Covid vaccinations stopped and other science updates

[skjl47]

I am new here, so at the risk of starting trouble, I would like to add something to this. Please forgive any faux pas of board etiquette. I want to bring up few points.

1. As someone who left journalism because of the lies and manipulations forced on good journalists or lose your job, media lies. They have to uphold the agenda of the shareholders. In this case, the shareholders have financial interest in the shots and pushing the faux demic. Polls are skewed to make people in the US THINK more got shots than did. This is not vaccine. It is warfare in a syringe.

2. A close buddy of mine left the health industry when he discovered the plans to create a fear based disease narrative to try to force shots on people leading to ultimate control of the population. That was in the 1980s. I began to monitor the flu trends in the US and loosely around the world, but not strictly. I saw when they started launching the variants of the weaponized flu (they were looking to settle on their best development) in the 1990s. I watched trends, monitored newscasts, and saw them slowly setting up the mindset for the agenda 201 (held Oct 2019)that they put into action in Dec/Jan 2020, reaching full push by April.

3. This group doing this is an international group. Certain areas they want emptier are for various reasons. Natural resources, tactical land locations, work camps to support their future food supply and the left overs who survive their shot culling will work there.

4. I know I have probably already said enough so I will stop there. I came to this forum because of spirited discussions I saw here on fish food. People here tend to have opinions and like to get into reasons why they think the way they do. That is why I decided to try out the forum.

Again, sorry if I transgressed any forum boundaries or formats. I just wanted to add to the discussion as it is something I am very experienced in in terms of research and watching.

Oh, one last thing. Vaccines were also based on a lie way back. If you study cause and effects of things causing symptoms that were suddenly outlawed after vaccines came out and then claimed success by vaccines, you will see they gradually have pulled bait and switch for years. DDT used to be used on wallpaper, baby's clothing and bedding, dusted on school children, etc. When symptoms were blamed on polio and other major diseases, notice when they claimed how successful vaccines were when DDT was outlawed.

If anyone has not gotten a pitchfork to run me out yet and really wants to look into this, there is a book called Dr Mary's Monkey by Ed Haslam I believe it is. It reads like a novel so easy to follow. That explores many things which will open your eyes as far back as the 1960s. I recommend that as it is easy to read. Someone on a board like this recommended it to me a long time ago. I almost didn't read it. Glad I did.

Well, thanks for paying attention if anyone has to this point. I will shut up now.

Hello; Welcome to the forum. Interesting concepts. Some are new to me. Others fit in my experience. I do not know the book you reference. I will look for it.

 

[RD.]

edited, as this will eventually go nowhere. lol

 

[phreeflow]

This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate varying inputs. Hope the mods don’t play babysitter and shut it down. Sadly, it’s not often you get to hear multiple opinions nowadays, much less a respectful debate

 

[jjohnwm]

...As someone who left journalism because of the lies and manipulations forced on good journalists or lose your job, media lies. They have to uphold the agenda of the shareholders...

I could not agree more with this statement. I have long thought that there is no such thing anymore as a "journalist" in the strictest sense of the word. When I was in school we were taught the "5 W's of journalism", i.e. Who, What, When, Where and Why. A good reporter was tasked with answering and addressing all of them, without injecting personal bias into the story; the first paragraph and especially the first sentence were expected to carry as much information as possible to "catch" the reader's interest; and, of course, grammar, spelling, punctuation and sentence structure...since they were coming from someone claiming to be a professional wordsmith...were expected to be perfect.

But today, questions go unanswered even if one manages to slog through to the end of the sloppily written and confusing diatribes that are presented as journalism. Innuendo, Misdirection, Opinion, Propaganda and Commercialism seem to be the five magic words. And somehow, in this day and age of electronic wizardry and AI-assisted spellchecking and grammar correction...virtually nobody seems capable of constructing a coherent sentence.

Sadly, I think that virtually everything else in your post is either paranoid delusion or a deliberate attempt at trolling. Humanity is a bunch of killer apes that have evolved to display some level of cooperation in small groups that gives us a competitive advantage. The bigger the groups become, the more this cooperation starts to break down. Our natural distrust of anything strange and different always stands in the way of the kind of global harmony of which so many dream. Governments screw up the simplest concepts by over-complicating them; bigger governments do so in even more spectacular fashion. Yet you are suggesting that some shadowy international "group" works behind the scenes of modern society to control our thoughts and actions while molding the world to fit their nefarious ends. The level of discipline, commitment and organization this would require is staggering; you are giving people as a whole far too much credit if you believe this is possible.

What I found most surprising and curious about your post was the fact that you quoted a post of mine at the beginning. There are people on MFK who seem to have limitless time and interest to sift through the media coverage of their favourite target topics, and to find some truly outlandish presentations of "facts" which they then thrust into the spotlight, ignoring other versions that are less flashy, less frightening or less "conspiracy-oriented" than those sparkling little gems of fantasy...and then there are those who dwell in blissful ignorance, living their day-to-day lives with little time spent in the pursuit of a cool-sounding version of what is laughably called The Truth.

I tend to place myself into the latter group. I'm not sure why you chose my comment to introduce yours...considering some of the other available material available right here in this thread.

edited, as this will eventually go nowhere. lol

You should have left the original version in place, RD. Of course this will go nowhere...but threads like this are about the journey, not the destination. The more turds in the toilet bowl, the more hypnotic the swirl...

 

[skjl47]

I'm not sure why you chose my comment to introduce yours...considering some of the other available material available right here in this thread.

Hello; Since you were countering my post in that reply, allow me to make a guess as to why your post was chosen. First, I do not know the members reason for using your post.
My take is something like this. I report what i heard on TV news. That currently 58% of deaths attributed to covid are among the vaccinated. That seems a big deal to me. The point of taking a vaccine is was to avoid an illness, so having a greater % of deaths among the vaccinated ought to raise an eyebrow. Right away you and one other come back with a rebuttal which can be tempting to accept if one main thing is overlooked. That point being the notion that a vaccine is supposed to prevent disease. (Well, it was the point for a few decades or so.) Anyway that 58% of covid deaths are among the vaccinated stuck out to me as a new outcome. Especially after the last two years of lockdowns and mandates.

I do admit the rebuttal is sort of clever if one does not look too deeply into the implications.

So, spin this: at present, all the numbers I have seen indicate that in the U.S. as a whole today, approximately 80% of adults have had at least one shot. So 58% of Covid deaths come from a group representing 80% of the population...and the unvaccinated 20% of the population contribute 40% of the deaths.

Hello; Thing is I came up with two analogies, lifejackets % seatbelts, which point out a possible flaw. Seatbelts, lifejackets and vaccines are of a group. A group intended to protect us in particular ways. Let me make my point clearer. If lifejackets and seatbelts had an outcome matching the covid vaccine, such would make some news I think.

 

[jjohnwm]

Seatbelts, lifejackets and vaccines are of a group. A group intended to protect us in particular ways. Let me make my point clearer. If lifejackets and seatbelts had an outcome matching the covid vaccine, such would make some news I think.

I suspect that it would be easy to show that they do indeed have a similar outcome. Taking seatbelts as an example, in my stomping grounds virtually everyone wears seatbelts. It's the law, it's easy for a passing cop to see if you are or are not wearing your belt, and he/she will definitely pull you over and hand you an expensive ticket if you don't have one on. So the overwhelming majority of folks wear their belts. If you examine the numbers of people killed who were belted versus those who weren't, it is almost a certainty that more belt-wearers are killed than non-belted; the greater likelihood of being killed while non-belted is more than compensated for by the much larger percentage of people who are wearing their belts. Even a tiny fraction of that much larger group is still likely to be far greater than a large fraction of the much smaller group.

Your rationale would then examine those raw numbers of people killed, ignoring the relative size of the two groups involved, and proclaim that the belts are ineffective, or even have negative effect. This is not a logical conclusion...regardless of how often it is repeated. It might not "make news"...but you would try to "make it news".

"I cut it three times, and it's still too short..."

 

[RD.]

I could make a guess, too. My guess is that it's no accident that our new member landed on this discussion in the Lounge, while researching and reading up on fish food fights that began and ended on this forum several yrs ago. Lol I suspect they received a personal invitation, and started with John, as his comments are always the most logical, and sensible. Hmmmm

 

[jjohnwm]

I could make a guess, too. My guess is that it's no accident that our new member landed on this discussion in the Lounge, while researching and reading up on fish food fights that began and ended on this forum several yrs ago. Lol I suspect they received a personal invitation, and started with John, as his comments are always the most logical, and sensible. Hmmmm

Hmmm, indeed...I didn't realize how old the storied "fish food fights" were. To be first attracted to those, and to find nothing worthy of comment in the ensuing years...and then to finally join now because this particular little fracas is so irresistible....yes, hmmm...

Thanks for the kind words, RD. ...and for also prompting me to paint a mental picture of John Belushi yelling "fish food fight!" which will probably stay with me all day...

 

[skjl47]

I suspect that it would be easy to show that they do indeed have a similar outcome. Taking seatbelts as an example, in my stomping grounds virtually everyone wears seatbelts. It's the law, it's easy for a passing cop to see if you are or are not wearing your belt, and he/she will definitely pull you over and hand you an expensive ticket if you don't have one on. So the overwhelming majority of folks wear their belts. If you examine the numbers of people killed who were belted versus those who weren't, it is almost a certainty that more belt-wearers are killed than non-belted; the greater likelihood of being killed while non-belted is more than compensated for by the much larger percentage of people who are wearing their belts. Even a tiny fraction of that much larger group is still likely to be far greater than a large fraction of the much smaller group.

Your rationale would then examine those raw numbers of people killed, ignoring the relative size of the two groups involved, and proclaim that the belts are ineffective, or even have negative effect. This is not a logical conclusion...regardless of how often it is repeated. It might not "make news"...but you would try to "make it news".

"I cut it three times, and it's still too short..."

Hello; Let me try again to point out the flaw in this argument. The point of seatbelts is to reduce the chance of injury or death. I started driving before there were seatbelts in cars. Saw a lot of junkyard cars with head sized holes in the front windshields. The injuries had a name something like a halo effect. Really nasty injuries.
Seat belts became mandatory and have proven to save lives and reduce injury. They do help. It is not that i cannot grasp the numbers argument you present. A point is there are still a lot of people who have not had the shots. I know a few personally and am not around that many people. I also know some people who do not wear seat belts.

numbers I have seen indicate that in the U.S. as a whole today, approximately 80% of adults have had at least one shot. So 58% of Covid deaths come from a group representing 80% of the population...and the unvaccinated 20% of the population contribute 40% of the deaths.

Look at it another way. I have not looked up the estimates so let's use 80% have the shots and 20% do not. If death is an expected outcome among those unvaccinated because they are not protected and prevention of (protection from) serious illness is the current clarion call for the vaccines, then the 58% of deaths being among the vaccinated is more than just a quirk of statistics. I get the argument that so many have had shots they now become the larger population. Some can take comfort in that argument and keep on lining up for the numerous boosters every few months.

I put long and involved posts up months ago about what i had found about the antibody numbers from the shots which peak and soon dwindle away to be replaced by the natural immune system with better long-lasting antibodies better suited to fight covid. I still have that information bookmarked and can post it again. There is something lacking with the mRNA vaccines which have to be repeated multiple times a year. Of course, saying such was, just months ago, enough to get threads shut down and voices silenced.
Many of us want to know why the shots do not work as expected. ( I get the goal posts have been moved a few times with regard to what to expect from these shots. A history of decades of experience taking vaccines has been rewritten in the last year or two. Now we are told that no one ever told us to expect vaccines to prevent disease.)

If my posting this 58% statistic can get a discussion out in the open again, such is good enough. It is years now and past time to get a grasp beyond being told to shut up and not question your betters.

 

[RD.]

Compared to the Delta variant, Omicron was more transmissible and better able to evade both vaccine and infection-acquired immunity.
Much along the same lines as you described flu vaccines in a previous post. Not always easy to hit the bullseye on a moving target with multiple variants.

I also don't believe that these vaccines need to be repeated multiple times a year.

I had Omicron (possibly BA. 4, but most likely BA.5 according to local wastewater analysis) in mid-July, and I don't plan on getting a booster anytime soon. If I had a weaker immune system, or was 20 yrs older, I might think differently. My 93 yr old mom tested positive a few months back and didn't even know that she was sick. I personally doubt we would have seen the same outcome, sans a vaccine. I also know much younger folks with no vaccine, that got very sick. Some died.
Some bounced back. Who knows what the best way to proceed is?

We have choices in Canada, now even those working in health care. No guns being held to the head over vaccines.
Count your blessings .....