Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:
 

 

1 hour ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

 

"People who took the shots certainly have a higher concentration of spike, since there is evidently no mechanism for the body to stop making it, but too many people who did not take the shots are also facing significant health issues."

 

 

Have these unvaccinated (cancer patients) been exchanging liquids with  vaccinated people? This is an important factor that is not being addressed.

 

I refused to believe that the vax will jump across the street and attack me.

 

Prove me wrong.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:
Cancer risk soars 52% among fully vaccinated aged 15-59, pathologist finds
03/10/2024 // Ethan Huff // 3.6K Views 
 


 

Is COVID jab shedding causing unvaccinated to develop turbo cancers, too?

Kirsch likes to really spell out how he makes his calculations. And in this case, he presented a simple visual involving 100 people, 55 of whom are vaccinated and 45 of whom are not.

 

If the cancer risk in both groups is, say, 10 percent, you would have 5.5 and 4.5 with 55 percent vaccinated.

 

"To get to a 65% ratio, it would mean that more vaxxed people got cancer: 8.342 people," Kirsch further explains. "So you then take 8.342 / 5.5 = 1.517. So a 52% increase over baseline risk."

 

Based on this, it is a no-brainer why Pavic has not taken any shots and does not recommend them for anyone, regardless of their alleged risk.

 

"She is not alone," Kirsch says.

 

"Hardly anyone in Croatia is opting for the shots anymore either, even though 99% of the doctors recommend them as safe and effective. Maybe I can get one of them to come on camera with me to explain their recommendation."

 

Kirsch is known for unpacking and explaining these types of damning revelations about COVID jabs – revelations that the corporate-controlled media will never tell the public.

 

Kirsch also has a large following of actual doctors who likewise report their findings to him. One of them, a healthcare provider, explained that cases of "turbo" cancer in her circle started out being a strictly vaccinated thing, but are now affecting some of her unvaccinated friends.

 

"While initially the turbo cancers seem to only happen in the vaccinated, I have three friends / acquaintances in my larger circle of UNVACCINATED that died of fairly sudden cancer," this person revealed.

 

"Not all of them would classify as a turbo, possibly, one was for certain an issue with a GPs questionable care. There is more and more live blood cell analysis evidence that now the unvaccinated blood shows similar inclusions or challenged blood profiles as initially was only seen in the vaccinated."

 

In other words, COVID jab shedding appears to be passing from vaccinated to unvaccinated, afflicting the latter with some of the same diseases as the former, despite never having taken a single needle.

 

Another affirmed this, stating that she is likewise seeing an increase in cancer cases among her unvaccinated friends – though these friends supposedly tested "positive" at one point for either the Delta or Omicron variants of the so-called "virus."

 

"I continue to say that the creation of the manipulated Spike Protein is the issue that MUST be addressed because that, IMHO, is what is causing almost all of the damage, whether through cancer, cardiac issues, auto immune diseases, etc.," this person added.

 

"People who took the shots certainly have a higher concentration of spike, since there is evidently no mechanism for the body to stop making it, but too many people who did not take the shots are also facing significant health issues."

 

COVID vaccines have turned those who took them into walking death machines. 

Either way, shredding or not, as long as we follow the recommended supplements protocol (Qurcetine, Bromelain, Vit C, Zinc, Magnesium etc), we should be safe enough; at least, we better be. Can be costly but, hey, it's one's good health we are talking about. Fuck the so-called experts ... who are part of all the bollox !

Edited by Nip
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Nip said:

Either way, shredding or not, as long as we follow the recommended supplements protocol (Qurcetine, Bromelain, Vit C, Zinc, Magnesium etc), we should be safe enough; at least, we better be. Can be costly but, hey, it's one's good health we are talking about. Fuck the so-called experts ... who are part of all the bollox !

Just started on the quercetine/bromelian combo and it’s the brom that does the business. Can’t recommend it enough it’s sorted my stomach out. 
 

I’ve been reading up on the nicotine issue, and I’m sure sock will make an appearance soon, but it seems that the spike protein binds to or shares the same receptors as nicotine ACE2 acetylcholine, which might explain why I’m getting red inflammation everytime I smoke or vape. I never had this before 2022.
The nicotine is vying for position that the spike needs, and the spike responds with inflammation, trying to fuck the nicotine off from space on the receptor. 
 

So I’ve either been infected with the ‘virus’ or it’s from ‘shedding’, which explains why it gets worse around vaxxed family members. 
 

I need snake venom

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

4 hours ago, Freaky Dragonfly said:

 

 

Have these unvaccinated (cancer patients) been exchanging liquids with  vaccinated people? This is an important factor that is not being addressed.

 

I refused to believe that the vax will jump across the street and attack me.

 

Prove me wrong.

From like, bodily fluids? You dirty Berty. 
 

I don’t think it’ll jump across the street to attack you but we are talking about a bioengineered depopulation weapon here so anything is possible.


Take a look at the system we live in- it’s grossly over engineered so it makes sense that they’d over engineer their solution too? Ie targeting not just the vaxxed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:
Cancer risk soars 52% among fully vaccinated aged 15-59, pathologist finds
03/10/2024 // Ethan Huff // 3.6K Views 
 


 

Is COVID jab shedding causing unvaccinated to develop turbo cancers, too?

Kirsch likes to really spell out how he makes his calculations. And in this case, he presented a simple visual involving 100 people, 55 of whom are vaccinated and 45 of whom are not.

 

If the cancer risk in both groups is, say, 10 percent, you would have 5.5 and 4.5 with 55 percent vaccinated.

 

"To get to a 65% ratio, it would mean that more vaxxed people got cancer: 8.342 people," Kirsch further explains. "So you then take 8.342 / 5.5 = 1.517. So a 52% increase over baseline risk."

 

Based on this, it is a no-brainer why Pavic has not taken any shots and does not recommend them for anyone, regardless of their alleged risk.

 

"She is not alone," Kirsch says.

 

"Hardly anyone in Croatia is opting for the shots anymore either, even though 99% of the doctors recommend them as safe and effective. Maybe I can get one of them to come on camera with me to explain their recommendation."

 

Kirsch is known for unpacking and explaining these types of damning revelations about COVID jabs – revelations that the corporate-controlled media will never tell the public.

 

Kirsch also has a large following of actual doctors who likewise report their findings to him. One of them, a healthcare provider, explained that cases of "turbo" cancer in her circle started out being a strictly vaccinated thing, but are now affecting some of her unvaccinated friends.

 

"While initially the turbo cancers seem to only happen in the vaccinated, I have three friends / acquaintances in my larger circle of UNVACCINATED that died of fairly sudden cancer," this person revealed.

 

"Not all of them would classify as a turbo, possibly, one was for certain an issue with a GPs questionable care. There is more and more live blood cell analysis evidence that now the unvaccinated blood shows similar inclusions or challenged blood profiles as initially was only seen in the vaccinated."

 

In other words, COVID jab shedding appears to be passing from vaccinated to unvaccinated, afflicting the latter with some of the same diseases as the former, despite never having taken a single needle.

 

Another affirmed this, stating that she is likewise seeing an increase in cancer cases among her unvaccinated friends – though these friends supposedly tested "positive" at one point for either the Delta or Omicron variants of the so-called "virus."

 

"I continue to say that the creation of the manipulated Spike Protein is the issue that MUST be addressed because that, IMHO, is what is causing almost all of the damage, whether through cancer, cardiac issues, auto immune diseases, etc.," this person added.

 

"People who took the shots certainly have a higher concentration of spike, since there is evidently no mechanism for the body to stop making it, but too many people who did not take the shots are also facing significant health issues."

 

COVID vaccines have turned those who took them into walking death machines. 

Turbo cancers more likely a result of EMR saturation....not just 24/7 mobile use, but home wi-fi/smart tech, and extra cell towers everywhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seconal said:

Is it a crime for a doctor to break their Hippocratic oath?

 

you might want to double check this but i don't think british doctors are required to swear the hippocratic oath anymore

 

it has IDEOLOGICAL implications because the COLLECTIVISTS believe that the state can make you do ANYTHING 'for the greater good' which would then override the hippocratic oath

 

Such an oath is calling on the individual conscience of the person who swears the oath who would then need to defy any order from the state to break that oath

 

So collectivists would see such an oath as a barrier to their ideological vision for the world. The nuremburg trials however made it clear that people MUST follow their individual conscience and NOT the dictats of a collectivist state. The problem is that many people in britain today don't really understand all of these concepts and their implications and have been ENTRAINED into collecticist mentalities which is why they rolled over during the covid era

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

8 hours ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

CAEA7FB9-8C8B-4DE1-9997-A47A11289FD6.jpeg.b0f124fb15c71ff74ae03f3eaa12ba38.jpeg

 

so the more 'education' they had received the more willing they were to follow the dictats of the centralised collectivist authorities...

 

I think that would validate a lot of the things david has said over the years!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught a glimpse of this front page on GB News Headliners and did a quick search on the 'inquiry'. 

download.jpeg.jpg.16921f4e8579228689caf43eb79da85b.jpg

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/covid-inquiry-biased-say-scientists/

 

Covid inquiry appears 'fundamentally biased', say scientists
www.telegraph.co.uk


The Covid Inquiry appears to be “fundamentally biased” and is failing to examine the costs of lockdown, leading scientists have warned.

In a letter to Baroness Hallett, the inquiry chairman, the group of 55 professors and academics express their concerns that the process is “not living up to its mission” to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, assess whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic

 

They warn that a “lack of neutrality” means the inquiry “gives the impression of being fundamentally biased” and appears to have led to “predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time”.


In the letter, published on Tuesday, the group states that the inquiry is neglecting to hear evidence from those who suffered from the “negative effects” of pandemic policy decisions, or scientists who disagree with choices made by the Government.

 

As the second module of the inquiry comes to a close, they call for this to be urgently addressed and greater focus to be placed on the “economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society”.

 

The letter was organised by Dr Kevin Bardosh, an expert in infection medicine at Edinburgh University and Prof Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University.

 

Worklessness ‘a worrying trend’


It comes as Richard Hughes, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, warned on Tuesday that worklessness had become a “worrying trend” in the economy since the pandemic.

 

Mr Hughes told the Treasury select committee that the economy had been growing as a result of net migration but now the it was suffering from a reversal in its workforce amid “rising levels of inactivity and a falling participation rate”.

 

He said: “It looks as though persistently high levels of inactivity seem to be a feature of the post-pandemic environment and one which is worrying from the point of view of human welfare.”

 

So far, the Covid Inquiry has examined the Government’s resilience and preparedness, as well as decision making and political governance across the UK.

 

The next set of inquiry modules include one on the Government’s business and financial response, and another focusing on education, children and young people. Academics hope the cost of lockdown policies will be scrutinised more closely in these upcoming sections of the inquiry.

 

The group includes academics from York, Durham, Bristol and Exeter universities as well as Imperial College London and King’s College London, in fields ranging from global health policy and medicine to ethics, law and statistics.

 

Dr Bardosh, who is director of Collateral Global, a British think-tank which was set up to examine pandemic policies, told The Telegraph ahead of the publication of the letter that he wanted to write to Lady Hallett before the list of “core participants” is drawn up for the next set of modules.

While anyone can submit evidence to the inquiry, “core participant” groups enjoy special status, including the right to representation and the ability to make legal submissions, suggest questions for witnesses and receive disclosure of documentation.

 

Time to recognise their biases’


“The letter is an attempt to get the inquiry to recognise that they have got some things wrong, they still have time to redirect it to be more impartial,” Dr Bardosh said.

 

“It is really important that the inquiry recognises they have had these biases and shortcomings in Modules One and Two so they don’t carry it over into the other modules.”

 

Previously, MPs have written to Lady Hallett to urge caution about the direction of the inquiry. But this is the first time that a group of eminent academics have raised concerns.

 

The letter goes on to say that the inquiry is taking “key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them”.

 

It states: “The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods.

 

“This informed the initial response to Covid in early 2020. Yet, the inquiry assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate. As a result, it downplays the harms to society caused by two years of emergency infection control mandates.”

 

The academics also note that the inquiry “lacks impartiality” in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses.

 

“It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on Sage, who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations,” they say.

 

Confrontational rather than inquisitorial’


“Very few scientists with an alternative position have been asked to testify, and the inquiry has been confrontational rather than inquisitorial in its questioning of these views.

 

“The inquiry has not seriously questioned the hypotheses and assumptions offered to government, especially from government-appointed modellers, which were used to justify Covid policies. Neither has it seriously examined the social and economic costs of lockdown.”


Sage is the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

A spokesman for the inquiry said: “The inquiry was established in June 2022 and is entirely independent. Lady Hallett, chairman of the inquiry, has said repeatedly that she will not reach any conclusions until she has considered all of the evidence; that includes the written evidence.

 

“The inquiry does not act on assumptions and has called expert witnesses who question the use of lockdowns and other interventions, as well as experts who advised on the imposition of lockdowns.

 

“The inquiry will consider important issues such as the impact of lockdowns, key scientific and policy questions as well as population health and wellbeing in forthcoming modules. Our modular approach is clearly set out on our website and we will report during the lifespan of the inquiry, with the first report scheduled for this summer.”

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Observations said:

I caught a glimpse of this front page on GB News Headliners and did a quick search on the 'inquiry'. 

download.jpeg.jpg.16921f4e8579228689caf43eb79da85b.jpg

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/covid-inquiry-biased-say-scientists/

 

Covid inquiry appears 'fundamentally biased', say scientists
www.telegraph.co.uk


The Covid Inquiry appears to be “fundamentally biased” and is failing to examine the costs of lockdown, leading scientists have warned.

In a letter to Baroness Hallett, the inquiry chairman, the group of 55 professors and academics express their concerns that the process is “not living up to its mission” to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, assess whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic

 

They warn that a “lack of neutrality” means the inquiry “gives the impression of being fundamentally biased” and appears to have led to “predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time”.


In the letter, published on Tuesday, the group states that the inquiry is neglecting to hear evidence from those who suffered from the “negative effects” of pandemic policy decisions, or scientists who disagree with choices made by the Government.

 

As the second module of the inquiry comes to a close, they call for this to be urgently addressed and greater focus to be placed on the “economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society”.

 

The letter was organised by Dr Kevin Bardosh, an expert in infection medicine at Edinburgh University and Prof Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University.

 

Worklessness ‘a worrying trend’


It comes as Richard Hughes, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, warned on Tuesday that worklessness had become a “worrying trend” in the economy since the pandemic.

 

Mr Hughes told the Treasury select committee that the economy had been growing as a result of net migration but now the it was suffering from a reversal in its workforce amid “rising levels of inactivity and a falling participation rate”.

 

He said: “It looks as though persistently high levels of inactivity seem to be a feature of the post-pandemic environment and one which is worrying from the point of view of human welfare.”

 

So far, the Covid Inquiry has examined the Government’s resilience and preparedness, as well as decision making and political governance across the UK.

 

The next set of inquiry modules include one on the Government’s business and financial response, and another focusing on education, children and young people. Academics hope the cost of lockdown policies will be scrutinised more closely in these upcoming sections of the inquiry.

 

The group includes academics from York, Durham, Bristol and Exeter universities as well as Imperial College London and King’s College London, in fields ranging from global health policy and medicine to ethics, law and statistics.

 

Dr Bardosh, who is director of Collateral Global, a British think-tank which was set up to examine pandemic policies, told The Telegraph ahead of the publication of the letter that he wanted to write to Lady Hallett before the list of “core participants” is drawn up for the next set of modules.

While anyone can submit evidence to the inquiry, “core participant” groups enjoy special status, including the right to representation and the ability to make legal submissions, suggest questions for witnesses and receive disclosure of documentation.

 

Time to recognise their biases’


“The letter is an attempt to get the inquiry to recognise that they have got some things wrong, they still have time to redirect it to be more impartial,” Dr Bardosh said.

 

“It is really important that the inquiry recognises they have had these biases and shortcomings in Modules One and Two so they don’t carry it over into the other modules.”

 

Previously, MPs have written to Lady Hallett to urge caution about the direction of the inquiry. But this is the first time that a group of eminent academics have raised concerns.

 

The letter goes on to say that the inquiry is taking “key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them”.

 

It states: “The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods.

 

“This informed the initial response to Covid in early 2020. Yet, the inquiry assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate. As a result, it downplays the harms to society caused by two years of emergency infection control mandates.”

 

The academics also note that the inquiry “lacks impartiality” in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses.

 

“It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on Sage, who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations,” they say.

 

Confrontational rather than inquisitorial’


“Very few scientists with an alternative position have been asked to testify, and the inquiry has been confrontational rather than inquisitorial in its questioning of these views.

 

“The inquiry has not seriously questioned the hypotheses and assumptions offered to government, especially from government-appointed modellers, which were used to justify Covid policies. Neither has it seriously examined the social and economic costs of lockdown.”


Sage is the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

A spokesman for the inquiry said: “The inquiry was established in June 2022 and is entirely independent. Lady Hallett, chairman of the inquiry, has said repeatedly that she will not reach any conclusions until she has considered all of the evidence; that includes the written evidence.

 

“The inquiry does not act on assumptions and has called expert witnesses who question the use of lockdowns and other interventions, as well as experts who advised on the imposition of lockdowns.

 

“The inquiry will consider important issues such as the impact of lockdowns, key scientific and policy questions as well as population health and wellbeing in forthcoming modules. Our modular approach is clearly set out on our website and we will report during the lifespan of the inquiry, with the first report scheduled for this summer.”

 

Whitewash ! No mention regarding the role of the jabs and the fatal effects of.

 

No surprise, of course.

Edited by Nip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covid vaccines cut risk of virus-related heart failure and blood clots, study finds

Researchers say jabs substantially reduce for up to a year the chances of serious cardiovascular complications

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/12/covid-vaccines-cut-risk-virus-related-heart-failure-blood-clots-study

Tue 12 Mar 2024 23.30 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Freaky Dragonfly said:

Covid vaccines cut risk of virus-related heart failure and blood clots, study finds

Researchers say jabs substantially reduce for up to a year the chances of serious cardiovascular complications

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/12/covid-vaccines-cut-risk-virus-related-heart-failure-blood-clots-study

Tue 12 Mar 2024 23.30 

 

 

 

Ah yes, "Researchers"., another olde chestnut.  Well, in that case, ....... nuff said !

Edited by Nip
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Campion said:

 

Thanks Bombadil, and it mentions this forum as well as David. Worth a read! 

Basically were all indoctrinated in some quasi religious cult like malarky. If I remember she equates us with ISIS but that might be from something else I read.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
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.
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.

×
×
  • Create New...