Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Oakwise

  1. 4 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:


    It's a scary thought, but it could probably be a number of things these days. It's just strange that it says he was fit and the son of a former Japanese PM.


    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. 

    • Thanks 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Illmatic said:


    I'd say they most likely did him in, but he apparently died of pneumonia and not the typical gunshot to the back of the head/OD/fall into a river.


    He may well have died naturally but they saw it as a useful way to involve a process he invented in the whole scam. He was a genius who wasn't afraid to stand up to bullies and was on record criticising Fauci, I doubt he'd have sat idly by and seen his work used to perpetuate maybe the greatest con-job in history.


    18 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

    Japanese lawmaker dies of COVID-19 complications


    'Fellow politicians and other people who knew him have expressed shock at his sudden death. Peers described Hata as healthy, according to Kyodo. '







  3. 3 minutes ago, oneantisworthtenofyou said:

    1960's technology looks shockingly cumbersome 

    i find it very hard to believe mankind managed to travel to the moon in that awful looking tin can of a spaceship 

    and wearing that goldfish bowl helmet spacesuit for radiation protection too makes me laugh 


    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. 



    • Like 2
  4. 15 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

     Amazing that someone with your undoubted intelligence thinks people walked on the moon 51 years ago.

    I'm absolutely baffled.


    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). 



  5. 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:



    • Like 3
    • Haha 2
  6. 1 hour ago, Sit down, Waldo said:

    How are they distinguishing between these 'new' & 'old' variants?...are there different tests?...different symptoms?...new dance routines?


    UK politicians are sounding like pot growers. 'This new strain's well potent!'

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  7. 12 hours ago, banjo dog said:

    My wife a few days ago has developed a rash like thing on her arms legs and is as from today appearing on her back and in her scalp. It is some times called hives, small red lumps. A friend of hers told her today she knows some one who has recently had the same thing appear. Has any one out there got the same or knows of any one. Found article in daily express an itchy rash on the skin is a symptom of, surprise, surprise, coronavirus, and you should self isolate. OH FUCK OFF 


    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.


    • Like 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Velma said:

    What a crock of overacting and reacting fake sh*t, small dog syndrome or what?


    Is this how Tom Cruise has been "tirelessly" enforcing the rules, by yelling at staff?


    He's really angry because he won't get cavity searched at UK airports: 




    The police can now stop and search hostile foreign actors at the border before they come into the country.


    The new powers are an ‘urgent update’ to legislation. Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said: ‘Hostile foreign actors have become a huge threat in recent years. We need to stop them coming over here and filling our tabloids with their hostile activity. We have plenty of washed up hasbeens already. We don’t need anymore.’





    • Haha 2
  9. 6 minutes ago, SimonTV said:


    Yes I think this is very likely, the media has created a hypochondriatic population through the constant fear propaganda. People that are living shielded lives and are easily panicable will have become hyper sensitive to getting any form of cold or flu and a panic attack could be enough for them to call the ambulance. Once they arrive, the doctors test for covid and PCR winner it is, positive result. Then they are stuck on drugs and a ventilator because NHS cares. 


    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:



    The June bug epidemic serves as a classic example of hysterical contagion. In 1962 a mysterious disease broke out in a dressmaking department of a US textile factory. The symptoms included numbness, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting.


    Word of a bug in the factory that would bite its victims and cause them to develop the above symptoms quickly spread.


    Soon sixty-two employees developed this mysterious illness, some of whom were hospitalized. The news media reported on the case. After research by company physicians and experts from the US Public Health Service Communicable Disease Center, it was concluded that the case was one of mass hysteria.


    While the researchers believed some workers were bitten by the bug, anxiety was probably the cause of the symptoms. No evidence was ever found for a bug which could cause the above flu-like symptoms, nor did all workers demonstrate bites.


    Workers concluded that the environment was quite stressful; the plant had recently opened, was quite busy and organization was poor. Further, most of the victims reported high levels of stress in their lives. Social forces seemed at work too.


    Of the 62 employees that reported symptoms, 59 worked on the first shift, 58 worked in the same area, and 50 of the 62 cases occurred in the two consecutive days after the media supposedly “sensationalized” the event. Most of the employees who became sick took time off to recuperate.





    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. 



  10. 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. 

    • Like 7
  11. 30 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:


    "This is . . .


    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: 



    • Like 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Free_your_mind said:

    A lot of the counter arguements don't hold up to scrutiny.


    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. 

  13. 3 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:

    This just isn't true. Your link is as dodgy as they come.



    The article references this piece from the BMJ blog:



    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.



  14. 25 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:

    There is a long history of medicine by consent in this country. 


    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. 

  15. 15 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:



    The whole point of most vaccines is to illicit an immune response. I don't think this is triggered by the adjuvant.


    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?

  16. 2 hours ago, Free_your_mind said:

    I think there are too many turds in the proverbial punch bowl . . .anti-vax. . .


    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. 

  17. 47 minutes ago, Steph said:

    Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man's world.


    People with millions think they are wealth creators but they've been buying and selling the wealth creators. What if everyone just decided money wasn't worth their time and effort. What do the wealth creators have to offer? Lies?


    Money is an important instrument for having power over a society. But it's not the main source of power. Some would argue that one of the primary sources is the ability to command people, to get them to do your bidding, to behave how you want them to behave. There's a scene in the Conan film where, to demonstrate what power is, the snake king commands one of his minions to jump to her death. That really is power. To command battalions of men, order them to risk their lives as they sweep across the land and take over other societies and strip them of their wealth and freedom. That's power. To shape the very behaviours of ordinary people within society. That's power. And I suspect that's where the real buzz is. Throughout civilisational history, societies have been dominated by these sorts of people, the people who love power. It's been shaped by them. Everything we call normal has come from this ongoing societal shaping and reshaping driven by these pathological dominators of human society. 


    Parasites that feed on power. 

  18. The Great Reset is the totalitarianism. That ideology is clearly being advanced, and it hasn't magically materialised from the genius of Herr Schwab this year. It's been a clear and stated ideology for years, a global direction and like all societies to date, it's being directed by those with power, those who dominate the social structure. Not the first time in history that groups of elite have had grand sociological visions for society. See the Chinese Mao et al. 


    It's totalitarian because it aims to affect the totality of society without really getting a true and proper mandate from the majority of the people within that society. There's an assumed superiority, a 'we know what's best' attitude. 


    I see no evidence that these elite ideologues will desist from selling their ideas to every government around the world. Indeed, Jason Kenney, Alberta Premier, confirmed as much:





  19. 2 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

    Germany places anti-lockdown supporters under digital surveillance


    In the article, it mentions the German gov. are following the National Academy of Sciences' suggestion of tough lockdown. 


    Well, here's Bill Gates receiving the NAS Public Welfare Medal, 2013. He makes a quip at the beginning of the speech, joking about him and Melinda only have two degrees between them and 'both of them are Melinda's'. He also gives props to J. D. Rockefeller (only just found this, so haven't watched it all - he may say more interesting stuff):



    • Like 1
  • Create New...