Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
ANALYZING COVID CONTROLS
>
Are the lockdowns, mandates and quarantines about something more than just the virus?
message 1351:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Dec 15, 2021 08:20AM
Sorry, should say previously sane, rational, etc...
reply
|
flag
Hi Scott & BeauSo true what you are both saying - it’s the compliant ones who going along with the mandates that are the problem - and always will be, while ever there are weak people driven by fear into collaborating with the enemies of freedom.
I was also informed that a cousin "has covid"... I rolled my eyes and started to minimize it and was then told "oh, she's not sick." Then why... WHY???
Beau wrote: "(I wasn't too sure where to post this as Carmel's personal fiefdom appears to have locked itself down due to the 'threat' posed by omiCON. Anyway...)Carmel, I’ve manned up, had a whole week of ri..."
Well stated Beau , I'm afraid I upset Carmel too much as he wouldn't reply to my post to him or even acknowledge me so no point in trying, arrh never mind....
Talking of Carmel where's he gone?Getting to the more important issues again I totally agree with Anni, Scott and Beau if we didn't comply it would all fall apart. Have been tested just the once when I had to go to hospital recently (Clear) so I could get to see hubby who has just had a stent inserted.
They wouldn't let me in without...rats......
Hi Beau:Thank you for reconsidering, and I’m glad you have calmed down; it would have been a real pity for us two not to be able to discuss our disagreements: I must say it was you who supplied me with the most convincing information that made me change my opinion to some extent. To tell you the truth, however, and at the risk of being called a mindless, number-spilling computer again, I’m still concerned about the fact that, according to my calculations from RAW mortality data (in my last post of my now-defunct thread), COVID’s USA death toll seems to be pushing 200 times that of a ‘normal’ annual flu. (If you think my numbers are out of whack, I’d be happy to reconsider them.) But, at the same time, admittedly, the death toll is of the same order of magnitude as that of a ‘bad’ flu. People do lie and exaggerate, but numbers never lie if handled honestly—as you also aptly pointed out.
I agree with most of what you wrote in this last post (message 1351): I’ve gone through the information you were kind enough to forward me, which I have also verified with other sources. I also agree with your assessment of panic-driven health complications; which, incidentally, is why I refrained from considering any impact of shutdowns in reducing mortality: I figured they are opposing factors.
What mainly convinced me to change my mind is the fact that COVID’s mortality ratio is of the same order of magnitude as that of the Asian and Hong-Kong flus: because I was around then. During the Asian flu I might have been too young to care; but at the time of the Hong-Kong flu, I was in my early twenties at university; but I wasn’t even aware of it. I’m not exactly a news freak, but my wife (who is also about my age) keeps quite up-to-date with the news; and she wasn’t aware of it either. So I realized that a ‘bad’ flu doesn’t spell the end of the world; consequently, if the COVID death toll is of the same order of magnitude as these two flus, it might not be worth all the fuss: although, naturally, we all feel bad for the people who die—no question about that.
Where I might still disagree with your (1351) post is that, according to my last calculation, which is taken strictly from raw USA total-mortality data, I estimated the USA COVID death toll to be several (3 to 5) times that of the Asian and Hong-Kong flus—not smaller. (Again correct me if I'm wrong.)
Finally, I don't think we can ever get accurate COVID data, considering the dishonesty we are witnessing.
Regards, Carmel.
Hi James:
Please understand that I wasn’t trying to create a ‘fiefdom’ of my own: I am rather new to Goodreads, and every time I tried to click on the “reply to this post” prompt in my e-mail, I wasn’t able to connect to it. The only thing that worked for me was when I started a thread of my own. (So I can understand Beau’s initial frustration with me.)
Incidentally, I don’t like lockdowns: I am a very social person, and I also realize lockdowns are very detrimental to the economy; but people’s lives are more important. The only things I saw that improved COVID-related numbers in Canada were lockdowns and vaccines; but again, I concede lockdowns might be too drastic a measure.
Regards, Carmel.
Hi Beth:
Here I am. Sorry for seeming to disregard your post (in my defunct thread); I wasn’t. I thought my last reply to Lance answered your that post indirectly.
I did read all the group’s posts, of course: it would be rude to disregard them; and I did realize that the entire group is aware that COVID is a bad flu. I thought the numbers and my explanations made that clear—my apologies again.
And you didn't upset me.
Regards, Carmel.
Hi Scott:
Thank you for deigning to reply to my first post, in the first place to get things started; I realize you must have felt it was a loss of time.
Regards, Carmel.
Carmel, the lockdowns are also VERY deterimental to peoples health. This once again proves you are seeing all this in a one dimensional fashion. Serious life threatening surgeries have been delayed for months and months now at hospitals all over the world during lockdowns (that's been widely reported). Mental health has increased massively, including an explosion in children's mental health issues (again, widely reported). Then there are a whole host of other negatives of lockdowns we have covered in this group and this thread since match 2020, such as increases in domestic violence, homelessness, etc etc (for poorer countries these effects are even more devastating). All for a virus with a Influenza-like recovery rate. So I would strongly argue I care about lives far more than you do. How much do you care for the well-being of the unvaxxed, for example?
Hi Carmel, thanks for your response. My initial reluctance to engage with you wasn’t personal. I joined goodreads in August, 2020 and have spent a large part of my time on here discussing this topic with a wide range of people in 3 different groups. The reason I’ve done so is that I believe the response to covid, not the illness itself, forms part of the biggest issue of our times, possibly in history. You have certainly joined the right group to discover why a growing number of people feel the same.
On goodreads, to begin with and just like you, I attempted to address every single point the opposing side made but eventually realised that many of them simply didn’t want to approach the issue in a balanced way. After I attempted to answer all of their questions, they would ignore my main points and then reappear on the threads in question a few days later, with the same arguments, as if the initial conversation had never happened. I have found this draining and it has made me reluctant to engage with new people on this topic.
However, you are different. Not only have you shown the courage to join a group where the majority hold views hostile to your own, you have done so politely and seemingly with an open mind. You have my complete respect.
With regards to the US, you make a compelling argument. In fact, I think you are right. Despite the financial incentives that have been available to record deaths as covid, the exceptionally politicised response to it and the with not necessarily of deathrate measurement, the excess deaths figures have gone through the roof. I would be clutching at straws not to attribute the bulk of this to covid. Surely, it has to be the main factor?
Why is this? Well, I don’t know a great deal about the situation over there and have little inclination to find out more, but would hazard a guess that it is a country with a sizeable number of unhealthy, obese people with multiple underlying conditions and that many of those people don’t have healthcare cover. In other words, a country with 1st world health problems and (for a huge amount of the population) a 3rd world health system.
My hostility to the mainstream view on covid is not because I don’t care about these people and it’s not because I believe we shouldn’t be doing anything to protect them. It’s because what we have done has been grossly disproportionate, harming more people than it helps, and completely crooked.
On the subject of these interventions, the US response to covid has clearly been fractured. Some states, for example California and New York, have imposed very strict restrictions, while others, for example Texas, Florida, and those in the Midwest have adopted a lighter touch, either dropping restrictions early or imposing practically none. This makes for interesting reading when comparing them:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
As you can see by the deaths-per-100,000 of population measurement, imposing restrictions doesn’t seem to make a blind bit of difference to the deathrate.
There’s a similar situation with countries. Sweden did not lockdown and did not impose a mask mandate. It currently ranks 44th in the world on the deaths-per-1,000,000 of population measurement, with the top of the table dominated by countries that imposed tough restrictions:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
I know it’s difficult to compare different areas of the world because there are so many different variables at play but the important point is that none of the no/ light-restriction states or countries are outliers with noticeably high deathrates. Restrictions simply don’t work against an airborne virus, but they do cause immense suffering and death. What’s more, if covid was as deadly as we have been led to believe, the deathrate in these places would be astronomical. It isn’t.
What’s more, going back to excess mortality, take a look at this:
https://ourworldindata.org/search?q=s...
Sweden, the country with no lockdowns, no mask mandates and light restrictions, has spent large parts of the last 2 years with negative excess mortality. This has happened during a global pandemic! How can anybody who believes the mainstream covid narrative explain this?
On the wider response-to-covid debate, I’m not sure where to begin because I’ve been chatting about it for so long. I’m sure we’ll cover everything in due course. For now, I’d like to offer you a relatively trivial but recent example of the sort of thing that has got me so irate about the whole situation:
In the UK, there is a TV celebrity doctor called Dr Hillary. He is well liked and trusted by the grannies, granddads and stay-at-home mums who watch daytime television. The other week, he appeared on one of our most popular television shows and stated that 95% of patients hospitalised for covid in the UK were unvaccinated. He wasn’t challenged on this figure but, as the UKHSA’s own website shows, the figure was actually 36%, meaning that 64% were vaccinated. Of course, most people don’t have the time or inclination to check these figures. They rely on people like Dr Hillary to inform them. When those ‘trusted’ people lie to them, anyone with an open mind knows something isn’t quite right.
This is the very tip of the tip of the iceberg of what’s been happening globally over the past 18 months. Experts with impeccable credentials have been no-platformed for offering alternative views; Google algorithms have been burying inconvenient information, which goes against the official narrative; debate in the mainstream media has been suffocated; and Western governments have adopted policies that can only be described as totalitarian.
From this moment onwards, I promise you that I will read your posts with an open mind but you’re going to have to be very convincing to change my opinion that the response to covid hasn’t been in people’s best interests and that it hasn’t been based on ulterior motives.
By the way, I see you come from Malta. It’s a great country full of wonderful people, with a proud history of standing up to totalitarian bullies. Please do your best to keep it that way (thumbs up).
On goodreads, to begin with and just like you, I attempted to address every single point the opposing side made but eventually realised that many of them simply didn’t want to approach the issue in a balanced way. After I attempted to answer all of their questions, they would ignore my main points and then reappear on the threads in question a few days later, with the same arguments, as if the initial conversation had never happened. I have found this draining and it has made me reluctant to engage with new people on this topic.
However, you are different. Not only have you shown the courage to join a group where the majority hold views hostile to your own, you have done so politely and seemingly with an open mind. You have my complete respect.
With regards to the US, you make a compelling argument. In fact, I think you are right. Despite the financial incentives that have been available to record deaths as covid, the exceptionally politicised response to it and the with not necessarily of deathrate measurement, the excess deaths figures have gone through the roof. I would be clutching at straws not to attribute the bulk of this to covid. Surely, it has to be the main factor?
Why is this? Well, I don’t know a great deal about the situation over there and have little inclination to find out more, but would hazard a guess that it is a country with a sizeable number of unhealthy, obese people with multiple underlying conditions and that many of those people don’t have healthcare cover. In other words, a country with 1st world health problems and (for a huge amount of the population) a 3rd world health system.
My hostility to the mainstream view on covid is not because I don’t care about these people and it’s not because I believe we shouldn’t be doing anything to protect them. It’s because what we have done has been grossly disproportionate, harming more people than it helps, and completely crooked.
On the subject of these interventions, the US response to covid has clearly been fractured. Some states, for example California and New York, have imposed very strict restrictions, while others, for example Texas, Florida, and those in the Midwest have adopted a lighter touch, either dropping restrictions early or imposing practically none. This makes for interesting reading when comparing them:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
As you can see by the deaths-per-100,000 of population measurement, imposing restrictions doesn’t seem to make a blind bit of difference to the deathrate.
There’s a similar situation with countries. Sweden did not lockdown and did not impose a mask mandate. It currently ranks 44th in the world on the deaths-per-1,000,000 of population measurement, with the top of the table dominated by countries that imposed tough restrictions:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
I know it’s difficult to compare different areas of the world because there are so many different variables at play but the important point is that none of the no/ light-restriction states or countries are outliers with noticeably high deathrates. Restrictions simply don’t work against an airborne virus, but they do cause immense suffering and death. What’s more, if covid was as deadly as we have been led to believe, the deathrate in these places would be astronomical. It isn’t.
What’s more, going back to excess mortality, take a look at this:
https://ourworldindata.org/search?q=s...
Sweden, the country with no lockdowns, no mask mandates and light restrictions, has spent large parts of the last 2 years with negative excess mortality. This has happened during a global pandemic! How can anybody who believes the mainstream covid narrative explain this?
On the wider response-to-covid debate, I’m not sure where to begin because I’ve been chatting about it for so long. I’m sure we’ll cover everything in due course. For now, I’d like to offer you a relatively trivial but recent example of the sort of thing that has got me so irate about the whole situation:
In the UK, there is a TV celebrity doctor called Dr Hillary. He is well liked and trusted by the grannies, granddads and stay-at-home mums who watch daytime television. The other week, he appeared on one of our most popular television shows and stated that 95% of patients hospitalised for covid in the UK were unvaccinated. He wasn’t challenged on this figure but, as the UKHSA’s own website shows, the figure was actually 36%, meaning that 64% were vaccinated. Of course, most people don’t have the time or inclination to check these figures. They rely on people like Dr Hillary to inform them. When those ‘trusted’ people lie to them, anyone with an open mind knows something isn’t quite right.
This is the very tip of the tip of the iceberg of what’s been happening globally over the past 18 months. Experts with impeccable credentials have been no-platformed for offering alternative views; Google algorithms have been burying inconvenient information, which goes against the official narrative; debate in the mainstream media has been suffocated; and Western governments have adopted policies that can only be described as totalitarian.
From this moment onwards, I promise you that I will read your posts with an open mind but you’re going to have to be very convincing to change my opinion that the response to covid hasn’t been in people’s best interests and that it hasn’t been based on ulterior motives.
By the way, I see you come from Malta. It’s a great country full of wonderful people, with a proud history of standing up to totalitarian bullies. Please do your best to keep it that way (thumbs up).
Carmel wrote: "Hi Beau:Thank you for reconsidering, and I’m glad you have calmed down; it would have been a real pity for us two not to be able to discuss our disagreements: I must say it was you who supplied me..."
Hi Carmel,
I am glad you have returned and apology accepted but not necessary, maybe I too should apologise to you so I do, Like Lance it all hit a soft/sore spot.
I loved Malta when I visited quite a few years ago, it has a great energy (not talking about the night life there!) and history.
All in all a new start.
Hi James:Regarding your message 1361, do you really think I don’t care much for the lives of the unvaccinated? And you “strongly argue” that you care for human lives more than me? Tell me something, how on earth could you possibly tell how I feel? Whatever!
Coming back to our discussion, you make a good point that some/many of the deaths during the COVID pandemic were not caused by the COVID virus per se, but because of COVID-related restrictions. Unlike what you think, I did consider the deaths caused by COVID measures; but brevity is of the essence here: I can’t write a whole book on a post. In fact, that’s why I refrained from making any corrections (to my numbers) for lockdowns, social distancing, masks, and so on: because I was specifically thinking of the adverse effects that COVID measures might have caused in the lives of people.
Before I give you my opinion, what percentage of COVID-related DEATHS (please confine yourself to deaths here, since my analysis only addressed deaths), do you think, are caused because of COVID measures as opposed to being the result of the virus: 1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 99%, or some other figure? Do you have reliable quantized information of the kind? Let’s see if we agree on this, first?
You also contend that many lives have been ruined by COVID restrictions (such as mental health, domestic violence, homelessness, economic hardship, etc.); and I agree. But are these numbers comparable to those who got sick with COVID: some of whom are experiencing permanent health issues as a result of the infection? Again, can you quantize the two sides? But, anyway, this is all academic; it seems you have forgotten that ever since you closed my thread, I have not been endorsing lockdowns any longer. Let me requote to you what I wrote in my last post of my defunct thread: “perhaps COVID is not worth all the fuss,” and in my last post (message 1360) of this thread (in the portion addressed to you) I wrote: “I concede lockdowns might be too drastic a measure.” What more can I say?
What I wrote in my last post (message 360), regarding lockdowns and vaccines, was that one must admit they do work (that’s my observation with Canadian numbers—where I reside). If you’re not convinced of this, you have the perfect example in your 'back yard' (Australia). Being an island helps to rule out extraneous variables. As you probably know well enough, the virus was initially controlled by lockdowns in Australia: https://www.google.com/search?q=covid.... But lockdowns failed to control the delta variant (see the last, big wave). However, lately, it was practically brought back down to zero cases again with the help of vaccines. https://www.cnet.com/features/how-the.... You can’t argue with success, otherwise you go cukoo.
Now, should everyone be vaccinated? Probably not! I concede that COVID is a bad flu, not a super flu like the Spanish flu —which is what I thought initially. So, I now think it should be left to the individual whether one gets vaccinated or not. But keep in mind that one is about a hundred times more vulnerable to the virus if unvaccinated, that is, assuming the vaccine is truly 99% efficient—as we are told. The Australian numbers leave no doubt that vaccination is effective.
Are the pharmaceutical companies making a lot of money from COVID? Definitely! Are they magnifying the problem to make even more money? Most probably! But where does that leave an individual?
Regards, Carmel.
Hi Beau:
Your last post (message 1362) sounded like music to my ears; thank you for your honest response. Having realized that COVID is a bad flu, rather than a super flu, I tend to agree with you that what we have done might have been “grossly disproportionate.” The million dollar question is: what should we do for medically-vulnerable or aged people who are losing their lives?
You make a very good point regarding California (death-toll 191/100K) and New York (death-toll 300/100K) versus Florida (death-toll 289/100K) and Texas (death-toll 258/100K). It does seem that the lockdowns and restrictions in California and New York were practically useless at first blush.
However, recall my USA death-toll analysis on December 14, 2020 (message 42 on my defunct thread).
USA deaths from 2014 to 2020: 2014: 2,626,418; 2015: 2,712,630; 2016: 2,744,248; 2017: 2,813,503; 2018: 2,839,205 2019: 2,854,838; 2020: 3,358,814.
The annual death-toll INCREASE: 2015: 86,212; 2016: 31,618; 2017: 69,255; 2018: 25,702; 2019: 16,633; 2020: 503,976. So, we have an unexplained death-toll of about 417,764 (=503,976-86,212). But this is only 12.43% (=100x417,764/3,358,814) of the total mortality for that year, and this is the CRUCIAL point.
Now, since this is an order of magnitude smaller than the total annual death-toll, you are not going to observe it ‘riding’ on top of the other 88% (=100-12) of the total death-toll—you have to isolate it first.
So, the information you supplied cannot be used as is: we need the mortality rate of the previous year to figure out the death-toll INCREASE for this year. In fact, I would recommend finding the 2019 versus the 2020 death-tolls, so we can eliminate one variable, namely, the use of vaccines in 2021. I’ll try and find these numbers for my next post.
Regarding Sweden, you ask a very good question: why, with its lax COVID controls, its death per capita is forty-fourth in the world. In my opinion, I don’t think one can compare one country with another. An important factor, for example, is population density: the number of people per unit area. If a country has the same population as another, but is ten times larger geographically, this is somewhat equivalent to isolation (or lockdowns). In such a case one needs a correction factor of, I would say, about 0.1 (=1/10) to the raw death-toll number. Again, I don’t think one can compare an island like Malta with a country like Switzerland in the middle of the European continent. I have no clue what correction factor to the raw death-toll number would be required in this case. I mean, I imagine, there are ways of comparing one country with another (apples to apples) but one needs correction factors that involve a sophisticated knowledge and research of the two countries compared. The best thing, in my opinion, is to stick to one country and see how it fares through the political steps taken through the pandemic: doing this eliminates many of the extraneous variables.
Another question you asked about Sweden involves the EXCESS death-toll from week to week being negative most of the time. I shall first deal with the year 2020, since the introduction of vaccines at the end of 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-1..., clouds the issue in 2021.
Let me give you a numerical example to make it easier to understand. Suppose the BASIC death-toll of a country, in the absence of a pandemic, is 1,000 per month. So, ideally, the death-toll is going to be 1,000 every month—January through December. Notice, however, that from the second month, February, to the twelfth month, December, the EXCESS death-toll is going to be zero for every month: because there is no change in the death-toll.
Now, suppose a pandemic comes along and invades the country in the beginning of February that increases the death-toll by 10%. So, the death-toll is going to read: 1,000 in January, and 1,100 in February through December. Now what happens to the EXCESS death-toll? It’s going to show 100 in February (because the death-toll increased from 1,000 to 1,100), but zero in March through December because from February to December the death-toll did not increase (it remained at 1,100 all along—there was no INCREASE from month to month). But meanwhile, you still have 10% more deaths above the BASE line for eleven months: you haven’t got rid of the virus even though your excess death-toll is zero.
Again, suppose the death-toll increases from 1,000 in January; to 1,100 in February; to 1,200 in March; to 1,300 in April; and so on, until it reaches 2,100 in December. Your EXCESS death-toll is going to look like a plateau of height 100 from February to December. But the virus is out of control because it has more than doubled your initial death-toll of 1,000 per month.
Finally let’s look at a more realistic situation: 1,000 in January; 1,100 in February; 1,050, in March; 1,100 in April; 1,050 in May; and so on, until December when the death-toll would be 1,100 again. The EXCESS death-toll is going to zig-zag from +100 in February to -50 in March to +50 in April to -50 in May and ending with +50 in December. In other words, the EXCESS death-toll is negative half the time. Does that mean that the virus is eliminated? No! You still have an average of 75 (=7.5%) infections per month more than the 1,000 BASE mortality rate. This explains why you see Sweden’s excess death rate negative for more than half the time.
It is only when the virus is really out of control that one can see a positive peak in this type of graph; that is, in a series like: 1,000, 1,100, 1,300, 1,600, 2,000, and so on; where the graph will look like: 100, 200, 300, 400, and so on.
From your attached graph, https://ourworldindata.org/search?q=s..., you can also see that as soon as vaccines were introduced at the end of 2020, the virus started to be controlled: the peak on January 3, started to go down, down, and down; while just prior to that the virus was out of control (the second peak). I hope this helps.
Regarding Dr. Hillary, he might be misleading others intentionally because he has an agenda; or he might be doing it because he is misinterpreting data like the above: it’s hard to tell until you can communicate with the person. Google algorithms are going to keep on burying the opinions of this group because they go by numbers, and by definition of this group it consists of the minority: I would guess 10% at most. But, normally, truth has a tendency of coming out on top, in the long run: like oil always floats on water, says a Maltese proverb.
Actually, I’m not trying to change your opinion, Beau; I’m only trying to solve a problem (as I’ve done most of my life): that is, to find the best solution to save lives, if we can. We need to find a solution that saves lives, is not excessively detrimental to the quality of the life of others, and is economically viable. We cannot expect people to live miserable lives without money: what’s the good of that?
Finally, I’ll try to do as you recommend: stand up to totalitarian bullies; I’ll do my best to measure up to my forefathers too, who showed exceptional bravery throughout history. As you probably know, it was Britain that awarded Malta the George Cross for the people’s heroic resistance to the Nazis in World War II: Malta then incorporated the cross on the national flag.
Regards, Carmel.
Hi Beth:
You don’t owe me any apology: you were just expressing your opinion. I’m glad you liked Malta so much: I think it’s good for a holiday for both young and old. Incidentally, my wife and I loved the nightlife when we were still living there.
Regards, Carmel.
I don't have any numbers, as I don't think anyone's bothered to find out (I know I haven't gotten a survey) but my intuition tells me that the poor mental health numbers far outweigh the number of deaths that actually occurred directly because of "covid." Mental illness is often "invisible"; people don't talk about it, and it isn't always evident when you are interacting with someone. I know that I act differently when I am with people but when I go home and am alone it's an entirely different story.Physical ailments are relatively easy to fix. That's why there's a 99.7% FULL recovery rate from "covid." Mental issues are much harder, and even when one might have them "under control" they may still last a lifetime.
But nobody cares about that.
Scott wrote: "I don't have any numbers, as I don't think anyone's bothered to find out (I know I haven't gotten a survey) but my intuition tells me that the poor mental health numbers far outweigh the number of ..."Hey why should they care about something they can't see, they don't care about what they are doing now most of which they can see and know about.
Amazingly, I haven't even been able to make psychologists see this.
Scott wrote: "Amazingly, I haven't even been able to make psychologists see this."You have to be kidding me it's so obvious you would need to be blind not to see this (pun not intended). They shouldn't be allowed to be practising psychologists.
Well, we all know psychology isn't real medicine. :) :) :)
Scott wrote: "Well, we all know psychology isn't real medicine. :) :) :)"LOL.....nice one.
Carmel wrote: "But keep in mind that one is about a hundred times more vulnerable to the virus if unvaccinated, that is, assuming the vaccine is truly 99% efficient—as we are told. The Australian numbers leave no doubt that vaccination is effective...."
I am right here in Australia pal, have many friends in govt, hospitals, police etc etc -- and nothing you are saying about Australian numbers and stats are true. I know the specific headlines and supposed studies you are referring to, and they are being widely criticized here in Australia even within mainstream media and also within scientific academia. Really sad that such inept, propagandized and financially corrupt "science" in this isolated part of the world gets broadcast globally as if verified...
Also, where you say the unvaxxed are 100 times more vulnerable...Um, err, one of the BS Australian "studies" I refer to said 16 times more vulnerable, but that is one of the studies being openly questioned here -- and globally actually as it's not remotely reflected internationally -- and many Covid extremists (as you appear to be) are latching on to such studies to desperately hold their beliefs in tact. As, you see, what we are seeing here in Australia is actually in many ways to the contrary...i.e. the unvaxxed like me have been locked down here in NSW, Australia (our most populated state) since July and only gained many of our "freedoms" back on Dec 15...And yet, to Sheeples shock, there have been massive super-spreader parties of the vaccinated, sometimes up to 1,000 people spread it to each other in one evening (e.g. a rock concert where only the vaxxed can go)...So Australia is actually in many ways disproving the sort of corrupt science you are falling for, plus finally making many question the need for vaccines...So much so that many vaxxed Aussies are thankfully either deciding or considering to not get vaxxed any further.
Furthermore, the vaccines themselves are being said to be making people sick by either creating the mutations/variants or assisting in their creation (as many scientists have stated including Dr Robert Malone, mRNA vaccine creator and a contact of mine).
Lockdowns: The Worst Public Health Catastrophe In Human History https://thepulse.one/2021/12/17/lockd...The Facts:
There is a wealth of data showing that lockdowns have killed more people than COVID.
There are hundreds of studies that also show the failure of these interventions to stop the spread of COVID.
Reflect On: If there is strong data showing lockdowns are ineffective in stopping the spread of COVID, then why are they still being used if they have already killed millions of people? What is going on?
Calling lockdowns the worst public health catastrophe in human history is not unreasonable, and many who have studied the implications of lockdowns on human health and the global economy echo this sentiment.
The phrase seems to have been coined by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD., a professor of both medicine and economics at Stanford University. He made this comment quite early on in the pandemic when lockdowns were imposed, and continues to stand by it as more evidence emerges regarding just how catastrophic lockdowns have been. In fact, he stated his position again in a recent tweet regarding a new study published in the journal Nature.
Jay Bhattacharya
@DrJBhattacharya
Nature article:
By 2022, an additional
✴️9.3 million wasted kids
✴️2.6 million stunted kids
✴️168k child deaths
✴️2.1 million maternal anemia cases
✴️$29.7 billion in future productivity losses
Hi Carmel, thanks for your response. Regarding Sweden, as you will see from this link, a higher percentage of its population live in urban areas than is the case in either the US or UK:
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization
Therefore, the idea that Sweden is some sort of rural backwater and so can’t be compared to developed lockdown countries is false. It’s a non-starter. Argument over.
However, to be fair to you and as I said in my previous post (which you then reiterated in your last post), comparing countries is fraught with difficulties because of the number of variables at play, i.e., no 2 countries are the same. From past experience of speaking to others, we will go around in circles if we attempt to do this as you will find examples to support your arguments and I will find them to support mine. The key issue is that there is no correlation between imposing restrictions and reducing the covid deathrate, and that no country or state which has imposed no/ light restrictions is an outlier in terms of deathrate.
Regarding your point on excess mortality, as I posted the graph showing Sweden’s excess mortality, I completely understand how the figures are arrived at. We must be talking at cross purposes. However, I was puzzled reading your arguments and figures about the US. The state-by-state breakdown of covid attributed deaths in the US, which I included in my last post, did not relate to excess mortality; they were the figures assigned to covid (‘with’ not necessarily ‘of’, of course), so any excess deaths from previous years are irrelevant to them. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? I’ve read your post a few times but still need you to clarify what you’re getting at please.
Your faith in the vaccine might well be justifiable. Then again, it might not. Correlation vs causation or a bit of both? All available studies appear to show it has high efficacy for the first few months and then declines rapidly before becoming useless after 6-7 months – hence governments’ arguments for boosters. However, it’s worth considering the role played by natural immunity and the fact that no virus maintains the same levels of lethality indefinitely, don’t you think? History (and logic) shows us that there is always a time when viruses become less deadly of their own accord. Also, don’t forget that the vaccines’ clinical trials are still ongoing. It is my understanding that they won’t finish until 2023, so those taking them don’t yet know the risks involved and are very much taking a leap of faith. Particularly considering this…
FDA won’t release Pfizer vaccine data for another 75 years:
https://www.rt.com/usa/542616-fda-yea...
Pfizer refuses to distribute to countries that don’t grant indemnity:
https://twitter.com/BelvoirPLC/status...
What's more, is the leap of faith justifiable when we consider that the average age of a covid victim is roughly the same as the average life expectancy?
E.g., UK:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transp...
E.g., US:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
Unless you are very old or have multiple underlying conditions, I suggest not.
You asked at the start of your last post how I would safeguard these vulnerable groups. How about offering (but not compelling) them a comprehensive package of financial and emotional support to lockdown/ isolate, should they wish, while leaving the rest of us to get on with life and keep our societies functioning? It would safeguard the vulnerable, eliminate most of the deaths caused by lockdowns, and leave our societies in better shape for the young and future generations to enjoy. Everyone’s a winner :) What do you think?
With reference to your message to James, our governments chose not to release any cost/ benefit analyses on lockdowns/ restrictions. That’s probably understandable when you consider the following:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...
The Bristol University study is one of many and argues that the UK’s 2020 lockdown alone cost 560k UK lives (vs c.60k of covid-assigned deaths at the time the study was published). The study used the same economic methodology as was used to calculate lives lost by austerity policies a few years’ before, so is hardly novel, yet it does not account for the deaths caused by cancelled treatments, operations and the like, which, as we are currently seeing in the UK, is creating an excess mortality ticking time bomb. With the levels of testing going on for the current variant, which the South African authorities suggest is very mild, no doubt these people will be falsely assigned as covid victims too.
For 2 interesting overviews about lives ‘saved’ by lockdowns vs costs of those lockdowns, please see here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/...
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization
Therefore, the idea that Sweden is some sort of rural backwater and so can’t be compared to developed lockdown countries is false. It’s a non-starter. Argument over.
However, to be fair to you and as I said in my previous post (which you then reiterated in your last post), comparing countries is fraught with difficulties because of the number of variables at play, i.e., no 2 countries are the same. From past experience of speaking to others, we will go around in circles if we attempt to do this as you will find examples to support your arguments and I will find them to support mine. The key issue is that there is no correlation between imposing restrictions and reducing the covid deathrate, and that no country or state which has imposed no/ light restrictions is an outlier in terms of deathrate.
Regarding your point on excess mortality, as I posted the graph showing Sweden’s excess mortality, I completely understand how the figures are arrived at. We must be talking at cross purposes. However, I was puzzled reading your arguments and figures about the US. The state-by-state breakdown of covid attributed deaths in the US, which I included in my last post, did not relate to excess mortality; they were the figures assigned to covid (‘with’ not necessarily ‘of’, of course), so any excess deaths from previous years are irrelevant to them. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? I’ve read your post a few times but still need you to clarify what you’re getting at please.
Your faith in the vaccine might well be justifiable. Then again, it might not. Correlation vs causation or a bit of both? All available studies appear to show it has high efficacy for the first few months and then declines rapidly before becoming useless after 6-7 months – hence governments’ arguments for boosters. However, it’s worth considering the role played by natural immunity and the fact that no virus maintains the same levels of lethality indefinitely, don’t you think? History (and logic) shows us that there is always a time when viruses become less deadly of their own accord. Also, don’t forget that the vaccines’ clinical trials are still ongoing. It is my understanding that they won’t finish until 2023, so those taking them don’t yet know the risks involved and are very much taking a leap of faith. Particularly considering this…
FDA won’t release Pfizer vaccine data for another 75 years:
https://www.rt.com/usa/542616-fda-yea...
Pfizer refuses to distribute to countries that don’t grant indemnity:
https://twitter.com/BelvoirPLC/status...
What's more, is the leap of faith justifiable when we consider that the average age of a covid victim is roughly the same as the average life expectancy?
E.g., UK:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transp...
E.g., US:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
Unless you are very old or have multiple underlying conditions, I suggest not.
You asked at the start of your last post how I would safeguard these vulnerable groups. How about offering (but not compelling) them a comprehensive package of financial and emotional support to lockdown/ isolate, should they wish, while leaving the rest of us to get on with life and keep our societies functioning? It would safeguard the vulnerable, eliminate most of the deaths caused by lockdowns, and leave our societies in better shape for the young and future generations to enjoy. Everyone’s a winner :) What do you think?
With reference to your message to James, our governments chose not to release any cost/ benefit analyses on lockdowns/ restrictions. That’s probably understandable when you consider the following:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...
The Bristol University study is one of many and argues that the UK’s 2020 lockdown alone cost 560k UK lives (vs c.60k of covid-assigned deaths at the time the study was published). The study used the same economic methodology as was used to calculate lives lost by austerity policies a few years’ before, so is hardly novel, yet it does not account for the deaths caused by cancelled treatments, operations and the like, which, as we are currently seeing in the UK, is creating an excess mortality ticking time bomb. With the levels of testing going on for the current variant, which the South African authorities suggest is very mild, no doubt these people will be falsely assigned as covid victims too.
For 2 interesting overviews about lives ‘saved’ by lockdowns vs costs of those lockdowns, please see here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/...
Carmel wrote: "Hi James:Regarding your message 1361, do you really think I don’t care much for the lives of the unvaccinated? And you “strongly argue” that you care for human lives more than me? Tell me somethin..."
Carmel - I think James answered your points pretty well. (Well I would say that, wouldn't I, I hear you say).
One point I'd like to take you up on...
You said: "You also contend that many lives have been ruined by COVID restrictions (such as mental health, domestic violence, homelessness, economic hardship, etc.); and I agree. But are these numbers comparable to those who got sick with COVID: some of whom are experiencing permanent health issues as a result of the infection? Again, can you quantize the two sides?"
Here in NZ, Covid deaths to date (2020/2021) total a paltry 49, keeping in mind one gunshot victim is included in that tally and God knows how many others were already dying of heart and other serious ailments. Despite that our govt. officials and media reps insist on saying "They died OF covid."
That compares to 1235 deaths by suicide (most of them male and many of them young) in the same period. Within those stats an alarming spike in suicides by young males - many of them Maori - has been identified, and health spokespersons are blaming that on the lockdowns and other uncertainties around Covid.
Bottom line is the mental anguish caused by these Covid lockdowns, enforced quarantines, mandatory vaccinations, not to mention the medical apartheid we are now witnessing, cannot be underestimated or glossed over. They can't even be compared to Covid deaths with any certainty because we are all starting to realise the deaths stats are being grossly inflated.
Yesterday I saw an ***American health professional and/or media personality (sorry I can't remember his name or title or even find the link to his interview!) who summed up the hysteria around the current Omicron virus beautifully...He said there's no doubt this new virus is very contagious. He qualified this by reminding viewers that the "fraudulent Covid testing regime" and "the number of false positives being recorded" ensure that "everyone tested" (his words) "tests positive."
He said a state of panic has been cultivated and it's being constantly ramped up. He said the interesting thing is, unlike panic resulting from military invasions, tsunamis, hurricanes or other such major events, this (panic) starts at the top with our presidents, prime ministers and the like, and is filtered down to consume the entire populace.
I've observed that myself, but it was good to hear it articulated so clearly and so prominently in a mainstream media forum.
*** P.S. If any Undergrounder knows who it is I'm referring to, please let me know. He was talking very recently as a (very engaging and outspoken) member of a panel in a TV interview - possibly on CNN. I'll post the link if I find it.
Yes, usually authorities want to avoid a panic, but not in this case. Strange.
Scott wrote: "Yes, usually authorities want to avoid a panic, but not in this case. Strange."Planned and premeditated more than strange I suspect.
Lance wrote: "Scott wrote: "Yes, usually authorities want to avoid a panic, but not in this case. Strange."Planned and premeditated more than strange I suspect."
Totally agree, far more to this than meets the eye.
Hi James:Thank you for your message 1371.
That’s exactly why I gave you information about Australia: to see whether you can refute it. I’m not the type who tries to pull a fast one on anybody: I’m a scientist and I look for the truth.
You emphasize that you live in Australia and therefore you know better than my data; and I respect that. But I gave you twenty-two-months’ worth of daily data from Wikipedia, https://www.google.com/search?q=covid..., which you shot it down with one stroke of your pen as if it were garbage. Fine, but where is your alternate source and data? All you have in your post is hearsay from an unspecified number of people who are probably biased and agree with you blindly. You need to PROVE it by showing data from an independent source: the onus is on you. If we go to an unbiased third party with our information, who do you think he/she is going to side with?
However, just to humor you, here’s data from next door to you (New Zealand) that tells practically the same story as Australia (that lockdowns and vaccines work):
https://www.reuters.com/business/heal... and
https://www.google.com/search?q=covid..., which uses the same source (JHU CSSE) as the graph found in the link you provided in your message 1372:
https://thepulse.one/2021/12/17/lockd... (please scroll down to about half way through the article: there are two graphs by JHU CSSE). Is this fake data too? If JHU CSSE is a good source for your article, it should be good for mine too. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Is New Zealand in cahoots with Australia?
On the other hand, I must admit you’re right regarding the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine; it’s only 95%, not 99% (I can’t remember where I got the 99% from, sorry); so one is 19 (95% to 5%) times more vulnerable if unvaccinated:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/le.... Pfizer’s ‘controlled’ experiment involved 43,660 people, who were split randomly into two groups. Without informing the participants, half (21,830) were injected with a placebo (water) and the other half were given the vaccine. 162 were infected with the virus in the first (unvaccinated) group while only 8 were infected in the second (vaccinated) group: giving an infection ratio of about 20.25 to 1. So it seems more like 20 to 1 to me; you say it’s 16 to 1; but what’s 5 times more/less between friends?
I suppose I got the 99% efficacy rate from some article like this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat..., where only 263 out of 309,276 (0.085% or 99.915% effective) people, who received the first dose in Saskatchewan, Canada, were infected with the virus; but I admit this is not a ‘controlled’ scientific experiment.
Now, can you please clarify whether the party of 1,000 vaccinated attendees infected one another 100%? If so, in a way, this speaks for restrictions, no? And I’m also curious to know how many people attended the only-vaccinated rock concert, and how many got infected if you have such data.
Your last paragraph is the most scary; namely that the vaccines are the root cause of mutations/variants. But your argument does not hold much water. According to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant...,
the alpha (UK) variant first appeared on September 20, 2020,
the beta (South Africa) variant first appeared in May 2020,
the gamma (Brazil) variant first appeared in November 2020, and
the delta (India) variant first appeared in October 2020.
Now, the first time vaccines were issued (worldwide) was on December 8, 2020 to the UK: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/1... so how could the vaccines have caused the above mutations if they weren't in circulation yet? Does Dr. Malone know what he’s talking about? Is this your idea of uncorrupted scientific information? The only exception where Dr. Malone might be right is in the case of the omicron (another South Africa) variant which first appeared on November 9, 2021. But what evidence does he have for such a subversive statement?
One thing’s for certain from evolutionary data: the virus will mutate at a faster and faster rate the more we allow it to thrive. Hopefully, it doesn’t turn into a super flu, like the Spanish flu, by the time we’re done arguing about it; and then what? Could you possibly ever change your mind? Tell me something, what do you suggest we DO about COVID meantime? I take it you’re against lockdowns, restrictions, vaccines, masks—everything. What are we supposed to do besides twiddling our thumbs?
Regarding your message 1372, although I have already conceded that lockdowns might be too drastic a measure against COVID several times, I still find your post very interesting, and I don’t want to downplay it simply because I’m agreeing about lockdowns. Do you happen to have a link to the Nature article you refer to, so I can see how Dr. Bhattacharya arrived at those figures?
Regards, Carmel.
Hi Lance:
Good to hear from you again; I value your opinion immensely. I’ve already admitted, several times, that lockdowns might be too drastic a measure in dealing with COVID. However, I still intend to find out more on the subject. Thanks for your valuable input: very informative.
Regards, Carmel.
Hi Beau:
Thank you for your message 1373.
I must first apologize for misreading the heading of your state-by-state, COVID-related deaths; I must have been half asleep: I thought they were the total mortalities (for all causes) by state. I realized it last Monday, and I wanted to kick myself. It seems you lost quite a bit of time over it too; I feel so bad. Last Tuesday, I tried to make some sense of the data by including the state areas, but I could see no rhyme or reason: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1....
I’m probably clutching at straws here, but may I suggest that both New York State and California have a very populous city (constituting a significant chunk of the state population) that might have neutralized to some extent the effect of lockdowns. New York City, NY: 8,175,133 (42.4%); Los Angeles, CA: 3,971,833 (10.0%). But then, admittedly, Houston, TX: 2,296,224 (7.7%) is also rather populous—not so much Jacksonville, FL: 868,031 (4.0%)—on the other hand, Texas has a significantly larger area (state-wise) than the other three: https://worldpopulationreview.com/cou..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of.... Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about these states to rationalize your data; so I must admit that Florida and Texas don’t seem to be outlier states of COVID-related deaths despite their liberal attitude toward it.
Regarding Sweden, I never intended to imply that it is a rural backwater of Europe. I was only giving widely varying examples of countries to show to what extent numbers can be affected. But, in short, I must again agree with you that its liberal approach to COVID did not make it an obvious outlier. Why? I don’t really know; I’m very unfamiliar with the country.
Finally, bear with me, I shall address your other questions after I review your latest information. I just wanted to clarify the above, for now.
Regards, Carmel.
A Merry Christmas to everyone!
Carmel wrote: "Hi James:Thank you for your message 1371.
That’s exactly why I gave you information about Australia: to see whether you can refute it. I’m not the type who tries to pull a fast one on anybody: I’m..."
Much of this has been debunked earlier in these threads years earlier. I am currently directing/producing a film, about the year 2020, so excuse me for brief replies but I simply don't have time to inform you (given it's quite clear you are new to the journey and still cannot see the very obvious corruption of the mainstream "data" you're regurgitating).
I respond more in greater detail in the Underground Knowledge Telegram group, but it's too time consuming these days to argue back and forth and deconstruct the mainstream narrative (i.e. Covid is super deadly and we must vaccinate everyone or else!) with every newbie I come across. Especially so in your case as you are presenting so much info and data and it would be enormously time consuming to debunk and debate and present counter research.
What I can recommend, if you're interested, is a free copy of my co-written book (written in collaboration with a team of scientists and doctors) Vaccine Science Revisited: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? which shows how many things can be conclusively proven scientifically but still not become scientific consensus... This book offers zero opinions, but just sticks to medical studies and nothing else whatsoever... Once you digest all the damage done from various vaccines, and then consider that the likes of Polio was misreported in many ways, it may help you look at our present situ with fresh eyes. I have never claimed to have all the answers, but what I would say is it's about having the eyes to see the truth rather than having more and more data...
Carmel, I’d just like to quickly step in to your conversation with James because I think 2 of the points being discussed are key to the whole debate.
The vaccine efficacy rates you are quoting are those supplied by the manufacturers, who are clearly not disinterred parties, and only deal with short-term efficacy. What’s more, as Pfizer won’t release their trial data for 55-75 years (depending on source) and won’t distribute their vaccine unless they are granted legal immunity from any adverse effects, I don’t think they deserve to be trusted.
Look at the vaccines’ efficacy rates for infection and transmission mentioned here. And they’re falling all the time. J&J protection against infection was down to 13% last month:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-1...
If you look at pages 31-4 of the following UK Government document, you will see that in terms of cases, hospitalisations and deaths, the numbers of vaccinated far outweigh the unvaccinated in most age groups (especially the vulnerable). Yes, the majority of UK adults are vaccinated, but this real-world data is still an eye opener:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov...
On the success or otherwise of lockdowns in Australasia, yes, they have had low mortality rates, but it is impossible to see what would have happened without lockdowns unless we could study a parallel universe where those countries didn’t lock down. I would suggest that as Aussies and Kiwis tend to enjoy a healthy outdoor lifestyle and are exposed to large quantities of vitamin D, from sunlight, covid’s impact would have been negligible even without restrictions.
All lockdowns can ever hope to achieve is to kick the can down the road. Sooner or later, if Australia and New Zealand are to survive, they are going to have to fully open up to the rest of the world. Initially, they tried to follow an absurd ‘zero covid’ policy, which even its most enthusiastic supporters now admit cannot work. What are they trying to achieve at the moment? They’ve rolled out their vaccine programmes and yet still are flip flopping in and out of various restrictions with no apparent end in sight. If lockdowns and vaccines worked, they wouldn’t be in this conundrum, would they? The problem would already have been solved.
I will supply further research to that shown in my last post whenever you like but it has to be a statement of the blindingly obvious to say that the collateral damage from lockdowns causes more death and suffering than the virus itself. Whether we’re talking lives lost due to economic reasons (link between poverty and early death), the problems caused by cancelled/ delayed operations and treatments, or the resulting mental health issues, lockdowns have been an unmitigated disaster everywhere. And that’s before we even consider the appalling precedents set in terms of lost liberty. We have now opened up a can of worms by recognising lockdowns as a legitimate government tool. For the CCP maybe, but not in a liberal democracy. This, like the rest of the damage caused, will be left to future generations to sort out. I find this both embarrassing and unacceptable.
The world was sold these lockdowns as a delaying tactic until the vaccines were rolled out. This was clearly a lie because the vaccines have been around for a year and many countries are now administering 3rd and 4th shots. Where does this end? What is your exit plan?
The vaccine efficacy rates you are quoting are those supplied by the manufacturers, who are clearly not disinterred parties, and only deal with short-term efficacy. What’s more, as Pfizer won’t release their trial data for 55-75 years (depending on source) and won’t distribute their vaccine unless they are granted legal immunity from any adverse effects, I don’t think they deserve to be trusted.
Look at the vaccines’ efficacy rates for infection and transmission mentioned here. And they’re falling all the time. J&J protection against infection was down to 13% last month:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-1...
If you look at pages 31-4 of the following UK Government document, you will see that in terms of cases, hospitalisations and deaths, the numbers of vaccinated far outweigh the unvaccinated in most age groups (especially the vulnerable). Yes, the majority of UK adults are vaccinated, but this real-world data is still an eye opener:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov...
On the success or otherwise of lockdowns in Australasia, yes, they have had low mortality rates, but it is impossible to see what would have happened without lockdowns unless we could study a parallel universe where those countries didn’t lock down. I would suggest that as Aussies and Kiwis tend to enjoy a healthy outdoor lifestyle and are exposed to large quantities of vitamin D, from sunlight, covid’s impact would have been negligible even without restrictions.
All lockdowns can ever hope to achieve is to kick the can down the road. Sooner or later, if Australia and New Zealand are to survive, they are going to have to fully open up to the rest of the world. Initially, they tried to follow an absurd ‘zero covid’ policy, which even its most enthusiastic supporters now admit cannot work. What are they trying to achieve at the moment? They’ve rolled out their vaccine programmes and yet still are flip flopping in and out of various restrictions with no apparent end in sight. If lockdowns and vaccines worked, they wouldn’t be in this conundrum, would they? The problem would already have been solved.
I will supply further research to that shown in my last post whenever you like but it has to be a statement of the blindingly obvious to say that the collateral damage from lockdowns causes more death and suffering than the virus itself. Whether we’re talking lives lost due to economic reasons (link between poverty and early death), the problems caused by cancelled/ delayed operations and treatments, or the resulting mental health issues, lockdowns have been an unmitigated disaster everywhere. And that’s before we even consider the appalling precedents set in terms of lost liberty. We have now opened up a can of worms by recognising lockdowns as a legitimate government tool. For the CCP maybe, but not in a liberal democracy. This, like the rest of the damage caused, will be left to future generations to sort out. I find this both embarrassing and unacceptable.
The world was sold these lockdowns as a delaying tactic until the vaccines were rolled out. This was clearly a lie because the vaccines have been around for a year and many countries are now administering 3rd and 4th shots. Where does this end? What is your exit plan?
Oh, and a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all group members. Hope you have a good one :)
Carmel, finally for now, take a look at the information and links below, in support of James’s claim that the vaccines might cause the variants, and also that the vaccinated might pose a risk to the unvaccinated:
https://veterinaryresearch.biomedcent...
‘There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (‘hotter’) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so ‘hot’ that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves. Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist.. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease. The future challenge is to identify whether there are other types of vaccines used in animals and humans that might also generate these evolutionary risks.’
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...
We all know that the covid vaccines don’t prevent transmission. They are ‘leaky’, so the above is certainly worth bearing in mind.
Also, worth remembering that in India (I’ve no doubt elsewhere too), vaccine rollouts were immediately followed by increases in both cases and deaths. India’s vaccination drive started in January and accelerated through winter and into spring, 2021. Deaths went through the roof soon afterwards:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronav...
This is where and when the Delta variant emerged.
https://veterinaryresearch.biomedcent...
‘There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (‘hotter’) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so ‘hot’ that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves. Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist.. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease. The future challenge is to identify whether there are other types of vaccines used in animals and humans that might also generate these evolutionary risks.’
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...
We all know that the covid vaccines don’t prevent transmission. They are ‘leaky’, so the above is certainly worth bearing in mind.
Also, worth remembering that in India (I’ve no doubt elsewhere too), vaccine rollouts were immediately followed by increases in both cases and deaths. India’s vaccination drive started in January and accelerated through winter and into spring, 2021. Deaths went through the roof soon afterwards:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronav...
This is where and when the Delta variant emerged.
Well worth a watch. Woman predicts scamdemic response in 2019. Plus WEF activity, microchips and more eerily accurate 'conspiracy theories'. It's all here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WfNxhR...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WfNxhR...
WOW Beau good find....that was an incredibly accurate video, it's o.k. though saying make like minded friends but what if you live in a very small rural village who all seem to be conformists??Oh well just self and hubs as long as the dratted mandatory vax bill doesn't go through then we lock the door and hide with our big GSD and 2 cats lol.Hope all had a great Xmas and lets keep positive about a great New Year too...don't let the ...... get you down!
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, Beth, and to all group members.
I wouldn't worry about the people you know being conformist. With a couple of exceptions, it's the same for me. Eventually, most will come round and realise what seems obvious to us at the mo. I no longer bother trying to convince people who aren't interested. They know where I stand, and vice versa, but it's important for people to awaken themselves in their own time. That way, their minds will be clearer why the whole covid corona flu narrative is so absurd. As the saying goes, once you see it then you can't 'unsee' it.
BTW, where is Carmel? I have some more expert scientific evidence about why the vaccines might be causing the variants, which I wanted to show him :)
In the meantime, here's a great interview with a well-known UK funeral director about some strange goings on he's noticed during the 'pandemic':
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/indepe...
Interestingly, a week or so ago, this chap allegedly contracted corona, was hospitalised and then discharged himself. He's okay now.
Typically, cultists appeared online laughing that the covid 'denier' had contracted covid. In reality, he's never denied its existence, he simply offers his own first-hand experiences of what he's come across over the last 18 months.
I find him convincing. See what you think.
I wouldn't worry about the people you know being conformist. With a couple of exceptions, it's the same for me. Eventually, most will come round and realise what seems obvious to us at the mo. I no longer bother trying to convince people who aren't interested. They know where I stand, and vice versa, but it's important for people to awaken themselves in their own time. That way, their minds will be clearer why the whole covid corona flu narrative is so absurd. As the saying goes, once you see it then you can't 'unsee' it.
BTW, where is Carmel? I have some more expert scientific evidence about why the vaccines might be causing the variants, which I wanted to show him :)
In the meantime, here's a great interview with a well-known UK funeral director about some strange goings on he's noticed during the 'pandemic':
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/indepe...
Interestingly, a week or so ago, this chap allegedly contracted corona, was hospitalised and then discharged himself. He's okay now.
Typically, cultists appeared online laughing that the covid 'denier' had contracted covid. In reality, he's never denied its existence, he simply offers his own first-hand experiences of what he's come across over the last 18 months.
I find him convincing. See what you think.
Oh dear, that undertaker has an unfortunate name. XD Listening now.Beau wrote: "Typically, cultists appeared online laughing that the covid 'denier' had contracted covid. In reality, he's never denied its existence, he simply offers his own first-hand experiences of what he's come across over the last 18 months."
And of course contracting it is meaningless. Everyone I've interacted with (online--don't know anyone with it in real life) who has said they have or had it, has said they feel a little under the weather, tired, etc. That's all.
This video seems to confirm my own thoughts, get rid of those who cost the most and now contribute the least, doesn't count what you've done and paid in the past. At least the cards are on the table!Have to agree Scott the guy's name is rather unfortunate lol.
Yes, the video confirmed everything I had been thinking as well. Particularly the fake reporting.
Scott wrote: "Yes, the video confirmed everything I had been thinking as well. Particularly the fake reporting."Too right Scott.
Happy NEW YEAR 2022. I will be back on Good Reads.. I had my kindle and Computer hacked but it back up and running. YES of course the lock downs and now with the UNSCIENTIFIC bogus "so called Break through.. Covid cases which means by definition it was not a true vaccination and Omicron which is both scientifically a cold/flu with Sars particles.. and I won't look this up now.. I actually got Omicron .. and it is like a mild flu.. still a little under the weather but anyway: PRAISETHELORD! and lock and load.. :) lol.
Beau wrote: "BTW, where is Carmel? I have some more expert scientific evidence about why the vaccines might be causing the variants, which I wanted to show him :)..."Probably busy getting his 7th booster...
Isabella wrote: "Happy NEW YEAR 2022. I will be back on Good Reads.. I had my kindle and Computer hacked but it back up and running. YES of course the lock downs and now with the UNSCIENTIFIC bogus "so called Break..."Nice to meet you Isabella a truthful scientist too :)
LOL Lock and load, wish we could.
Happy New Year to you and all
James wrote: "Beau wrote: "BTW, where is Carmel? I have some more expert scientific evidence about why the vaccines might be causing the variants, which I wanted to show him :)..."Probably busy getting his 7th..."
Lol, undoubtedly getting together all the false data doing adjustments then writing his book on here?
Beth wrote: "James wrote: "Beau wrote: "BTW, where is Carmel? I have some more expert scientific evidence about why the vaccines might be causing the variants, which I wanted to show him :)..."Probably busy g..."
LOL ! I reckon Carmel knows when he’s beaten 😉
Happy New Year Fellow Truth Seekers 🤗
Anni wrote: "Beth wrote: "James wrote: "Beau wrote: "BTW, where is Carmel? I have some more expert scientific evidence about why the vaccines might be causing the variants, which I wanted to show him :)..."Pr..."
LOL...Happy New year Anni :)
I predict Carmel will be back. Write him off at your peril...
Hi Beau:Further to your message 1373, sorry for the delay: what with the holidays, snow-shovelling, and research. I studied the tables on pages 31 and 34 of the “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report Week 49,” linked again here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov... , and as you commented, the figures are a real eye-opener. Here’s a summary of my findings.
DEATHS: Unvaccinated 816; Vaccinated 3,284 (from p. 34).
INFECTIONS: Unvaccinated 390,096; Vaccinated 544,391 (from p. 31).
Now the percentage of vaccinated people (first dose) in the UK is 89.9%: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai...
So, (‘normalizing’) dividing the vaccinated totals by 8.901 (=89.9%/10.1%), to account for the greater number of vaccinated people, we get:
DEATHS: Unvaccinated 816; Vaccinated 369. In other words, comparing apples with apples, there were 2.2 (=816/369) times more unvaccinated deaths than vaccinated—not much to write home about—and certainly insufficient justification for lockdowns and laws ostracising non-compliant individuals.
Normalizing the INFECTIONS given above: Unvaccinated 390,096; Vaccinated 61,161; that is, unvaccinated people caught the virus about 6.4 (=390,096/61,161) times more than the vaccinated—a far cry from the twenty-odd times claimed by Pfizer.
I guess I was somewhat naïve in believing Pfizer’s numbers, huh? I figured the FDA/TGA/MHRA would have verified their records prior to approving the vaccines.
Having said that however, I believe the UK used a mixture of vaccines, but mainly the AstraZeneca vaccine, which claims to be only 74% effective: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canad.... In other words, theoretically, the infection ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated individuals would be 74% to 26%, that is, roughly 2.8 (=74/26) times. So the UK, with an actual infection ratio of 6.4 times, actually fared significantly better than what AstraZeneca claims.
Incidentally, regarding Dr. Hillary, if you normalize the numbers on page 32 of the Surveillance Report, the unvaccinated would seek emergency care 85% of the time—compared to 15% by vaccinated people (keeping in mind that the vaccinated in the UK constitute 89.9% of the population.)
Regarding your life expectancy reports, I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to convey. What exactly does “involving COVID-19” in the UK report mean? Did they test positive? And I don’t see an age-expectancy comparison in the USA report; could you please explain further?
Regarding your suggestion to isolate older people, it seems to be a good idea for retired people to self-isolate since the COVID infection fatality ratio (IFR) increases from 0.4% at age 55 to 14% at age 85: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/.... Still, there is no way of isolating these people completely: they need to go shopping for groceries and emergency needs; they need health care (hospitals and clinics) and possibly use public transit. Having infected people running around in places like these is not going to be very effective: at least you also need to quarantine infected people. But then what about carriers: those who came in contact with infected individuals? Do you quarantine them too? It’s not that simple.
However, your (and the group’s) assessment of the lockdowns collateral damage: suicides, deaths, medical postponements, mental suffering, increased violence, education, and financial impact is rather convincing. Your article, attached to this paragraph, is exceptionally good as it summarizes some 40,000 articles, and it estimates the cost to benefit ratio at 141 to 1. Amazing, but somewhat unconvincing to me, personally: it’s an argument in the clouds, so to speak. What I’d like to see is at least half of the excess mortality spike during COVID (in 2020 & 2021) occurring collaterally, that is, because of causes other than COVID. (Something like Lance’s message 1374.) I don’t think one can give any monetary value to life and draw conclusions from that.
Moreover, strictly comparing lives lost with lives that could feasibly be saved, the figures in table 4 of your other linked report: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/..., are very telling. But then again, where would the money end up once it is assigned to third-world countries? Terrorists, governments, and even charitable institutions have been known to pocket the money.
But don’t get me wrong: I’m not for lockdowns any longer; I just find the analyses interesting but somewhat unconvincing to me personally.
Where I still basically disagree with you is regarding your conclusion on the delta variant: your conclusion to message 1383. According to Wikipedia, the Indian/delta variant emerged in October 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant.... Consequently, the daily deaths graph for India, peaking in the spring of 2021, https://www.worldometers.info/coronav..., must have some other explanation: it cannot be the emergence of the delta variant. My contention is that since vaccines were first used in the UK on December 8, 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/1..., they could not possibly be the root cause of the variants (alpha, beta, gamma & delta); except possibly in the case of the omicron variant, which emerged on November 9, 2021. There is no evidence that the omicron variant is more virulent, either: indeed, although it seems to be more contagious, apparently it is less lethal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/....
Naturally, vaccines tend to become useless as more and more variants emerge: hence the need for boosters; but this situation is no different from the annual flu shot which is fine-tuned to the then current viral strain. Regarding COVID clinical trials still ongoing, annual flu shots aren’t tested for years and years, right? There is a risk there too. That’s why, personally, I never took flu-shots, but I think a pandemic is somewhat different, no?
If there’s anything in your posts I failed to address, kindly let me know. Finally, I’d like you to know that it’s been a pleasure discussing amicably with you.
Regards, Carmel.
Hi James:
I bought the book you recommended on vaccines; I shall start reading it in the very near future. How is your film going?
Regards, Carmel.
Happy New Year, everyone!
Carmel wrote: "Hi James:I bought the book you recommended on vaccines; I shall start reading it in the very near future. How is your film going?
Regards, Carmel.
Happy New Year, everyone!..."
All good and yes Happy New Year everyone. I was happy to gift you that vaccine book Carmel, but regardless I would be interested in your thoughts on vaccines overall and the layered and multi-faceted history of them. Besides the Covid vaccine, we have discussion threads on almost every human vaccine in these different sections of this group: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...
Coming back to Covid, the way they are defining unvaccinated is part of the trick also...Last time I checked, in most countries if someone is sick or dies within 2 weeks of getting vaccinated, they are still counted as unvaxxed...Supposedly because it takes the vaccines 2 weeks to start working in individuals...But it's problematic as it means many vaccine injuries are being overlooked...It appears vaccine injuries or deaths can occur within days...
Hi Carmel, Happy New Year to you! I hope you had a nice Christmas.
I’m glad that you’re coming round to our way of thinking on lockdowns. Regarding the vaccines, I trust you so won’t cross-check any of your figures but must say, with respect, your point that c.90% of the UK population has had 1 dose of vaccine is irrelevant because this group has never been classified as fully vaccinated. We need to compare the unvaccinated with those who have had the required 2 doses (although note that even they are no longer classified as ‘fully vaccinated’).
If we’re talking whole population, according to Government figures, it’s 47.45m / 67.22m x 100 = c.70%.
For those aged 12 and over (so eligible), it’s 47m / 55m x 100 = c.85%.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vacc...
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai...
However, in the US there is proof that the Government has overstated the number of vaccinated:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
Could this have happened in the UK too?
My gut feeling is that the number vaccinated is lower than stated because of the intense Government and media campaign to promote the vaccine. Why put this sort of time, effort and money into promoting the vaccine if there’s already been such a high uptake?
Regarding age, my point is that the average age of a covid victim is roughly the same as the average life expectancy. The average UK life expectancy in 2019 (before covid) was 81.2. The mean average of a recorded covid death is 80.3 years and the median average 83. Although the US link displayed the data in the form of a bar chart, you can see from simply glancing at it that there is a similar pattern there too.
The point here is that although I agree with you that the vaccine provides some short-lived protection against the virus, how important is that protection to most people? Most of us have a fraction of 1% chance of dying if we catch covid, so it’s a virus with negligible risk. Factor in that the vaccines use experimental mRNA technology, haven’t yet completed their full clinical trials, and that boosters are required every 6 months or so (Israel and Germany now ready to roll out 4th shots), and I don’t believe that it’s a logical decision for most of us to get vaccinated. Elderly people and those with severe underlying conditions – yes, the vast majority of the population – no.
I’ll take your word for it that the delta variant emerged earlier than I thought – thanks for the info. However, how do you explain that India’s deathrate went through the roof after their vaccine rollout?
When the vaccine rollout happened (and further to my previous post about this), some scientists argued that mass vaccination would set up an evolutionary selection pressure in favour of vaccine-resistant strains, potentially prolonging the pandemic.
For example, Robert Malone and Peter Navarro wrote the following in the Washington Times:
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/blog/l8xzj...
From the link:
‘The more people you vaccinate, the greater the number of vaccine-resistant mutations you are likely to get, the less durable the vaccines will become, ever more powerful vaccines will have to be developed, and individuals will be exposed to more and more risk … If the entire population has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population.’
Finally, regarding my suggestion about isolating older people – it was merely giving them the option to isolate, should they wish. It certainly wouldn’t have been perfect but would have been far more equitable for the population as a whole and would have dramatically reduced the collateral damage caused by lockdowns.
I’m glad that you’re coming round to our way of thinking on lockdowns. Regarding the vaccines, I trust you so won’t cross-check any of your figures but must say, with respect, your point that c.90% of the UK population has had 1 dose of vaccine is irrelevant because this group has never been classified as fully vaccinated. We need to compare the unvaccinated with those who have had the required 2 doses (although note that even they are no longer classified as ‘fully vaccinated’).
If we’re talking whole population, according to Government figures, it’s 47.45m / 67.22m x 100 = c.70%.
For those aged 12 and over (so eligible), it’s 47m / 55m x 100 = c.85%.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vacc...
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai...
However, in the US there is proof that the Government has overstated the number of vaccinated:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
Could this have happened in the UK too?
My gut feeling is that the number vaccinated is lower than stated because of the intense Government and media campaign to promote the vaccine. Why put this sort of time, effort and money into promoting the vaccine if there’s already been such a high uptake?
Regarding age, my point is that the average age of a covid victim is roughly the same as the average life expectancy. The average UK life expectancy in 2019 (before covid) was 81.2. The mean average of a recorded covid death is 80.3 years and the median average 83. Although the US link displayed the data in the form of a bar chart, you can see from simply glancing at it that there is a similar pattern there too.
The point here is that although I agree with you that the vaccine provides some short-lived protection against the virus, how important is that protection to most people? Most of us have a fraction of 1% chance of dying if we catch covid, so it’s a virus with negligible risk. Factor in that the vaccines use experimental mRNA technology, haven’t yet completed their full clinical trials, and that boosters are required every 6 months or so (Israel and Germany now ready to roll out 4th shots), and I don’t believe that it’s a logical decision for most of us to get vaccinated. Elderly people and those with severe underlying conditions – yes, the vast majority of the population – no.
I’ll take your word for it that the delta variant emerged earlier than I thought – thanks for the info. However, how do you explain that India’s deathrate went through the roof after their vaccine rollout?
When the vaccine rollout happened (and further to my previous post about this), some scientists argued that mass vaccination would set up an evolutionary selection pressure in favour of vaccine-resistant strains, potentially prolonging the pandemic.
For example, Robert Malone and Peter Navarro wrote the following in the Washington Times:
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/blog/l8xzj...
From the link:
‘The more people you vaccinate, the greater the number of vaccine-resistant mutations you are likely to get, the less durable the vaccines will become, ever more powerful vaccines will have to be developed, and individuals will be exposed to more and more risk … If the entire population has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population.’
Finally, regarding my suggestion about isolating older people – it was merely giving them the option to isolate, should they wish. It certainly wouldn’t have been perfect but would have been far more equitable for the population as a whole and would have dramatically reduced the collateral damage caused by lockdowns.
Lance wrote: "I predict Carmel will be back. Write him off at your peril..."Ummmm.... Was I right or was I right?
Hi Beau:Regarding your message 1400.
The report in question: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai..., states clearly, “The number of people of all ages who have received a COVID-19 vaccination, shown as a percentage of the population aged 12 and over.” Therefore the children under 12 are excluded from the discussion; so, naturally, the 89.9% vaccinated I quoted does not refer to the whole population of the UK.
Moreover, from the “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report (Week 49)” please refer to pp. 31–34):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov..., I obtained the “unvaccinated” total by adding the numbers in the column headed “Not vaccinated,” and I obtained the “vaccinated” total by adding the numbers in the three columns headed “Received one dose (1–20 days before specimen date),” “Received one dose, >/= 21 days before specimen date,” and “Second dose >/= 14 days before specimen date.” I don’t think one can be fairer than this because the body’s immunity system starts to build antibodies as soon as it detects the injected serum; besides, as James aptly points out in message 1399, “It appears vaccine injuries or deaths can occur within days.” I think you will agree with me that the number of deaths is much more important than the number of infections. And unless I am misinterpreting James’s message, he agrees with my counting vaccinated people from day one.
Furthermore, I excluded the column headed “Unlinked” because I wasn’t sure what it meant exactly: from what I understood, however, these are dropouts from the health system and should probably be included with the unvaccinated—which is not to your advantage. I think I was as fair as is humanly possible, but if you still don’t like my methodology, I’d be happy to revise my conclusions. However, if one wants to be honest, one can’t switch over from one methodology to another as is convenient to one’s bias.
Regarding government’s insistence on everybody's getting inoculated, it is, perhaps, because government truly believes that everybody must cooperate. This is like driving on the right side of the road: you can’t have 10% of drivers driving on the wrong side of the road—not even 1%. Of course, this is assuming government is right: that it is a very deadly virus—as I was convinced initially—and it might just be what they really believe. You have to think in their frame of mind too.
I agree with your assessment of how vaccines should be recommended or not to old and young respectively; the problem is that the “lawmakers” have to be convinced of this. I’m surprised that scientists are not educating government accordingly; or, as you contend, there might be ulterior monetary interests. Personally, I think it’s more ignorance. We expect politicians to know more than you and me. In reality, however, they don’t listen to all sides, and they don’t like to recant once they realize they were wrong.
Finally, I can’t really explain why the death rate in India shot up after their vaccine rollout. For all I know, you might be right: that it is an aftereffect of some sort. Probably it wasn’t another more dangerous strain, though, because we would have known about it. Hopefully, I’ll be able to shed some light on the matter after I’ve read James’s and Lance’s book on vaccines. That is, unless India's death toll is fudged/unreliable: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2.... Could Indian officials have decided to take better count of the death toll right after the vaccine rollout and subsequently found out it was not such a good idea?
Regards, Carmel.
Beau wrote: "However, in the US there is proof that the Government has overstated the number of vaccinated:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
Could this have happened in the UK too? ..."
Haven't looked into this, but besides the US government "mistake" in overcounting, there are also some reports and/or opinion pieces coming out of the UK and other nations like here in OZ that they have made similar "mistakes"... Like the following article, for example:
UK Government report admits there are 23.5 Million people in England who have NOT had a single dose of a Covid-19 Vaccine https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/12/17/23-...
"For months the British public have been deceived with tales that there are just 5 million people in the United Kingdom who have refused to take up the offer of a Covid-19 vaccine. But today we can reveal that this is a lie."
"It is a complete fabrication that has no doubt been used to make those who have refused the jab feel as if they are part of a minority, because an official UK Government report proves that in England alone there are approximately 23.5 million people who have not had a single dose of a Covid-19 vaccine."
Lance wrote: "Lance wrote: "I predict Carmel will be back. Write him off at your peril..."
Ummmm.... Was I right or was I right?"
I knew you'd be right, Lance. You usually are :)
Ummmm.... Was I right or was I right?"
I knew you'd be right, Lance. You usually are :)
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
Vaccine Science Revisited: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (other topics)Vaccine Science Revisited: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (other topics)
Death by Decent Society (other topics)
Immortal Knowledge: Scifi Thriller for Mind Uploading (other topics)
Vaccine Science Revisited: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Janet Colbert (other topics)Jordan B. Peterson (other topics)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (other topics)
Bruce R. Fenton (other topics)
Bruce R. Fenton (other topics)
More...
