Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oakwise

  1. Well, indirectly, yes. The policies are set at the top and they're just doing their job.
  2. Seems to me like they want us to be afraid, man. Or maybe we just like being afraid?
  3. She's old school. I remember being introduced to her back in 2004 (?) via Michael Ruppert's The Truth and Lies of 9/11. It actually reminds me of the old days of internet truthing. It's such a shame that Michael Ruppert isn't with us today. We could do with his voice from the wilderness:
  4. Well, it's not inconceivable that under the cover of covid certain high ranking officials could be assassinated via anthrax. Inhalation anthrax has the same symptoms and since hospitals are on high alert for covid, it's possible that cultures won't be grown in the path lab. It would just go down as a covid death. I wouldn't be surprised if something like anthrax is used on the population. It's a tough bacteria that can survive being released into the wild. It's not contagious so it can be easily controlled e.g. certain areas can be targeted and all symptoms would be classed as covid. It's also worth noting that in Huxley's Brave New World, the controllers used anthrax to break down the old system and introduce the new scientific dictatorship.
  5. Anthraxed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax#Lungs
  6. I agree. Very dubious. You would also expect more trial and error in such a huge undertaking. Powered flight took about seventeen years to make it across the Atlantic. Yet they expect us to believe they flew 440,000 miles to the moon and back on such a short learning curve? It clearly doesn't add up. Something worth considering: There wasn't a long established history of terra-lunar travel; but there was a long established history of humans tricking other humans. Hoaxing is a clear reality with many cases throughout history. And when you consider that it's undoubtedly easier to hoax a moon landing than actually achieve it, you invariably reach the conclusion that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax.
  7. I was thinking that. I mean, it's an extraordinary claim: We flew to the moon, fucked around for a bit, did a live stream and then flew all the way back. Surely anyone in their right mind would be sceptical about such an outlandish claim. I know I am. When someone claims to have flown to the moon and back, they better have some extraordinary proof. Especially when it comes from the same establishment that drafted the Operation Northwoods proposal. Deceit and trickery was very much a strategic reality in those days (still is, obviously).
  8. I'm sick of people telling me to 'have a safe Christmas and new year'. The next person who says it, I'm gonna turn round and say to them, 'Sorry. I'm base jumping off active volcanoes during the festive season. So can't promise I'll be safe. But I'll be fucking merry. Remember when we used to be merry? But you, you have a fucking safe xmas. Hope you're super safe. Enjoying safety, I mean really savouring it.' People are turning into that Nazi villain from Marathon Man:
  9. UK politicians are sounding like pot growers. 'This new strain's well potent!'
  10. Something to lift the spirits a little:
  11. I think this is the general mood of a lot of people regarding 'covid':
  12. There is currently an epidemic of stress and anxiety. So could be a stress rash: https://www.scripps.org/news_items/6955-can-stress-cause-rashes#:~:text=Stress rashes often appear as,a burning or tingling sensation.
  13. He's really angry because he won't get cavity searched at UK airports:
  14. Don't tell me free_your_mind is part of Dad's Army, that rag-tag bunch of keyboard amateurs. 'Don't panic, Mr Ellwood. Don't panic'. lol Selected scenes from 77 HQ:
  15. Thanks for advancing the conclusion so succinctly. It's not like there isn't a precedent for hysterical contagions and mass sociogenic illness. A well-known example from recent history is the June Bug Epidemic, 1962: I'm not sure if this kind of mass hysteria can directly cause death. But as you said, it could start an iatrogenic chain-reaction that leads to death or serious injury.
  16. Okay. Here's a real-life anecdote. A family I know told me they had covid. They said they've had colds in the past which were worse. In fact, they were fit enough to continue working from home. They did so really to keep their minds off the worry. And here's the rub, the nanny-state vapour rub. They kept getting bombarded with patronising phone calls from the health authorities asking things like, 'Are you alright? Do you feel isolated? Can we help you in anyway?' And they were like, 'We're grown adults, thank you. We're capable of looking after ourselves'. They also kept getting texts urging them to download the app. I'm glad to report they all refused it. But the rub gets rubbier. When you phone 111 with some mild concerns, you will get told something like, 'Oh, you'll know by day seven if you might die or not.' What a thing to say to someone! This friend of mine said: 'It got close to day seven and I really started to worry. Will I take that dreaded turn? Started to wonder if I was short of breath or not, started to panic a bit'. It turned out to be symptoms of anxiety because the idea had been planted into her head. Everything was fine. They got over it. Nothing to write home about they said. But it got me wondering: How many of the symptoms out there are the result of panic? Is it possible that panic can exacerbate an otherwise mild respiratory infection? Take a look at panic attack symptoms: "Racing" heart Feeling weak, faint, or dizzy Tingling or numbness in the hands and fingers Sense of terror, or impending doom or death Feeling sweaty or having chills Chest pains Breathing difficulties Feeling a loss of control I think some people could be dying of sheer panic.
  17. To be honest, your post is littered with weak generalisations and unproven assumptions. A lot to untangle. Very meandering and not to the point. The crux of it is: People should be able to choose what risks they take. So if they want to take the vaccine or give it to their children they can. But one would hope that they are fully aware of all the risks. There are some serious risks that a lot of people aren't aware of and it's being covered up by powerful interests (plenty of whistle blowers, independent scientists etc.) You reference Wakefield. However, it turns that there is indeed a potential link between vaccines and autism. It's to do with the aluminium adjuvants - aluminium is a known neurotoxin. Prof Chris Exley, Keele University, has spent his life studying aluminium in relation to living organisms. His work strongly suggests that aluminium is a key etiological factor in many cases of Alzheimer's. His research also suggests that aluminium adjuvants could be a factor in autism. He identified that there have been no proper safety trials for the alu adjuvant, since the placebo in the control group contain the adjuvant. There's enough evidence there to at least warrant serious investigation in a cooperative, multilateral way. However, this science is being suppressed; not surprising since the implications are huge for powerful corporate powers, not just pharma but the aluminium industry as well. Here's Prof Chris Exley giving a lecture on the subject:
  18. Well put. It's the nanny-state on steroids.
  19. So you've studied the counter-arguments have you? Can you summarise them here, please. I want to make sure you're not counter-arguing against straw men. And the fact that you didn't know what adjuvants are suggests you're not really clued up on all the various arguments. If you were clued up, you'd already know what an adjuvant is. There's a lot of good science out there showing the potential for vaccine damage, above and beyond what you would expect from a 'safe' vaccine. This is the charge: The manufacturers claim they are safer and/or more effective than they actually are. On a broader level, it may actually turn out that this kind of induced immunisation is the completely wrong approach. After all, we're dealing complex biosystems with many variable and many unknowns. But that wasn't really the point I was making. You said 'anti-vax' is a turd in a punchbowl and suggested that we shouldn't focus on it. I disagreed. Nothing you've said so far has dissuaded me from that viewpoint. All the best.
  20. The article references this piece from the BMJ blog: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/ Peter Doshi makes the point about the lack of nuance surrounding the reporting of the '95% efficacy' rate. He also makes a point about the relative vs absolute risk discussion. He says: "Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown." I'm surprised a free-wheeling critical thinker like yourself would let Google do the thinking for you. Surely a true critical thinker would examine the publication himself and come to a fair-minded, reasoned conclusion. I'm starting to think you don't practice what you preach.
  21. That's why those values should be defended when politicians and other movers & shakers make serious proposals for mandatory vaccines either directly via legislation or indirectly via social coercion. Which is what most of the people here are doing: Defending those values.
  22. You're welcome. Your other points are complex but largely I disagree with the oversimplifications of the subtopics. Too many broad strokes. I haven't got time to go into them now. re. your above statement. I think you possibly misunderstand. A lot of antigens (at certain levels) aren't strong enough to cause an effective immune response , that's why adjuvants are needed: to boost or stimulate an immune response that the body then associates with the antigen. That's the theory behind it. Isn't that the case?
  23. I totally disagree. Discussing the risks of vaccination is totally legitimate. Throughout history there have been incidences where the medical establishment asserted that a certain medical intervention was necessary, and then it turned out to be the completely wrong approach. For example, the medical establishment once asserted that it was impossible for bacteria to survive in the stomach and therefore it cannot be an etiological factor in stomach ulcers. This completely false assertion meant that many people underwent highly invasive surgery. It turned out that bacteria is a prime factor in many cases of stomach ulcer, and therefore can be treated by non-invasive anti-biotics. The researchers who proved this faced intense resistance from the medical establishment. But the facts won out and the medical establishment had to change its approach to that disease. In the spirit of learning from history, how do we know that's not the case for the vaccine strategy? Just with the stomach bacteria, are there not independent scientists showing the potential risks of the vaccine strategy? There are indeed. The vaccine discussion is complex because there are different vaccines with different ingredients with different effects. However, there's a lot of credible research into the risks of aluminium adjuvants. Prof. Exley's research shows that there is a biological mechanism for aluminium adjuvants being a potential causal factor in autism. This is only some of the research into aluminium adjuvants. In France there has been a major discussion over the harmful of effects of that ingredient. Also, adjuvants are designed to cause an immune response. There is credible data to show that this is very problematic for those who have an innately over-active immune system. The induced immune response could cause an autoimmune disease. Would you really want to expose your child to that risk without seriously weighing it up? I'm sure no sensible person would. Then we have the experimental covid vaccine which could become mandatory. Well, clearly the vaccination discussion is highly relevant and worthy of airtime. That's why I disagree with you completely.
  • Create New...