles of attack simultaneously
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz: