Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.

numnuts

By numnuts
in Covid-19 & NWO

 Share

Recommended Posts

EnigmaticWorld

EnigmaticWorld

Posted
Posted
Just now, Ergo Storm said:

 

He makes this statement:

 

"80% of breeding age women have had a vaccine which messes about in their reproductive organs...."

 

What exactly and specifically does he mean by "messes about in their reproductive organs"?  Forgive me, but I'm very precise and logical in my approach to this and I want to know what exactly is meant when people say things.  He says "we all know this", but what is it that he thinks we all know?

 

As an aside, strictly speaking it's not a vaccine: even the conventional/mainstream medical experts would have to concede that, if we're being strictly accurate about it.

 

He's talking about reports of women getting dodgy periods and stuff after getting vaxxed.

 

There was also men saying they were getting pains in their testicles.

 

The whole show is here:

 

https://odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6/PWR117:d

 

I wouldn't usually share this in this thread as I'm aware that many here are not interested in Nationalism. This show might interest more than just Nationalists though as it's about technocracy and Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ergo Storm

Ergo Storm

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

That being said, I'm not too sure about the science either as I haven't been following it. I just don't trust the WEF loons regardless.

 

To me, this is all very, very simple.

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't. 

 

What I am doing here is applying a very, very basic and very, very important principle that applies across fields such as engineering, science and medical ethics: the Law of Parsimony.  You don't do what you don't have to do.  If you don't have to do it, don't do it.  Only do what's necessary.

 

There's also an informal and unofficial principle that applies in law and the legal profession: If in doubt, don't.

 

Fundamentally, the real issue is informed consent, not science per se.  To me, it's a matter of law and politics, and above all else, medical ethics.

 

I'm reluctant to get drawn into technical and scientific arguments and debates because I don't have a medical degree or a science degree.  I do have quite a lot of ad hoc knowledge of the physical sciences and maths, and I could probably impress and dazzle you, but I don't have expertise in the relevant areas that would allow me to make informed comment on medical matters, and I'm not an arrogant twonk who pretends to know about things that I don't know about.

 

A lot of these doctors, who do have medical degrees, are twonks as well because they're arguing for a drug treatment (strictly-speaking, it is a generic drug, not a vaccine) that isn't necessary.

 

Equally, people are coming on here and saying the virus doesn't exist.  Are you an epidemiologist or virologist?  Are you on the circulation list of the CDC or some other institution to receive viral samples for study?  Do you work in a laboratory?  How do you know these things?

 

However, there is one area in which I do have expertise: my own choices about what goes into my own body and what medical treatment I accept or don't accept.  That doesn't require a medical degree.  I do listen to advice from people with medical degrees, because that's a good idea.  Even if some of them are pillocks, they're still trained in what they do and have built up experience during their learning and training and after qualifying, so I weigh up what they say.  I don't dismiss it because I'm not an arrogant little cunt. 

 

But again, we come back to the fundamental point, which I'll repeat:

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't.  This is not arrogant.  It is perfectly reasonable and it's all that needs to be said.

 

I say all this with due respect to posters here, but I think intelligence requires a degree of humility.  A wise man knows first that he knows nothing.

Edited by Ergo Storm
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oddsnsods

oddsnsods

Posted
Posted

 

 

COVID-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria

In this article, we aim to develop a political economy of mass hysteria. Using the background of COVID-19, we study past mass hysteria. Negative information which is spread through mass media repetitively can affect public health negatively in the form of nocebo effects and mass hysteria. We argue that mass and digital media in connection with the state may have had adverse consequences during the COVID-19 crisis. The resulting collective hysteria may have contributed to policy errors by governments not in line with health recommendations. While mass hysteria can occur in societies with a minimal state, we show that there exist certain self-corrective mechanisms and limits to the harm inflicted, such as sacrosanct private property rights. However, mass hysteria can be exacerbated and self-reinforcing when the negative information comes from an authoritative source, when the media are politicized, and social networks make the negative information omnipresent. We conclude that the negative long-term effects of mass hysteria are exacerbated by the size of the state.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7913136/#__ffn_sectitle

 

Covidiot conspiracy wack job, pushing their extremist views again..🙄

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EnigmaticWorld

EnigmaticWorld

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

To me, this is all very, very simple.

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't.

 

Fundamentally, the real issue is informed consent, not science per se.  To me, it's a matter of law and politics, and above all else, medical ethics.

 

I'm reluctant to get drawn into technical and scientific arguments and debates because I don't have a medical degree or a science degree.  I do have quite a lot of ad hoc knowledge of the physical sciences and maths, and I could probably impress and dazzle you, but I don't have expertise in the relevant areas, and I'm not an arrogant twonk who pretends to know about things that I don't know about.

 

A lot of these doctors, who do have medical degrees, are total twonks as well because they're arguing for a drug treatment (strictly-speaking, it is a generic drug, not a vaccine).

 

Equally, people are coming on here and saying the virus doesn't exist.  Are you an epidemiologist or virologist?  Are you on the circulation list of the CDC or some other institution to receive viral samples for study?  Do you work in a laboratory?  How do you know these things?

 

However, there is one area in which I do have expertise: my own choices about what goes into my own body and what medical treatment I accept or don't accept.  That doesn't require a medical degree.  I do listen to advice from people with medical degrees, because that's a good idea.  Even if some of them are pillocks, they're still trained in what they do and have built up experience during their learning and training and after qualifying, so I weigh up what they say.  I don't dismiss it because I'm not an arrogant little cunt. 

 

But again, we come back to the fundamental point, which I'll repeat:

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't.  This is not arrogant.  It is perfectly reasonable and it's all that needs to be said.

 

I say all this with due respect to posters here, but I think intelligence requires a degree of humility.  A wise man knows first that he knows nothing.

 

I agree, everyone should have a choice.

 

Some good news on that front:

 

5 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

I'm off out, but I thought this was worth sharing before I go.

 

12/08/21
Lukashenko against mandatory vaccination in Belarus
https://eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-against-mandatory-vaccination-in-belarus-142451-2021/

 

Belarus: President Lukashenko has said "There will be no mandatory vaccination in Belarus. I am strongly against it. Vaccination will remain voluntary. If a person wants to be vaccinated it is good, if not, let it be,"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anti Facts Sir

Anti Facts Sir

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

To me, this is all very, very simple.

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't. 

 

What I am doing here is applying a very, very basic and very, very important principle that applies across fields such as engineering, science and medical ethics: the Law of Parsimony.  You don't do what you don't have to do.  If you don't have to do it, don't do it.  Only do what's necessary.

 

There's also an informal and unofficial principle that applies in law and the legal profession: If in doubt, don't.

 

Fundamentally, the real issue is informed consent, not science per se.  To me, it's a matter of law and politics, and above all else, medical ethics.

 

I'm reluctant to get drawn into technical and scientific arguments and debates because I don't have a medical degree or a science degree.  I do have quite a lot of ad hoc knowledge of the physical sciences and maths, and I could probably impress and dazzle you, but I don't have expertise in the relevant areas that would allow me to make informed comment on medical matters, and I'm not an arrogant twonk who pretends to know about things that I don't know about.

 

A lot of these doctors, who do have medical degrees, are total twonks as well because they're arguing for a drug treatment (strictly-speaking, it is a generic drug, not a vaccine).

 

Equally, people are coming on here and saying the virus doesn't exist.  Are you an epidemiologist or virologist?  Are you on the circulation list of the CDC or some other institution to receive viral samples for study?  Do you work in a laboratory?  How do you know these things?

 

However, there is one area in which I do have expertise: my own choices about what goes into my own body and what medical treatment I accept or don't accept.  That doesn't require a medical degree.  I do listen to advice from people with medical degrees, because that's a good idea.  Even if some of them are pillocks, they're still trained in what they do and have built up experience during their learning and training and after qualifying, so I weigh up what they say.  I don't dismiss it because I'm not an arrogant little cunt. 

 

But again, we come back to the fundamental point, which I'll repeat:

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't.  This is not arrogant.  It is perfectly reasonable and it's all that needs to be said.

 

I say all this with due respect to posters here, but I think intelligence requires a degree of humility.  A wise man knows first that he knows nothing.

Well said, and some fair points.

 

When/if I say the virus doesn't exist, I am talking about the CV19 fraud because there is no evidence of anything out there...other than fear propaganda, hysteria from the misinformed public, and a whole host of terrible side-effects from taking the vaccine that isn't a vaccine. But I absolutely take your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Niknik

Niknik

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

To me, this is all very, very simple.

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't. 

 

What I am doing here is applying a very, very basic and very, very important principle that applies across fields such as engineering, science and medical ethics: the Law of Parsimony.  You don't do what you don't have to do.  If you don't have to do it, don't do it.  Only do what's necessary.

 

There's also an informal and unofficial principle that applies in law and the legal profession: If in doubt, don't.

 

Fundamentally, the real issue is informed consent, not science per se.  To me, it's a matter of law and politics, and above all else, medical ethics.

 

I'm reluctant to get drawn into technical and scientific arguments and debates because I don't have a medical degree or a science degree.  I do have quite a lot of ad hoc knowledge of the physical sciences and maths, and I could probably impress and dazzle you, but I don't have expertise in the relevant areas that would allow me to make informed comment on medical matters, and I'm not an arrogant twonk who pretends to know about things that I don't know about.

 

A lot of these doctors, who do have medical degrees, are twonks as well because they're arguing for a drug treatment (strictly-speaking, it is a generic drug, not a vaccine) that isn't necessary.

 

Equally, people are coming on here and saying the virus doesn't exist.  Are you an epidemiologist or virologist?  Are you on the circulation list of the CDC or some other institution to receive viral samples for study?  Do you work in a laboratory?  How do you know these things?

 

However, there is one area in which I do have expertise: my own choices about what goes into my own body and what medical treatment I accept or don't accept.  That doesn't require a medical degree.  I do listen to advice from people with medical degrees, because that's a good idea.  Even if some of them are pillocks, they're still trained in what they do and have built up experience during their learning and training and after qualifying, so I weigh up what they say.  I don't dismiss it because I'm not an arrogant little cunt. 

 

But again, we come back to the fundamental point, which I'll repeat:

 

I do not need to take a drug that is not medically-necessary, therefore I won't.  This is not arrogant.  It is perfectly reasonable and it's all that needs to be said.

 

I say all this with due respect to posters here, but I think intelligence requires a degree of humility.  A wise man knows first that he knows nothing.

 

The behaviour of politicians from Cummings to the G7,and from loonyboffin Ferguson shows no worries about catching any virus;if it did exist it holds no fear for tptb.

 

What a brilliantly evil plot though:create a perceived threat via msm monopoly,offer the solution and use that remedy to cull the gullible.

 

You couldn't make it up...oh,wait,they did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ergo Storm

Ergo Storm

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

Well said, and some fair points.

 

When/if I say the virus doesn't exist, I am talking about the CV19 fraud because there is no evidence of anything out there...other than fear propaganda, hysteria from the misinformed public, and a whole host of terrible side-effects from taking the vaccine that isn't a vaccine. But I absolutely take your point.

 

Of course, and you may be right that the whole thing is a hoax.  But how am I supposed to fucking know?  I'll just nip to me shed and do an experiment with my electron microscope.  I'll be back to you...I don't know, do I.  I have my common sense and I rest on what I understand about medical ethics: in particular, informed consent. 

 

Without wishing to sound arrogant, one problem is that you do need to have something about you to see through it all, and paradoxically, intelligence at a certain point has a diminishing marginal return and becomes an disadvantage.  Probably there is an evolutionary biologist somewhere who has studied this and concluded that if your IQ goes above, say, 130, then unless you're born with extensive material privileges and advantages, you're going to have difficult life and probably end up homeless or in prison, etc.

Edited by Ergo Storm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nemuri Kyoshiro

Nemuri Kyoshiro

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, whatthefoxhat said:

I'm opening a book on Lukashenko's survival odds,plac your bets now,house decision is final

Putin will watch his back. What about the President of Haiti who was whacked? No vaccines in that country and now they've been hit by a massive earthquake. That poor benighted country just can't get a break. I'll bet the Clintons are licking their lips for the chance to get back there again.

Edited by Nemuri Kyoshiro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malbec

Malbec

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

HUGO-TALKS-PSD-13.jpg?w=1366&ssl=1

 

https://hugotalks.com/2021/08/14/mrna-secret-hugo-talks-lockdown/

Can people therefore refuse (or decline)  based on the fact that ingredients are not being disclosed, or more specifically deliberately withheld, as in those who currently feel obliged to have it such as care workers etc? 

Is anyone aware of any legal challenges for carers as this may assist with that? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anti Facts Sir

Anti Facts Sir

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

Of course, and you may be right that the whole thing is a hoax.  But how am I supposed to fucking know?  I'll just nip to me shed and do an experiment with my electron microscope.  I'll be back to you...I don't know, do I.  I have my common sense and I rest on what I understand about medical ethics: in particular, informed consent. 

 

I tend to look at things analytically...I retain (useless) info and spot connections and discrepancies...it's just how my brain works, so obviously when a fraud like this happens, I'm picking up stuff and piecing it together...and finding the whole thing fails to hold together in any sense whatsoever. 

 

If there was a deadly virus, they wouldn't need to advertise and hype it up. Or bribe/co-erce people into having the "vaccine". Or recommend wearing silly masks that have no medical benefits and come in packs which state clearly they don't prevent transmission. They wouldn't make up rules where if you walk in one direction, rather than people coming towards you, you are "safe". But you can take them off to drink...but only if you are sitting down. You wouldn't see G7 leaders partying privately without any restrictions. And all the other nonsense.

 

None of it adds up to suggesting that the virus they claim is decimating society is actually real. None of it ever has done. Depriving oneself of the natural action of breathing in and out, and injecting foreign materials into your body, does not make sense either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EnigmaticWorld

EnigmaticWorld

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Putin will watch his back. What about the President of Haiti who was whacked? No vaccines in that country and now they've been hit by a massive earthquake. That poor benighted country just can't get a break. I'll bet the Clintons are licking their lips for the chance to get back there again.

 

Seems like he is stuck between the East and West to me. He doesn't seem to be giving Vlad everything he wants anyway.

 

1.      As before, he isn’t recognizing Crimea as Russian.

2.      Lukashenko rejects even the thought about the unification of his country with Russia.

3.      He insists that Russia play him for economic integration and not expect anything in return.

4.      The Belarusian leader refuses to allow Russia to establish a military base on Belarusian territory.

5.      He makes clear that he won’t give up his country’s neutrality for nothing.

6.      And Lukashenko stresses that whatever changes of post there may be, he will retain all power in his own hands.

 

http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2021/08/lukashenko-says-no-to-putin-six-times.html

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
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.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...