Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

May I ask which country you chose for your VPN? I literally tried every back alley and still couldn't view it, citing hatred yada yada. I mean, who'd have thought anyone from Mozambique would have been arsed me watching that FFS. 

I  used Opera browser switched on vpn and opted for Asia

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, whatthefoxhat said:

I  used Opera browser switched on vpn and opted for Asia

Tried Vietnam, Hong Kong, Singapore and nowt. Was still blocking me. Tried some eastern European countries, zilch, nada. I use smart DNS proxy VPN. Strange.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, greatdayforfreedom said:


I don't know who he is , but I don't trust him.



Good spot. Fuckin masons are everywhere. Be under no illusions people, if you are in the public eye and have a platform, then you've taken the oath, all of them. Not one of them isn't. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"WHO: ‘Children Should Not Be Vaccinated for the Moment’ • Children's Health Defense" https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-updates-guidance-children-should-not-be-vaccinated/




Contradicts Wancock's earlier observations.


They've too many adults still alive who will wake up and be enraged at the decimation of the little ones I should think. Too risky 'For the moment'.


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Tried Vietnam, Hong Kong, Singapore and nowt. Was still blocking me. Tried some eastern European countries, zilch, nada. I use smart DNS proxy VPN. Strange.......

I'm using plusnet and firefox normally with a few extensions but keep an opera window open for times when i get crap like the bitchute stuff,normally bypasses 100% of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always the Devil's in the detail.


Florida's "Vaccine Passport Ban" may not be all it's cracked up to be...


Despite 'vaccine passport' ban, COVID vaccination can still be required in Florida


Florida’s so-called vaccine passport ban falls short, says the head of a Central Florida nonprofit legal organization that advocates for medical freedom and is against mandatory vaccinations.
The bill (SB 2006) was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 3, just days after it cleared both the House and Senate.
It largely deals with emergency preparedness and state and local governmental authority during emergencies, and revises some of the duties of the "State Health Officer," referring to the person who holds the post of Florida Surgeon General and Health Department Secretary.
It also prohibits businesses, government agencies and learning institutions from requiring patrons to show proof of vaccination or post-infection recovery from COVID-19 but doesn’t stop them from imposing screening protocols based on government guidelines to protect the public health.
Worse, says R. Shawn McBride, a DeLand lawyer and cofounder of the American Freedom of Information Institute, it preserves the state’s right to vaccinate anyone deemed a public health risk.
“It states on the one hand that no one can be forced away from general services in the state by not having COVID-19 vaccination proof, but it also states that the government has the right to force vaccinations,” he said.


“The most curious contradiction to the spirit of the bill is that it purposely reiterates the state’s ability to force vaccines onto the population,” he said. “In the worst possible scenario, the government can forcibly inject someone during a state of emergency by using police force, if necessary.”
The DeSantis administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“It was labeled by many as a ‘vaccine passport ban’ which it is not,” he said. “Neither the word ‘passport’ nor ‘ban’ are even in the law.”
McBride and his organization want the Legislature to revisit the law and “close the loopholes, remove the state's ability to force vaccines, and prohibit the open medical discrimination we are seeing already.”
He and his colleagues analyzed the law and said it is likely that businesses, governments and learning institutions could discriminate based on vaccination status. 
“For example, an institution can require ‘screening’ to gain entry or services yet waive screening or other measures for vaccinated individuals,” he said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at this, they've known since Dec 2020. Vaccine may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease!
Have you heard of anyone being INFORMED that they can become more seriously ill than if they refused the jab? I personally didn't get any such notification with my letters, or texts.



2021 Mar;75(3):e13795.
doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795. Epub 2020 Dec 4.

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

Free PMC article


Aims of the study: Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Methods used to conduct the study: Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID-19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.

Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • lake locked this topic
  • lake unlocked this topic
  • Beaujangles featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...