Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


Message added by Grumpy Owl,

This topic is for all general discussion regarding the current COVID-19 pandemic. There are of course numerous other related topics for discussing specific aspects of this pandemic in more detail. And there are other parts of this forum for more 'off-topic' discussions.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DarianF

    2866

  • oddsnsods

    2319

  • Avoiceinthecrowd

    2186

  • SimonTV

    1988

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You wont believe this.   I just went down Lidls to get some steak.   Security guard calls me out as I walk past & I ignore him. Gets my steak walks to the credit only till

Some images of today's demonstration in London (not taken by me personally).                

Fuck the fuck off.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

Looking at this, vaccines might explain how that person lost their fingers (they went black), rather than covid.  The vaccines appear to be causing rashes in a lot of people. 

Untitled.jpg

Buy some new socks ya tramp! 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Velma said:

I believe that squalene (shark oil) was the component which caused my son's eczema. I can't prove it and it's too late now anyway, but my theory is that the immune system attacks and destroys this alien oil and the body's natural oils as well.

 

very possible velma. I think it also causes people all sorts of bowel problems. No doubt it could cause pets eg dogs bowel problems too if it is in the animal vaccines

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AndyJ said:

If we consider the hypothesis that we live in a holographic reality, there is an interesting theory spoken about by Dolores Cannon and Franco DeNicola that around 60% of the people we see out there are in fact "extras". Soul-less beings who are simply visual window dressing for our perception of reality, comparable to what is done in the movies when they pack street scenes with background extras to make the illusion more realistic. 


The theory is that these extras will only come into our orbit if we've lowered to a three dimensional vibration or if we judge them rather than remaining emotionally neutral to their behaviour.  It's an interesting theory considering how the Covidian Cultists seem to be devoid of critical thinking, emotional connection or even rudimentary common sense. Of course it's easier said than done to not judge when witnessing that behaviour.


My experience has been that if I'm feeling particularly bitter or judgemental of the "normies" I tend to run into every queue possible when I go to the shops and have even had confrontations, whereas when I'm feeling positive and high frequency it's like the cultists don't even see me, no queues and no interactions.

 

The overall point this leads to is that whatever the true nature of our reality may be, where we put our focus and how we shape our perception is the key to all this. It's all about personal empowerment and we shouldn't give our power away by focusing on the extras who have chosen to incarnate here to play a dark or sacrificial role in this stage show.  Same goes for politicians and their puppet masters. Whatever anyone says no one can make us do anything we don't want to do. I believe that if we deprive them of what they want the most - our fear and subservience -we can create a brighter future we all want to live in.  

 

Could you tell us what the evidence is for the 60% soulless human theory ?? To me just sounds like a clever way of dehumanising those you don't like or who frustrate you.

Yes there are a lot of utterly ignorant morons out there but my experience is that they're usually a product of their enviroment/upbringing/parental influence etc.

Edited by Lamp Of Truth
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, perpetual said:

But isn't this counter-productive? If they attack all kinds of IoT, people and business cannot function. Surely such attack gives a message to the masses that we shouldn't rely on digital ID or digital only society and cash becomes the King again.

 

people and businesses are not supposed to function. they are all supposed to fail and fall back on the big corporations and the state for the essentials of life

 

The big corporations will then hoover up all the market share of the small failed independent businesses and the state will then give those now unemployed people digital currency payments as 'universal basic income' so that they can then continue to live a low carbon, subsistence life of insect-veganism and permanent staycation in your own 'smart' micro apartment in a high density 'urban zone' patrolled by robot police

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

people and businesses are not supposed to function. they are all supposed to fail and fall back on the big corporations and the state for the essentials of life

 

The big corporations will then hoover up all the market share of the small failed independent businesses and the state will then give those now unemployed people digital currency payments as 'universal basic income' so that they can then continue to live a low carbon, subsistence life of insect-veganism and permanent staycation in your own 'smart' micro apartment in a high density 'urban zone' patrolled by robot police

And you will be happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snip-it_1613150297170.jpg.a6e5158aad4e6438003ed5295569ca29.jpg

1957 Asian Flu. Hospitals and makshift hospitals were "really" full. Far worst than the rebranded seasonal flu they call covid. Travellers were not quaranteened and the pandemic was resolved in 3 months. No lockdowns, no social distancing. What are these clowns doing exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lamp Of Truth said:

 

Could you tell us what the evidence is for the 60% soulless human theory ?? To me just sounds like a clever way of dehumanising those you don't like or who frustrate you.

Yes there are a lot of utterly ignorant morons out there but my experience is that they're usually a product of their enviroment/upbringing/parental influence etc.

 

Bit silly asking for evidence, try watching They live documentary.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now on my laptop, so am returning to a post l messed up a few days ago.
l was using my phone and missed the text in italics that didn't copy over correctly.

l didn't actually want to return to the original blog page this is from as l was sulking censored and prevented from citing Dr Mike Yeadon in the comments beneath.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/02/piers-corbyn-and-free-speech/ 


Below is the post l should have done in the first place - IE - not on my bloody smart phone.

So, Craig Murray wrote an article about Piers Corbyn getting arrested (again) for distributing a leaflet against Vaxxines.
lt's been considered as anti-semitic as it appears to use the image of a WW2 German camp.
Craig Murray seems to question the reaction to Corbyn, citing 'Free Speech', but then goes on to promote the Vaxxine.


 


Here is the background and comment from someone who comments often below Craig Murray's blog;
Background and experience as a Biochemist / Virologist / Gene Therapist; 

"I have a degree in Biochemistry from Cambridge (3 years highly intensive study), a PhD in molecular virology from Glasgow (studying viruses which infect whole populations, causing cancer in a small subset of infected people and being more likely to cause disease in those with immunocompromise) and 4 years working on developing viral vectors for gene therapy. I wrote published reviews of gene therapy in learned monographs, published original research in peer-reviewed journals and passed on my technical knowledge to the next generation of students.

In my next life, quite a bit of my work involved engaging with Universities, professors, lecturers and other researchers to determine whether their research could be turned into commercial value. That meant I did not defer to authority, I was DULY DILIGENT in determining whether or not the assertions made by very senior Professors etc stood up to rigorous professional scrutiny. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn’t.

First lesson to learn from that is that academics are often entirely ignorant of the patent filing space, thinking that ‘peer reviewed publication’ is all that matters. Industry of course tends not to publish nearly as much, as they prefer to obtain IP protection for their discoveries or simply retain secret know-how in-house. So you should be very careful before assigning all-knowing expertise to academics, since they often have not reviewed the patent filing space adequately.

The second thing to understand about academics is that they are interested in ‘high impact publications’, which are arbitrarily defined by how many times they are quoted in the academic literature. That is a very very questionable basis for ‘quality’, it is a far better basis for ‘being top of the pops charts’. Getting buzzwords into the title of your paper is very important there. It’s a bit like looking at the quality of journalists..

The third thing you should learn is quite how top-down and authoritarian the medical culture is in the West. The concept of ‘Key Opinion Leaders’ is used by Big Pharma to shape narratives; they get the KOLs on board (sometimes with financial inducements) who then pass down dictums to the sheep below. You would be amazed quite how few doctors actually think independently. I learned all about this when doing consultancy for a big pharma company.. 

The fourth thing you should learn is how utterly lacking in objectivity the medical community is about exposing misconduct. There is no question that Peter Horby’s ‘study’ on hydroxychloroquine, deliberately designed to quash HCQ usage, was the work of an utterly corrupt and biddable tool of the pharmaceutical industry. His work was just as bad, if not worse, than that of Andrew Wakefield concerning MMR. But Wakefield was raising issues antithetical to Big Pharma interests, whereas Horby was doing their bidding. Either both or neither should have been thrown out. We all know what actually happened…..and it wasn’t Peter Horby being sacked by the University of Oxford, was it??

 

So I guess I can speak with some ‘authority’ too.
 

I can speak with the authority of not having to brown-nose committee members who dole out multimillion pound grant funding. No academic seeking that sort of funding can ever step out of line, even once. Career over if they do. So never consider what they say without first considering what they NEED to say… 

I can speak with the authority of being both educated to the cutting edge of medical technology and having worked with senior business and government officials. I don’t belong to any trades union and I’m not trying to climb any greasy poles.

 

I can speak with the authority of knowing how the Security Services use doctors to spy on the general population (my sister is a spook and a medical consultant to boot).

And I can speak with absolute authority about the fact that none of the Government Ministers, advisors nor media sirens have seen a single penny drop in their generous salaries since March 2020, which renders all their holier-than-thou behaviour absolutely disgusting. There are no Labour nor SNP MPs who behave any better, it’s nothing to do with Conservatives, it’s to do with being on the public sector gravy train. I am not on that gravy train and I could only join it if I committed to betraying the people I was purportedly employed to represent. 

I am sure Mr Murray prefers grand titles like Professor, Minister, CEO and the like. It’s what the Establishment uses to establish controllable narratives.

But if you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you need people who got off the gravy train, put truth before prestige and educated themselves sufficiently to be able to use a scythe through the mangrove swamps of propaganda that the Establishment always uses to ensure that getting out to the truthful blue yonder is a feat beyond the vast majority of honest and humble souls… 


As you can see, highly experienced and qualified but gives a scathing incite into Big Pharma and vaxxines etc...!!!  :O) 

Here is his response to Craig Murray's blog and Craig's views on Con19 Vaxxines; 

First he quotes a part of Craigs Blog;
‘As to this particular opinion of Piers Corbyn, I have no qualification that makes my view any more authoritative than yours. But it seems to me probable that the massive advances in knowledge of how vaccines work within the body at the level both of incredibly small structures and of atoms, better enable theoretical constructs to underpin the discoveries of the vaccine testing process, and thus vaccine safety can indeed be established sooner than in earlier years, when the testing of empirical effects of a vaccine proved efficacy and safety or otherwise, without knowledge of precise mechanisms being entirely essential to the process. I shall myself take the vaccine when offered and urge everybody else to do so, despite myself tending to the view that the risk of death from covid-19, other than to clearly defined vulnerable groups, is extremely small. The risk to those vulnerable groups is acute, so for their sake I hope everybody vaccinates.’


Then he goes on to explain his own opposing view point; 
Mr Murray, whilst what you say about scientific advances is indeed true, what is also unfortunately also true is that the technology underpinning the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, namely mRNA ‘vaccines’, is as yet a completely untested platform technology for the vaccination process. This makes their use without significant amounts of clinical trials more hazardous than, say, the Sputnik vaccines, since that vaccine uses vaccine technology that has been used several times in other vaccination systems. Every new vaccine has unknown unknowns, but the Sputnik one probably has less than the Pfizer/Moderna ones.

Because the Pfizer/Moderna systems have not yet been through the ‘teething processes’, which may involve manufacturing challenges, unexpected responses by small subsets of people to the vaccine etc etc, there is per se a greater set of ‘known unknowns’, not to mention ‘unknown unknowns’ about that technology.

One of the enduring lessons of the thalidomide episode 60 years ago is that something which simply was not detected during animal testing turned out to have grave effects on pregnant women’s foetuses. When tested on non-pregnant adults, thalidomide was one of the ‘safest’ drugs around. It simply didn’t have any side effects. One of the ‘assumptions’ of animal testing back then was that the compound would interact in the same way with analagous human proteins as it did with the animal ones. That is a fallacy in some cases, which the pharmaceuticals industry learned about the hard way. That can now be overcome using technology to insert the human version of a particular gene into the animals on which trials will be carried out, just to be sure that no unpleasant surprises occur when the transition from animal testing to human testing occurs.


Now, it may very well be that the Pfizer/Moderna technology does not have any drawbacks to it. We simply don’t know yet. Until you have put it through at least 1 million people of different ages, ethnic backgrounds, sex and other genetic variables, you probably won’t know what those potential drawbacks might actually be. What you absolutely don’t want to be doing, however, is to be risking infertility to just the groups of people who don’t have any significant risk from exposure to SARS-CoV2. The 18-40 age group of both sexes have miniscule risks from the virus and so I wouldn’t be telling them to get vaccinated if they have not already completed their planned breeding. It’s not saying there is any risk, it’s saying we don’t know whether there could be, and it is simply far too important to take a chance when the risks from disease are so incredibly low. 

 

One of the great dangers of the way vaccination programmes are reported by the media is simply equating ‘raising of antibodies’ with success. That is successful in terms of generating the response you wanted (it’s not what a natural immune response involves, since that also involves T cell activation, memory cell creation, retention and possible triggering upon challenge etc), what it does not in any way address is whether you also caused certain unwanted effects too. You don’t necessarily see those showing up in the first 7 days, maybe not even in the first 7 weeks. Only by doing long-term follow up studies do you ever find that sort of thing out. Do you think the pharma industry would do such work without government regulatons? Of course they wouldn’t. It’s just costs and no upside, just potential downside for them. However, for those taking vaccines, it is essential work to establish the long-term safety of vaccination protocols not just for this generation but for future ones too. 

There are all kinds of wild claims out there as to what vaccines might be being used for. Some involve insertion of nano-chips into human beings without their informed consent. You know, putting a little nano-chip into the vaccine formulation and then being able to track humans at will forevermore without their knowledge nor consent. I’m not saying this is happening with these vaccines, but it is definitely the case that discussions about such programmes have taken place in the sorts of elitist get-togethers that always have contempt for democratic due process. It’s definitely the case that such technology is being developed and is of interest to Bill Gates the investor, just to mention one. 

A more realistic worry is the historical evidence of trying to generate vaccines against Respiratory Syncitial Virus back in the 1960s. The virus is a known cause of paediatric pneumonia and a cause of death in children at a level of 200,000 per year in those under 6 months (see https://cvi.asm.org/content/23/3/186 ) The result of attempts in the 1960s to develop a vaccine caused a new syndrome to emerge, namely ‘Enhanced Respiratory Syncitial Virus Disease’. When exposed to challenge by the wild virus after having been vaccinated, a few young children died. Research on what was happening to cause such tragedies led to the understanding that what had occurred was a malfunction in the normal immune response leading to only a subset of immune response activities occurring, which led to very serious effects in the lungs.


The relevance of RSV to coronaviruses is that RSV is also an RNA virus, it is also associated with respiratory disease. So it is somewhat similar to Coronaviruses. 

 

Do we yet know whether there might be an ‘Enhanced Covid19’ response in vaccinated people if they subsequently encounter SARS-CoV2? No, we don’t. It’s not saying it will happen, it’s saying it is a known unknown to consider going forward. 

 

To put it mildly, there is an awful lot we don’t yet know about SARS-CoV2 and the human immune response to it.

 

There’s an awful lot we don’t yet know about how mRNA vaccines may play out in humans. 
 

My current working position is that the dangers from SARS-CoV2 are highest amongst:
1. The elderly
2. The immunocompromised and generally unhealthy.


Those people have a far greater risk from SARS-CoV2 than they do from any potential dangers from a relatively untested vaccine (until any new evidence changes that position), so they should get themselves vaccinated if they don’t have objections.


However, the healthy U65s, the U50s with the exception of any unfortunates whose health status is abnormally poor and children absolutely don’t need a vaccination against a disease that will affect almost none of them. The long-term unknowns of untested technology should be considered when the downside risk of not being vaccinated is almost zero.
 

I am also absolutely not in favour of the taxpayer funding Phase III clinical trials and then having to pay sky high prices so to do. If Pfizer want to cut $1bn off their R+D costs through accelerated ‘licensing’, then the price they charge for their products should be commensurately lower. They don’t have any need to put aside for litigation costs after all (as all vaccines are exempt from litigation and the taxpayer funds it). 

If we are going to push such untried technology onto the populace then we should be pretty clear that the cost of it should not be extreme, the safety testing and follow-up has to be to our satisfaction and the ridiculous economic costs of lockdown should not be exacerbated by funding ridiculously expensive vaccines if Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Tonic Water and plenty of other cheap as chips compounds get shown to be totally efficacious in treating the small population who actually fall ill with Covid19. 


So, there you go, a fascinating opinion IMO  from a 'Normie' from within the Industry...
BC :O)

corbyn path to freedom.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, perpetual said:

That's the thing.

If you concentrate on winning THE Covid war, some will be discouraged because it's too big e.g. corruption, legal challenges, Great Reset etc.

But if you take one step at a time, and keep moving one foot in front of the other, and you've got the right mindset, focus, you will reach the goal without focusing on the goal only. I don't know if I'm explaining right but there is a difference in focusing a target. One being each step vs the end goal. Sorry no more likes for today.

Only one grain of sand passes through the hourglass at a time. The rest is neither here nor there. Emotionally I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, perpetual said:

That's the thing.

If you concentrate on winning THE Covid war, some will be discouraged because it's too big e.g. corruption, legal challenges, Great Reset etc.

But if you take one step at a time, and keep moving one foot in front of the other, and you've got the right mindset, focus, you will reach the goal without focusing on the goal only. I don't know if I'm explaining right but there is a difference in focusing a target. One being each step vs the end goal. Sorry no more likes for today.

 

My plan is to hang back long enough for enough sheep to die from the vaccine that it can't be covered up any longer. And hopefully the whole thing collapses before I'm forced injected.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lamp Of Truth said:

 

Silly asking for evidence ?? Hope you're joking. Could you give me a link to this documentary ??


'They Live' is a 1988 film - but the Writer / Director, John Carpenter is quoted as saying it's a documentary..
BC

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basket Case said:


'They Live' is a 1988 film - but the Writer / Director, John Carpenter is quoted as saying it's a documentary..
BC

 

Haha, yes already have it on DVD very good film BTW. Though the other fella was talking about an actual documentary, anyways still waiting for some evidence of this 60% soulless theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...