Coronavirus Mega-Thread.

[Freaky Dragonfly]

The COVID criminals are going to claim there is a new pandemic of bacteria

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QyHuzwyIbonW

[Freaky Dragonfly]

Covid ‘Vaccines’ Estimated to Have Killed 17 Million People

https://principia-scientific.com/covid-vaccines-estimated-to-have-killed-17-million-people/

 

My feeling is that the real number is probably double that.

[Nip2]

1 hour ago, Freaky Dragonfly said:

The COVID criminals are going to claim there is a new pandemic of bacteria

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QyHuzwyIbonW

 

Oh dear !

[Katsika]

https://prepareforchange.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Slovakia-bans-covid-jabs.mp4?_=11

 

Slovakia is the latest to declare the “Vaccines were an act of Bioterrorism.”

[1velocity7]

15 hours ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

According to this interesting website linked below, world population is still increasing.

 

Suggestive that, in spite of decades killing with microwaves, jabs, poison water and food, and air, driven as hard and fast as possible since the start of covid, they have not even brought down deaths or prevented enough births to break even. Balance the scales.

 

I'm sure I have no idea how accurately they are compiling these numbers nor how they are sourced or even if they are pure fabrication. All I know is this is what they want us to believe.

 

But the message they offer via statistics like these is that no genocide comparable with the suggested Georgia Guidestone population prophesies is actually happening.

 

In my mind, if the population numbers showing at this link are falsified, they could have been forged to reassure those fearfull of world cullings. To appease those that expect honesty in those statistics.

 

Another question I ask is whether they would ever publish drastic world population decreases whereby deaths are outpacing births if this was the case?

 

https://www.worldometers.info/

 

 

for all we know world population could be 2 billion or less

no one can quantify

when do you stop believing serial liars?

 

[lobster]

17 minutes ago, 1velocity7 said:

for all we know world population could be 2 billion or less

no one can quantify

when do you stop believing serial liars?

 

That relies on you knowing when they stared telling lies, they have had a pretty good idea of the earth's population through the 20 century and seen it rise over that time,, if they started telling lies in the 1970s say the population was at 6 billion at that point, it's unlikely to be less than two now

[Katsika]

https://prepareforchange.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Ursula-is-a-bitch-Ewa-Zajaczkowska-Hernik-from-Poland-at-EU-.mp4?_=14

 

(snippet from B.Fulford's latest newsletter)

"Needless to say, regime change in Europe’s three biggest countries will also mean an end to the EU as it is currently configured. This means top Satanist power broker European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s days are numbered. Here you can watch Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik from Poland tell the Witch Ursula exactly what we all think of her and her woke agenda."

 

It's definitely time for Ursula Fond-of-Lying to face justice (along with all the other mfers).

[lobster]

13 hours ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

 

The internet permeates many levels of human activity. It works in tandem with legacy systems and as censorship evolves so too do the measures to get around it. Speaking for myself I feel my power to affect change has increased.

 

What can't be censored is the decontextualized nature of search engine results, often leading to unsuspected information which in itself can have a profound effect on innovation.

 

Even as censored as they have become, the internet still saved millions of lives. Those feeling locked out of the information revolution may not be looking in the right places. Bear in mind that the authorrough itities will always leave us with the impression they have locked us out of free speech.

Ing

Otherwise perhaps the money and grants for those efforts might dry up. Many are making good money creating the illusion they have us boxed in.

 

I think the worse thing that can happen to the rulers is watching a society that knows it's being watched. In that context all the infoitrmation they harvest becomes suspect because they can't say if it was planted information or bait. Discovering the difference bogs them down.

 

The same AI that assists the tyrants to surveille us can be used by us to generated false paradigms where eavesdroppers are fed AI-driven false realities giving the authorities a false sense of security while measures to undermine them are cloaked. A very exciting time for innovators.

 

 

Search engines can choose not only which information you can access, but also the priority of where that information is on the list, having the truth on page 6000 is not much better than the truth not being there at all, only the truly obsessive will spend days working it.

There was a universally accepted concept of " net neutrality" the net is nether good or bad it just is and it has no responsibility for the content.

 

That was abandoned a decade or so ago, a Google search used to give hits in the millions, now it gives hits in the thousands sometimes the hundreds. Where has all that information gone ? If a search engine will not find it , it effectively longer exists

[1velocity7]

24 minutes ago, lobster said:

That relies on you knowing when they stared telling lies, they have had a pretty good idea of the earth's population through the 20 century and seen it rise over that time,, if they started telling lies in the 1970s say the population was at 6 billion at that point, it's unlikely to be less than two now

how they calculate world population

 

By considering national census data, as well as birth and death rates, a rough estimate of global population and growth can be made

[lobster]

8 minutes ago, 1velocity7 said:

how they calculate world population

 

By considering national census data, as well as birth and death rates, a rough estimate of global population and growth can be made

Yea, but when you are using numbers in the billions an error of a few hundred million is neither here nor there, if it's plus or minus 10 % says it's still accurate enough for most purposes

 

Unlike the plumber who gives you an " estimation" a scientific estimate should contain the methodology and most importantly the error bars, ie how accurate the estimation is based on the method used

Edited December 12, 2024 by lobster

[Nip2]

44 minutes ago, lobster said:

That relies on you knowing when they stared telling lies, they have had a pretty good idea of the earth's population through the 20 century and seen it rise over that time,, if they started telling lies in the 1970s say the population was at 6 billion at that point, it's unlikely to be less than two now

 

I'd suggest that ..... f*ck knows how many people occupy this floating mass of a planet. All we can say is that it;s in the early billions. Any number more precise I'd say is just guesswork

Edited December 12, 2024 by Nip2

[lobster]

12 minutes ago, Nip2 said:

 

I'd suggest that ..... f*ck knows how many people occupy this floating mass of a planet. All we can say is that it;s in the early billions. Any number more precise I'd say is just guesswork

It's more accurate than guess work, , than implies no data at all

[Nip2]

14 minutes ago, lobster said:

It's more accurate than guess work, , than implies no data at all

 

Ok. Never mind !

[lobster]

As a general rule any graph that is presented to you , with dots on it , is designed to mislead you, that's not what the original scientific graph looked like, that's the edited version for public consumption, with all the error bars removed, so it looks more certain of what it's saying than it really is

[Avoiceinthecrowd]

5 hours ago, lobster said:

Search engines can choose not only which information you can access, but also the priority of where that information is on the list, having the truth on page 6000 is not much better than the truth not being there at all, only the truly obsessive will spend days working it.

There was a universally accepted concept of " net neutrality" the net is nether good or bad it just is and it has no responsibility for the content.

 

That was abandoned a decade or so ago, a Google search used to give hits in the millions, now it gives hits in the thousands sometimes the hundreds. Where has all that information gone ? If a search engine will not find it , it effectively longer exists

 

I can find this site on any search engine. Also, a lot of the information censured from headlines often finds itself nested within other articles that have not been censured. The wildcard is shadow censoring or the detested thread quaranteening tactics.

 

Whole threads full of cutting-edge AI driven bots

impersonating humans with all the bells and whistles but nobody outside the quaranteen sees any of it.

 

That, in my mind, is the biggest threat to free speech, the illusion of reaching out and connecting. We think those websites are genuine and reach people everywhere and we get conned again. 

 

We might even wonder how they managed to stay online despite aggressive worldwide censorship or the conspicuous absence of any heavy-handed moderator action as was customary at one time...well, they are stealthily quaranteened and no longer a threat to anyone.

 

Then they can eventually proclaim that they allow free speech while everyone is caged in a created and very limited  environment. They look good and we get shafted.

 

Complete with page views and likes. Whole sites can be simulated with present tech. So, they let you speak your mind while severely limiting your reach.

 

In that context the VPN would be onboard with the scheme to insure those close to the poster are given the illusion too. It's a new frontier rife with imagination and innovation.. creating false social networks that reach only a handful of interested parties.

 

Ask yourself, say, as a content producer, how would you verify exactly how far your content is reaching or if you are boxed into a false paradigm?

 

 

Edited December 12, 2024 by Avoiceinthecrowd

[lobster]

1 hour ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

 

I can find this site on any search engine. Also, a lot of the information censured from headlines often finds itself nested within other articles that have not been censured. The wildcard is shadow censoring or the detested thread quaranteening tactics.

 

Whole threads full of cutting-edge AI driven bots

impersonating humans with all the bells and whistles but nobody outside the quaranteen sees any of it.

 

That, in my mind, is the biggest threat to free speech, the illusion of reaching out and connecting. We think those websites are genuine and reach people everywhere and we get conned again. 

 

We might even wonder how they managed to stay online despite aggressive worldwide censorship or the conspicuous absence of any heavy-handed moderator action as was customary at one time...well, they are stealthily quaranteened and no longer a threat to anyone.

 

Then they can eventually proclaim that they allow free speech while everyone is caged in a created and very limited  environment. They look good and we get shafted.

 

Complete with page views and likes. Whole sites can be simulated with present tech. So, they let you speak your mind while severely limiting your reach.

 

In that context the VPN would be onboard with the scheme to insure those close to the poster are given the illusion too. It's a new frontier rife with imagination and innovation.. creating false social networks that reach only a handful of interested parties.

 

Ask yourself, say, as a content producer, how would you verify exactly how far your content is reaching or if you are boxed into a false paradigm?

 

 

There is quite a difference between find a defined web site like this one by typing, DI social in to the search bar, than finding information on a site you don't know exists, which is down at 4000 on the list if its there at all.

 

That this site isn't banned is only because they have decided it's no threat to them, a few dozen like minded people sharing information isn't going to change the world. 

 

If it was then they can easily ban it by restricting it at the DNS server, so t doesn't show up or by restricting in the whole country as they did with pirates bay and a good few other " political" sites they don't like

Both of those can be got round, but it narrows the window somewhat to those who understand how the internet works and can be bothered

Edited December 12, 2024 by lobster

[Avoiceinthecrowd]

1 hour ago, lobster said:

Both of those can be got round, but it narrows the window somewhat to those who understand how the internet works and can be bothered

 

Data can be disguised in many ways to circumvent censors.

 

Back during all those world wars, when monitoring and censorship were at peak levels, people would sew messages coded in thread into clothing and hollowing out books or hiding messages by disguising them as another thing. The prompt establishment of alternative information dissemination was expected by governments that tripped over themselves trying to juggle a war and uncover clever ruses and bypass techniques. Humans are most ingenuis when it comes to this.

 

Networks so perfect that people outside that box have no idea even exists. A bit like your assumption that perhaps, not your exact words, people have not already established formidable bypasses we don't know about.

 

At one time I was browsing a homeschool forum where I was a member. The dialogue got so hot that the page view counters were spinning crazy, then, boom, site glitches momentarily and shows hundreds more people viewing the thread than what the facade was reported. A whole crew was nested in there invisible to the public normally. 

 

I understand that those historical primitive wartime methods of getting around data blockades lacked the sophistication of modern tools used to get around censorship, but the point I wish to make is that not a single crypto or level of monitoring has ever been airtight.

 

The question then becomes one of gauging the importance of a leak and the abilities of those to whom the message was intended. Like how much crap could that leak create.

 

But the messages always get through. Could be as simple as a "share" button on every post. Or a controlled and boxed in "share" that has been sleathily reactivated.

 

Just examples to show that although technology evolves, human nature of getting around obstacles hardly changes in anything but appearance and methodology.

 

That this characteristic drive to not let others block our dialogues is hardwired into the self-preservation process.

 

They understand that censorship increases drastically when people start dropping like flies and associate free speech with survival.

 

Another form of censorship circumvention would be like the missing seismograms of that pair of atom bombed cities in the 40s.

 

They can't censor the fact that they are missing everywhere they should be. They can't censor the absence of those artifacts in atom bomb museums.

 

Or the missing stars seen from the moon that should have been there. Always plenty of these types of censorships by omission, enough to fuel plenty of skepticism without actually reading anyone saying so.

 

People understand the simple fact that lying, murderous, thieving governments will hide information and when inconvenienced enough the censored masses come to expect it and will activate alternate information pathways.

 

What I think is the problem is that information is reaching people but they choose to disregard it because it interferes with their feeling of comfort and perceived security and financial stability.

 

So, in this respect we can assume our networks are ample. What is missing now is a will to act and put an end to the bs.

 

Either way I find this subject totally fascinating.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2024 by Avoiceinthecrowd

[lobster]

2 hours ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

 

Data can be disguised in many ways to circumvent censors.

 

Back during all those world wars, when monitoring and censorship were at peak levels, people would sew messages coded in thread into clothing and hollowing out books or hiding messages by disguising them as another thing. The prompt establishment of alternative information dissemination was expected by governments that tripped over themselves trying to juggle a war and uncover clever ruses and bypass techniques. Humans are most ingenuis when it comes to this.

 

Networks so perfect that people outside that box have no idea even exists. A bit like your assumption that perhaps, not your exact words, people have not already established formidable bypasses we don't know about.

 

At one time I was browsing a homeschool forum where I was a member. The dialogue got so hot that the page view counters were spinning crazy, then, boom, site glitches momentarily and shows hundreds more people viewing the thread than what the facade was reported. A whole crew was nested in there invisible to the public normally. 

 

I understand that those historical primitive wartime methods of getting around data blockades lacked the sophistication of modern tools used to get around censorship, but the point I wish to make is that not a single crypto or level of monitoring has ever been airtight.

 

The question then becomes one of gauging the importance of a leak and the abilities of those to whom the message was intended. Like how much crap could that leak create.

 

But the messages always get through. Could be as simple as a "share" button on every post. Or a controlled and boxed in "share" that has been sleathily reactivated.

 

Just examples to show that although technology evolves, human nature of getting around obstacles hardly changes in anything but appearance and methodology.

 

That this characteristic drive to not let others block our dialogues is hardwired into the self-preservation process.

 

They understand that censorship increases drastically when people start dropping like flies and associate free speech with survival.

 

Another form of censorship circumvention would be like the missing seismograms of that pair of atom bombed cities in the 40s.

 

They can't censor the fact that they are missing everywhere they should be. They can't censor the absence of those artifacts in atom bomb museums.

 

Or the missing stars seen from the moon that should have been there. Always plenty of these types of censorships by omission, enough to fuel plenty of skepticism without actually reading anyone saying so.

 

People understand the simple fact that lying, murderous, thieving governments will hide information and when inconvenienced enough the censored masses come to expect it and will activate alternate information pathways.

 

What I think is the problem is that information is reaching people but they choose to disregard it because it interferes with their feeling of comfort and perceived security and financial stability.

 

So, in this respect we can assume our networks are ample. What is missing now is a will to act and put an end to the bs.

 

Either way I find this subject totally fascinating.

 

 

If you think you can access or pass on data with out being tracked monitored and identified then you are either a wizard computer hacker or you are wrong, you may be wrong if you are a wizard hacker as they frequently get caught as well.

 

At the very least you need to be running Linux, as at least that stops Microsoft and Google monitoring what you do and what's stored on your device and grassing you up

Edited December 12, 2024 by lobster

[SimonTV]

 

Looks like Billy lost his immunity in Kenya

[1velocity7]

bbc doing a hit peice on health misinformation

 

Steven Bartlett sharing harmful health misinformation in Diary of CEO podcast

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpz163vg2o

[Avoiceinthecrowd]

2 hours ago, 1velocity7 said:

bbc doing a hit peice on health misinformation

 

Steven Bartlett sharing harmful health misinformation in Diary of CEO podcast

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpz163vg2o

The mainstream cancer and vaccine industry spokespersons and apologists are pathological liars. Using toxins to cure illness is the true medieval madness.

 

How many times have I seen cinematic depictions of those poor souls being tortured with cancer chemo therapy and puking their heads off until they drop dead and always wondering how any of that had anything to do with healing.

 

When do we ever see vaccinated people transform into spartan icons of health? If we listen to these labcoat fools, everyone they injure or kill would have had it worse without these killer therapies designed to line the pockets of these illness profiteers that cherish repeat business. 

 

When you tell them you feel fine and don't require their services they look at you like you are a terrorist, nutjob, fanatic or reckless and irresponsible.

 

We, the healthy, are not profitable to those types and they despise us and look down to us. Humans will breathe easier when those devils are sent back to hell.

 

[Avoiceinthecrowd]

3 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 

Looks like Billy lost his immunity in Kenya

 

The high courts of Kenya were supposed to pack up all the evidence of that mass murderer's activities on their soil and ship that out to the International Criminal Court to be processed as crimes against humanity.

 

Push that high court hard with Kenyan mediacized blitzes to arrest and prosecute Gates and his affiliates publicly.

 

What Kenya has done is lame and does nothing to stop his foundation from reaching into that country through backdoors.

[Avoiceinthecrowd]

Where is that toothless tiger, Amnesty International? That so-called big defender of human rights that has gone awol since the smartmeter rollout and was nowhere to be found during those vax murders.

[SimonTV]

https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qsc/2024/315/pdf

 

Quote

Congratulations to Dr William Bay for having secured what appears to be a total victory against AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia in defining their constitutional boundaries to act. 

 

[Katsika]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14189845/president-joe-biden-protect-vaccine-manufacturers-injury-claims-2029.html

 

Biden gives Pfizer and Moderna shield from being sued for Covid vaccine injuries and deaths until 2029