304 replies to this topic

[geo12the]

Dr. Malone was instrumental in the development of mNRA vaccine technology. People should try to focus on Dr. Malone's message, and not the means by which the message was presented.

 

He was removed from Wikipedia.

 

Now is a good time to reread the Bossche letter. Which includes:

 

"Why mass vaccinaton amidst a pandemic creates an irrepressible monster"

 

The means by which it was presented is important. Are we to believe Bannon actually has good intentions in having this guy on? He just wants to feed his rabid viewers. I will pass!

 

The Bossche letter. I read it. From a scientific perspective it honestly makes no sense to me. It's mumbo jumbo. 

 

I think it's entirely to be expected that during a situation like the pandemic you will have people emerge, even ones with good credentials, who will try and start controversies. Their motives? I have no idea. But there is nothing I have read that makes me the least bit concerned about the vaccines.   If anything they work better and have fewer side effects than I would have expected. 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

RSV

 

 

" In the mid-1960s, a formalin-inactivated vaccine against RSV was administered to infants and young children in four studies in the United States.

 

Children were subsequently exposed to wild-type virus in the community, and those immunized children who were seronegative for RSV before vaccination experienced an enhanced and atypical presentation of RSV disease, with fever, wheezing, and bronchopneumonia. These children were more frequently hospitalized and two children vaccinated in infancy, died as a consequence of the RSV infection [23]. In contrast, enhanced respiratory disease (ERD) was not observed in infants who were seropositive for the virus at the time of administration of the formalin-inactivated RSV vaccine."

 

Sometimes people like a message better when they think it's from a "proper" source. The message is the same either way, but apparently it is bad if the wrong person is presenting it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 29 July 2021 - 03:54 AM.

[Gal220]

This article discusses the following topics - LINK

 

-Why is the virus persisting?

-Why govt arent doing more? - I disagree, I think govts are trying to get rid of it, but have arrogantly decided vax is the only way.

-Possible prion disease from spike?  -  Maybe an issue with the natural virus as well, i would start taking a blood cleanser like neprinol afd or serracor nk.  Author mentions Resveratrol and Lichen serine as possible treatments.

 

 

Right or wrong, Malone does seem to have the most active feed on this thread Topic.  He is still recommending the vax for high risk.

Edited by Gal220, 29 July 2021 - 09:48 PM.

[Hip]

Article says new hyper-lethal coronavirus variants could arrive soon which kill 1 in 3 people. At that point, the unvaccinated will be scrambling to get jabbed.

 

 

 

Now's the time to watch a few zombie apocalypse movies, to get some tips on how to handle the masses of infected people who will be roaming the streets, soon to be dead! Remember the classic spoof zombie movie "Shaun of the Dead", where authorities advised to "remove the head or destroy the brain"! 

 

Edited by Hip, 31 July 2021 - 03:47 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

"Article says new hyper-lethal coronavirus variants could arrive soon which kill 1 in 3 people. At that point, the unvaccinated will be scrambling to get jabbed."

 

Textbook case of "yellow journalism". 

 

At the end of the article:

 

"But in more hopeful news, the group also predicted it is a 'realistic possibility in the long term' that as Covid continue to mutate it will cause less serious disease.

"The group wrote: 'In other words, this virus will become like other human CoV that causes common colds, but with much less severe disease predominantly in the old or clinically vulnerable.'"

 

Time to read more Aesop.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 31 July 2021 - 05:08 AM.

[Hip]

Textbook case of "yellow journalism". 

 

Yes it s certainly. And the Daily Mail tends to run articles which have high emotional impact or shock value. 

 

Nevertheless, as the article points out, the MERS coronavirus, which was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 2012, was killing 30% of people who caught it. MERS killed approximately 900 people, but fortunately it did not create a global pandemic. This is because transmission of MERS only tends to occur between family members living in close proximity, and not between one member of the public and the next.

 

But just like killer asteroids we regularly get that narrowly miss the Earth, we often escape super-lethal killer pandemics by the skin of our teeth.

 

 

 

Regarding viruses evolving into less lethal forms, yes this is often what happens in crowed cities (and other environments where there is high human density). But in areas where the population is more sparse and spread out rural villages, like in Africa, viruses tend to evolve into a more lethal form.  

 

Prof Paul Ewald has done a lot of research on viral evolution. He points out that in areas of high human density, there are many opportunities to pass the virus on to other people, because of the crowded conditions. Thus in crowded environments, it is in the survival interests of the virus to create an illness which does not incapacitate its host, so the infected host can continue to walk around the city and infect more people.

 

In other words, if the virus creates a milder illness, it has many more chances of infecting other hosts, in environments like cities. 

 

In areas of low human density, however, there are far fewer opportunities to infect others. So the virus has so use other strategies to spread. Killing a person or animal quickly, so that the virally-infected corpse lays around for months, and may infect any animals who touch or eat the corpse, tends to work better when the density of host animals or people is low. This explains why some of the most nasty human pathogens are found in rural areas like Africa. 

 

So while in cities you might expect less virulent forms of coronavirus to evolve, in sparsely populated rural areas, evolving to more a virulent form is a distinct possibility. 

Edited by Hip, 31 July 2021 - 01:37 PM.

[Ames]

Article says new hyper-lethal coronavirus variants could arrive soon which kill 1 in 3 people. At that point, the unvaccinated will be scrambling to get jabbed.

 

 

 

Now's the time to watch a few zombie apocalypse movies, to get some tips on how to handle the masses of infected people who will be roaming the streets, soon to be dead! Remember the classic spoof zombie movie "Shaun of the Dead", where authorities advised to "remove the head or destroy the brain"! 

 

Sounds like a good reason to not promote / mandate leaky vaccines across the Western hemisphere and beyond. 

 

The unvaccinated may die, but I'm unsure if they are the "undead" in your scenario. 

Edited by Ames, 31 July 2021 - 03:54 PM.

[Hip]

Sounds like a good reason to not promote / mandate leaky vaccines across the Western hemisphere and beyond.

 
The article says to the contrary: that using booster vaccines may help prevent a super-killer mutant from evolving:
 
 

Rolling out booster vaccines this winter and curbing transmission may help prevent a mutant strain occurring, according to the paper.
 
It also said ministers may have to consider culling or vaccinating animals which are found to be harbouring the virus, in order to stop it potentially picking up another mutation and jumping back to humans.

 
Plus the article suggests we may need to cull or vaccinate animals which harbor coronavirus. Dogs and cats are testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, especially in households where a human has had COVID. See: Coronavirus can infect cats — dogs, not so much  
 
It may be that coronavirus mutates into a super-killer variant in one of these animal hosts, and then is re-transmitted back to humans, where it will cause masses of deaths.

Edited by Hip, 31 July 2021 - 05:39 PM.

[Ames]

 
The article says to the contrary: that using booster vaccines may help prevent a super-killer mutant from evolving:
 

 

It doesn't say the contrary. It directly states that the vaccines are causing the mutations. See the quote box, below. 

 

If you try to put a bandaid on the mutations that the leaky vaccines caused by giving more vaccine, my prior statement is still absolutely correct: maybe we shouldn't have offered the West / World leaky vaccines for a virus in which everyone under 69 years old survives above a rate of 99%. 

 

How are leaky vaccines going to prevent a mutant from evolving? Its like trying to plug a dam with silly puddy that you shot huge holes through with a cannon. Leaky vaccines cause "super killer" mutations.

 

In unvaccinated populations, mutations become less lethal. Historical experience with vaccines and viruses trumps statements (can't really be called theory at this point) when so much is on the line.

 

The scare adjectives also throw up a red flag. Go through the article and count them. "Doomsday" being pretty early in the article. 

 

In the most profitable year for Big Pharma. 

 

The present televised media micharacterizations of how "super killer" mutations come about is also a red flag. They are being extremely hostile to unvaccinated people, blaming them for mutations. When experience tells us that it is the leaky vaxines that are causing mutations.

 

This is bad logic to the point that its almost cynical mockery of its readership:

 

And in a downside of Britain's hugely successful vaccination drive, the team warned the country's greater levels of immunity may help speed up the virus's evolutionary process. 

Rolling out booster vaccines this winter and curbing transmission may help prevent a mutant strain occurring, according to the paper.

 

 

 

Another damning statement. This would be LOL if it weren't so stupid and tragic. They gave you a bad vaccine, hyped by propaganda like what you see in the article, and use its terrible results to restrict your free movement:

 

'Without stricter border control measures we risk importing vaccine-resistant variants

 

 

In addition, good luck survivng boosters that increase your S1 presenting non classical monocyte pool above the two shots you already had, and constant exposure to the virus as carried by the common population (unvaccinated and vaccinated). Think long term.

[Hip]

It directly states that the vaccines are causing the mutations.

 
No, it states that vaccines may speed up the virus's evolutionary process. In other words, the mutations would have happened anyway, but vaccination with leaky vaccines may speed it up. And even that is not proven, it's just a theoretical possibility. 
 
But if you reach herd immunity, so that the virus dies out entirely, then that will totally prevent any mutations, because no humans will have the virus, and mutations occur during an infection of the host. No infections = no chances of mutations occurring. 

 

Herd immunity is the holy grail, which will allow society to go back to normal, and will also prevent new variants from appearing (except in animal populations, which is why we may need to vaccinate them also).
 
It is estimated that around 70% to 85% of the population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. So total elimination of coronavirus may be possible, as long as the anti-vaxxers comply. If they do not, then the anti-vaxxers may actually create the super-killer mutant coronavirus which kills 1 in 3.

 

 

 

The coronavirus vaccines in any case are only semi-leaky: they substantially reduce viral transmission, but they do not totally 100% prevent transmission. 

 

Of course it would be better if the vaccines were 100% preventative of transmission, but in this emergency situation, we have to work with what we have got. Maybe in the near future some pharma company will devise a more effective vaccine that blocks transmission entirely.

 

In fact the COVID vaccines did much better than the pharma researchers anticipated. The researchers did not think the vaccines would reduce transmission at all, only reduce death rate. But it turned out that they reduced transmission also, which was a welcome finding.

 

 

 

In the most profitable year for Big Pharma.

 
Have you heard the expression "biting the hand which feeds you"? 

 

One of the main reasons that life expectancy has gone up so much over the last 100 years or so is because of the products the pharmaceutical industry, especially antibiotics and vaccines. Better sanitation has also played a major role in increased longevity.

 

Unless you have a better approach at controlling the pandemic, I can't see the logic in criticizing the pharma industry.

 

 
 

Edited by Hip, 31 July 2021 - 07:43 PM.

[pamojja]

An update about the failing efficacy as a vaccine:

 

 

Covid Vaccines: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

Israel: Pfizer vaccine effectiveness by outcome and time of vaccination (MOH/Segal)

Updated: July 30, 2021
Published: July 23, 2021
Share on: TG / TW / FB

 

Powered by

 

The latest data from Israel and the UK on covid vaccine effectiveness.

The latest data from Israel, which has used primarily the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, indicates that vaccine effectiveness against Delta coronavirus infection and symptomatic (“mild”) disease has dropped from about 95% to about 40%, whereas effectiveness against hospitalization and severe disease (i.e. low blood oxygen levels) remains at 80% to 90% (see chart above).

 

Importantly, in people who got vaccinated already in January 2021 (primarily the elderly), protection against infection and mild disease may already have dropped to near 0% (see chart above). Moreover, since the Delta covid outbreak is still accelerating in Israel, the effectiveness against hospitalization and severe disease may further decrease (due to lags in hospitalizations).

 

(Update: New data from Hebrew University shows that protection against severe disease has already dropped to 80%; compared to the original 96%, this results in a five-fold increase in residual risk.)

 

In the UK, which has primarily used the AstraZeneca DNA adenovector vaccine, the latest estimate by researchers at University College London indicates an effectiveness against infection of about 20% and a total effectiveness against severe disease of about 60%. In very senior citizens, the effectiveness against severe disease may be even lower (due to a weaker immune response).

 

(A substantially higher estimate by Public Health England, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, was based on outdated data from early June. Interestingly, the British government hasn’t updated its data on AstraZeneca vaccine effectiveness since June 13. Update: New data from PHE confirms that effectiveness against infection has dropped below 20%.)

 

The Israeli data shown above indicates that effectiveness against infection and mild symptoms decreases rapidly over time and reaches near-zero levels after about half a year. Most likely, this is because covid vaccines do not achieve mucosal immunity (in contrast to natural infection) and serum antibody levels (i.e. antibodies in the blood) decrease within months (see chart below).

 

Thus, the false promise of very high protection against “symptomatic infection”, found during official vaccine trials, was simply based on very high short-term serum antibody levels mimicking mucosal immunity. Conceivably, the pharmaceutical companies may even have known that this was just a (very lucrative) “flash in the pan” and not a lasting protective effect.

 

In contrast, protection against severe disease is achieved by lower serum antibody levels in combination with immunological memory (B cells) and cellular immunity (T cells). However, the Delta variant has already achieved partial immune evasion (as did Beta and Gamma, but not Alpha), and future coronavirus variants will likely achieve almost complete immune evasion.

 

Thus, vaccine protection even against severe disease will likely further decrease due to new variants, or, in the very worst case, will turn into antibody-dependent disease enhancement (ADE), if high levels of non-neutralizing antibodies aggravate the infection. Indeed, this is what happened in the case of vaccines against SARS-1 and dengue fever.

 

To prevent such a decrease in protection against severe disease, or to restore short-term protection against infection and mild disease, updated “booster shots” will likely become necessary. (Update: On July 29, Israel announced “booster shots” for people over 60 years of age.)

 

However, there is a very real risk that additional vaccinations, which inject or induce the coronavirus spike protein, could substantially increase the risk of serious cardiovascular and neurological adverse events, such as strokes, GBS and heart muscle inflammation. Globally, covid vaccines may already have killed tens of thousands of people. Alternatives include safer oral vaccine candidates or medically supervised, low-dose oral live virus challenges in low-risk people.

 

Furthermore, the millions of people who were told that vaccination will protect them against a coronavirus infection will soon have to realize (once again) that this is not the case: instead, most of them will get infected anyway. On the positive side, this may actually provide additional mucosal immunity to large parts of the population while being mostly protected against severe disease.

 

Indeed, data from Israel as well as recent studies all indicate that a previous coronavirus infection continues to offer the best protection against future infections and disease.

 

In contrast, vaccination cannot achieve “sterile immunity” against infection and infectiousness. Thus, the whole idea of “vaccination certificates” has become obsolete – at least from a medical and epidemiological perspective – and should be rejected: the claim that it’s just “the unvaccinated” that are driving outbreaks – a claim made by many authorities – is simply false.

 

For instance, just this week a “fully vaccinated” Australian managed to pre-symptomatically infect about 60 people at a party in the United States. Many similar stories have already been reported in Europe and Israel: fully vaccinated people can easily transmit the virus even to large groups. Hence, imposing “vaccination certificates” or “green passes” may only serve a political purpose.

 

(Update: New data from Israel shows that “only 20%” of fully vaccinated people have infected others in public spaces. While authorities claim that this is a success, in reality, it is not any different from unvaccinated people, thus confirming zero effectiveness against infection and transmission.)

 

In many countries, mass vaccination campaigns have themselves triggered large coronavirus outbreaks (“post-first dose spike”), possibly due to a combination of vaccine-induced temporary immune suppression and infections at large indoor vaccination centers visited by thousands of people. The vaccine-induced temporary immune suppression may also explain the frequently observed post-vaccination appearance of shingles (i.e. herpes zoster reactivation).

 

Concerning children, since covid remains mostly asymptomatic or mild in them anyway, and since vaccination cannot prevent infection and infectiousness, the vaccination of children and even of young low-risk adults becomes increasingly difficult to justify, especially given the very real vaccine-associated cardiovascular risks to them (e.g. teen myocarditis and cerebral blood clots).

 

A look at covid data in places like Israel, the UK and Portugal – which were first in Europe to experience the Delta variant summer wave – confirms that, while infections have skyrocketed, hospitalizations have remained rather low and deaths have remained very low so far (see charts below). In contrast, in countries with a low vaccination rate – such as India, Russia, as well as many Asian and African countries, Delta covid deaths have reached all-time record levels (see below).

 

In conclusion, and as argued previously, vaccine protection against infection and “mild disease” has pretty much collapsed, whereas protection against severe disease and death remains at a reasonable level, with the partial exception of the most senior citizens and especially nursing home residents, some of whom have never mounted a neutralizing antibody response to the vaccine. Moreover, future coronavirus variants will likely achieve additional immune evasion.

 

Given the current situation and outlook, it may once again be emphasized that research and implementation of early treatment options for high-risk patients – especially anti-viral, anti-inflammatory (immuno-modulatory) and anti-thrombotic treatment – should be a top priority.

 

See also: The latest on covid vaccine adverse events (SPR)

 

Rest at site..

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

An update about the failing efficacy as a vaccine:

 
Still quoting that suspect Swiss Policy Research (SPR) propaganda website?
 
The website whose authors remain anonymous, which does not inspire much confidence. And according to Wikipedia, the authors are likely not even Swiss:
 

Due to the persistent use of the German letter ß, which is not commonly used in Switzerland, it has been suspected that the creator is not from Switzerland, contrary to what the website title suggests

 
 
 
Amazing how SPR cannot get the facts right:
 
From the article you quoted:
 

Furthermore, the millions of people who were told that vaccination will protect them against a coronavirus infection will soon have to realize (once again) that this is not the case: instead, most of them will get infected anyway. On the positive side, this may actually provide additional mucosal immunity to large parts of the population while being mostly protected against severe disease.

 
That above statement by SPR is wrong. People were never told the vaccines would protect them from coronavirus infection. They were told the vaccines would reduce their chances of death if they caught the infection. Which they do: vaccines reduce your chances of death by about 12 times, according to statistics I have seen.
 
But as it turns out, the vaccines performed better than expected, and they do also substantially reduce the transmission of the virus, by more than 80%. Though the new delta variant may spread more easily, because it is a more transmissible variant.
 
See this article from Nature: COVID vaccines slash viral spread – but Delta is an unknown. 
 
The Nature article concludes:
 

Delta’s increased infectiousness could mean that the proportion of people in a population who need to be vaccinated to bring the pandemic under control will be larger than would have been required with earlier variants.

So it is now up to the anti-vaxxers to man up and control their fears. To save the day, the anti-vaxxers must start encouraging people to get jabbed. So far, there are no other proven routes back to normality other than the vaccination route.
 

Edited by Hip, 01 August 2021 - 02:13 PM.

[pamojja]

That above statement by SPR is wrong. People were never told the vaccines would protect them from coronavirus infection.

 

Ha, so yourself didn't get the shot yet? - Because if you would have you most likely would know by now, that no additional informations are given to really fully give an informed consent to the experimental vaccine.

 

My own almost 80 years old father was told exactly nothing. Only asked if left- or right handed, and got the shot at the opposite side. He only learned from me afterwards that it wouldn't prevent him from getting infected or spreading the virus.

 

Your 'Appeal to authority' concerning SPR has to nothing to do with truthful discussion of the data presented therein, you're obviosly not interested in at all.

Edited by pamojja, 01 August 2021 - 05:01 PM.

[Hip]

Ha, so yourself didn't get the shot yet? - Because if you would have you most likely would know by now, that no additional informations are given to really fully give an informed consent to the experimental vaccine.

 

Do you not have TV news and newspapers in your country which cover these issues? Information on the coronavirus pandemic is given nightly on UK TV news, so unless you are cut off from all news sources, you should be pretty informed of things like vaccine efficacy.

 

 

When you go to a car dealership to buy a car, do they tell you that cars can be lethal to pedestrians, or that you can kill yourself if you crash your car? Of course not. They expect you to have that general knowledge. 

Edited by Hip, 01 August 2021 - 06:52 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

 

 

Re: post #222

 

Hip writes:

 

"The website whose authors remain anonymous, which does not inspire much confidence. And according to Wikipedia, the authors are likely not even Swiss:"

 

I might be tempted to say that your claim, referencing Wikipedia, doesn't inspire much confidence either, because Wikipedia articles are written by largely anonymous volunteers. How ironic!, lol. Doh. (And, best that you don't mention the worm Ouroboros in a tautological and/or allusory contretemps aimed at being critical of my citation. I suspect that you might know the reason that you probably shouldn't ask "why?". lol)

 

The following, which you quote from Wikipedia:  

 

"Due to the persistent use of the German letter ß, which is not commonly used in Switzerland, it has been suspected that the creator is not from Switzerland, contrary to what the website title suggests."

 

gives a reference, which is in German, but can easily be translated by Google. In the Wikipedia reference the author cites one of her reasons to support claims critical of the SPR is that:

 

"The website is registered via a concealment service with the meaningful name “Knock Knock, Who is Not There” - “knock, knock, who is not there”."

 

However, doing a whois on the site hosting her article one discovers that https://www.beobachter.ch/ is hosted by Cloudflare, Inc., which is, wait for it..., a concealment service!

 

She is apparently so clueless that she doesn't even realize that the site she's posting from is also "concealed", lol. Pot, kettle, black?

 

Brilliant demonstration of critical-thinking skills on her part. Sheesh. But, hey, agenda comes before cogent analyses. Nyet?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 01 August 2021 - 09:30 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Anyone interested in an quick (60 second) update from Australia?

 

https://t.me/British...Alliance/119328

 

Punch line at the end will impress.  Keep in mind, less than a third of the population of New South Wales is vaccinated.  Looks like AstraZeneca was popular. 

 

Let me know if it won't play for you, & I'll post a bottom line.  I got a flag "google chrome can't play this", but when I closed the warning box the clip played fine. 

Edited by Dorian Grey, 02 August 2021 - 10:43 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

In this video of 22 hours ago (as I write this) at 5:15 the same guy says 54 (he may have said 64, I'm not sure) in ICU of which 49 were not vaxxed. Be aware that they apparently do regular updates of the numbers. What is the date for the video linked in post #226, not the posting date, but the date of the COVID-19 update presentation shown?

 

I suspect he just got confused in the post #226 video.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 02 August 2021 - 11:38 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Good find Advocatus.  Hard to believe all but 1 of their hospitalized patients were vaccinated, but he said it so matter of fact.  Perhaps he was smoking some medicinal herbs that morning.  Don't know the date of the original, as the page wouldn't load on chrome.  

 

It really spooked me, as it sounds like classic AED.  Younger vaccinated patients getting sicker than the unvaccinated.  I got the J&J jab, & reckon this is similar to the A/Z, so this set my mind racing.  Thanks for the input.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 August 2021 - 01:21 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

And sure enough, here is the correction to the post #226 video. The post #226 video is in a different visual layout than the complete video containing the post #226 clip. In the complete video. the misstatement is at about 6:48 and the correction comes at about 33:58.

 

It would be interesting to learn why the "telegram" poster didn't wait for the complete COVID 19 update to end. As he/she would have had no reason to post what they did.

 

Spooked me too, Dorian. So my little mental nag said "hey that looks like a 5-sigma event, investigate it" lol  My bet is on too many Fosters for lunch.  

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 03 August 2021 - 01:26 AM.

[Hip]

I might be tempted to say that your claim, referencing Wikipedia, doesn't inspire much confidence either, because Wikipedia articles are written by largely anonymous volunteers.

 

When a study was conducted to check the accuracy of the statements on Wikipedia, Wikipedia was found to be no less accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Which on first analysis seems remarkable given than anyone can edit Wikipedia.

 

However, if you have ever tried to edit Wikipedia yourself (I have done some editing on Wikipedia Medical), you find that if you try to add some information which is not backed up by reputable sources, your fellow editors will delete it.

 

The information on Wikipedia is thus well policed by an army of editors.

 

So when Wikipedia says the Swiss Policy Research website spreads conspiracy theories and provides inaccurate information on the coronavirus pandemic, we can assume that is correct.

 

Swiss Policy Research has also been criticized by other websites, including Health Feedback, who gave a final verdict of "INACCURATE" for the Swiss Policy Research site.

 

 

 

I have read Swiss Policy Research's views on the coronavirus pandemic many months ago, and they both try to underplay the seriousness of the pandemic, suggesting that it is no more dangerous than seasonal flu, and also try to undermine the approaches that most governments are taking in controlling the pandemic. 

 

 

 

It's also a little odd that Swiss Policy Research have a page on their suggestions for COVID treatment. The website describes itself thusly:

 

Swiss Policy Research (SPR), founded in 2016, is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda.

 

So how does a group focused on geopolitical propaganda suddenly become medical experts? And would you trust the medical suggestions of an anonymous organization that we do not even know has any doctors on their staff?

Edited by Hip, 03 August 2021 - 02:42 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

 

Hip wrote (post #230):

 

"When a study was conducted to check the accuracy of the statements on Wikipedia, Wikipedia was found to be no less accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Which on first analysis seems remarkable given than anyone can edit Wikipedia."

 

In response to my:

 

"I might be tempted to say that your claim, referencing Wikipedia, doesn't inspire much confidence either, because Wikipedia articles are written by largely anonymous volunteers."

 

Your claim (post #225) wasn't about accuracy. Your claim was related to your perception that the degree of confidence inspired by the fact that the site uses anonymous authors was, "not much".

 

Let me refresh your memory for your claim in post #225, it reads: 

 

"The website whose authors remain anonymous, which does not inspire much confidence."

 

No "accuracy" mentioned. Capisce? 

 

Since you've edited Wikipedia, you also know that your "reputable sources" is actually "reliable sources".

 

"The information on Wikipedia is thus well policed by an army of editors.". 

 

Yes, an army of anonymous editors. Try to let the concept of Wikipedia being written by largely anonymous sources, sink in.  And, juxtapose that with the SPR sources.

 

Interesting tidbit: If you read the "talk" page for a contentious subject, you typically will find it more interesting, and entertaining, than the article itself. You will find polarized views that can result in "edit wars" and the suppression of facts. As a rule of thumb, do a quick scan of the article, and then go to the talk page to find out the "real skinny" on a subject. 

 

"So when Wikipedia says the Swiss Policy Research website spreads conspiracy theories and provides inaccurate information on the coronavirus pandemic, we can assume that is correct."

 

Um, no.

 

Go to the Wikipedia Swiss Policy Research talk page and see what one editor says about "conspiracy theories". It's under the "Unfounded claims of conspiracy theories" section. The matter isn't as cut-and-dried as your wannabe apodictic asseveration "we can assume that is correct" would beg to imply. Juxtapose Wikipedia and the SPR site with consideration of anonymity.

 

I have no problems using Wikipedia. I read what is written. Then, I go to the citations to see if the citations are saying what Wikipedia says they are saying. I do that here, too.

 

"So how does a group focused on geopolitical propaganda suddenly become medical experts? And would you trust the medical suggestions of an anonymous organization that we do not even know has any doctors on their staff?"

 

Tell us about your personal web pages, Hip.  

 

As an aside, you might want to look up the definition of battue (if you don't already know it). Then, picture me seated in my hathi howdah directing my beaters to drive you to exactly where I want you to be.  

 

PS--Thus far, I don't seem to need any beaters.  

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 03 August 2021 - 06:03 AM.

[Hip]

Yes, an army of anonymous editors. Try to let the concept of Wikipedia being written by largely anonymous sources, sink in.  And, juxtapose that with the SPR sources.

 

In the case of Wikipedia, if you are an experienced Wikipedia reader and editor, you will be very familiar with the ethos and agenda of Wikipedia. Similarly if you are have experience reading any newspaper, you know where that newspaper is coming from. If I read the New York Times, or the Guardian, I know the where these papers are coming from politically, intellectually, scientifically, etc. 

 

So although the Wikipedia editors are anonymous, they are part of a well-policed organization whose ethos and policies are well known.

 

And in fact, Wikipedia editors are not exactly anonymous: although they may not use their real name, many have a bio page which details a great deal about their interests. If you start editing on Wikipedia, you get to know other editors. I am familiar with several editors on Wikipedia Medical, because I have done some editing, and have had a lot of interaction with these editors. 

 

So there is nothing opaque about Wikipedia.

 

By comparison, we have very little information at all about the ethos and agenda of Swiss Policy Research. This website keeps its ethos and agenda secret. The only thing it reveals about itself is found on this page:

 

 

Swiss Policy Research (SPR), founded in 2016, is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda. SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding other than reader donations. Our articles have been published by numerous independent media outlets and have been translated into more than two dozen languages.

 

I am sure you know this, so I don't see why you are arguing along the lines that you are. Although I think your "devil's advocate" username may give your game away. In case you are not aware, online misinformation is increasingly being seen as a major problem for humanity. 

 

 

 

It would be possible to get a sense of the ethos and agenda of Swiss Policy Research by closely reading all of its articles. But not many people have the time or inclination to do this. 

 

One group of people however who do this, in an attempt to quantify the ethos and political agenda of websites and news sources, is Media Bias Fact Check, a site which I often recommend. They use a team of academics to gauge factors such as political stance, factual accuracy, propaganda level and conspiracy theory level of website. 

 

If we look at how Media Bias Fact Check gauge Swiss Policy Research, you see that they too class it as a moderate level conspiracy theory site, and its factual accuracy is not good. It's overall credibility rating is LOW.

 

You may like to check other news sources that you are familiar with, to see how Media Bias Fact Check gauges them. I've found that interesting and instructive to do. 

Edited by Hip, 03 August 2021 - 03:06 PM.

[Hip]

Tell us about your personal web pages, Hip.  

 
On any thing I write, I always avoid giving any medical advice. The forum where I post a lot, the Phoenix Rising ME/CFS forum, has strict rules about not giving medical advice. This is a very good rule. I may provide people with information about the treatments that leading ME/CFS specialists use, or about treatments which have been shown effective in published studies. But would never try to advise ME/CFS patients on what to do. That must be their own decision. In any case, that is irrelevant to issue we are focusing on, which is the Swiss Policy Research website.

 

I think most people would see it as strange that a geopolitical website like Swiss Policy Research suddenly starts offering medical views and medical advice on treating COVID. Just as it would be strange if they started giving advice on car maintenance, or cooking recipes. It's nothing to do with geopolitics.

 

 

 

As an aside, you might want to look up the definition of battue (if you don't already know it). Then, picture me seated in my hathi howdah directing my beaters to drive you to exactly where I want you to be.  

 
That's exactly how I see many of your contributions: engaging in argument just for the sake of it. You do not often bring any useful information or perspective to the discussion. You do not even seem to have your own point of view.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

 

 

Re: post #233:

 

"In any case, that is irrelevant to issue we are focusing on, which is the Swiss Policy Research website."

 

You brought up the issue when you wrote:

 

"So how does a group focused on geopolitical propaganda suddenly become medical experts? And would you trust the medical suggestions of an anonymous organization that we do not even know has any doctors on their staff?"

 

I then asked about your own webpages with the expectation that you'd see your hypocracy and hence recognize the speciousness of your implications with regard to SPR.  

 

No such luck.

 

"On any thing I write, I always avoid giving any medical advice."

 

 "But would never try to advise ME/CFS patients on what to do."

 

Here are examples which contradict Hip's above claims:

 

"So for anyone with a sore throat for a few days: don’t panic, it is probably not this virus."--It's probably not this virus--Dr. Hip says so. Based on ?.

 

"So if your ENT specialist told you that your virally-triggered persistent sore throat is due to acid reflux, you may want to be a little skeptical of that diagnosis."--Listen to Dr. Hip, the real doctor (with lots of anecdotes). Be skeptical of the guy with the actual medical training, instead.

 

"If you are experiencing high levels of persistent fatigue and brain fog (trouble concentrating and thinking) after catching this virus, then you may have developed myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) from this virus, a condition which is detailed on the ME/CFS Info page."--Says Dr. Hip, the renowned medical diagnostician who apparently makes "remote viewing" a prime tool for the preliminary diagnoses of his patients.

 

"For the generalized anxiety disorder precipitated by this virus, the following three supplement have proven very helpful at treating this anxiety, especially N-acetyl-glucosamine. You can take just one, or all three for a stronger anti-anxiety effect."--Dr. Hip says you can take one or all three supplements--must be ok to do so, right?, even though he's never met you (see "remote viewing" above).

 

"Smaller doses of a few grams of colostrum have little effect; you need to take 2 heaped teaspoons of colostrum." --Be sure to follow Dr. Hip's advice as to dosage, and diligently take both "heaped" teaspoons.

 

Phoenixrising forum:

 

"The best form of selenium to take is yeast-free selenomethionine, as selenomethionine the best absorbed form of selenium. Selenium must be taken on an empty stomach, to ensure it is properly assimilated.--Medical advice without citation, by Dr. Hip.

 

"The maximum daily dose of selenium is 600 mcg (ref: here), so you can even try taking higher daily doses of selenium; but I personally found that these higher doses created some irritability---Medical advice. You have no idea, Dr. Hip, if anyone reading that has a condition that might be worsened trying "taking higher daily doses" which might cause irrevocable harm, even if the higher doses are less than the "maximum daily dose".

 

The SPR page specifically states the following:

 

"Note: Patients are asked to consult a doctor." 

 

whereas your own treatments page offers no such admonishment. You present many treatments, all without reference to medical authority.  So, who's playing the doctor giving medical advice? 

 

In case you've forgotten the relevance by now, read the first part of this post again. (Hint--"You brought up the issue when you wrote:")

 

"I think most people would see it as strange that a geopolitical website like Swiss Policy Research suddenly starts offering medical views and medical advice on treating COVID."

 

It's quite obvious that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the definition of "geopolitical" is, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an absurd statement.

 

Geopolitical--Of, or relating to geopolitics. (adjective)

 

Geopolitics as defined by Wikipedia:

 

"At the level of international relations, geopolitics is a method of studying foreign policy to understand, explain and predict international political behavior through geographical variables. These include area studies, climate, topography, demography, natural resources, and applied science of the region being evaluated.[3]"

 

"Applied science"  as defined by Wikipedia: "Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge obtained via conclusions from the method to attain practical goals.[1] It includes a broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine."

 

Medicine, as defined by Wikipedia. 

 

So, it shouldn't be considered strange for a geopolitical website to offer medical views and advice during a COVID-19 pandemic.

 

By the way, Media Bias Fact Check is actually untrustworthy:  

 

"The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest."

 

"As further evidence of its untrustworthiness, Media Bias Fact Check has declared that PolitiFact “is the gold standard for political fact checking.” To the contrary, Just Facts has documented that PolitiFact has an extensive record of propagating falsehoods."

 

"The reality of human nature is that people tend to easily accept that which aligns with their preconceived notions but demand very high standards of proof for anything that challenges their presumptions."

 

See how the dualing-fact-check system works? You like yours because it conforms to, and reinforces, your ideology. Other people like other sites. I have no preferred fact-check sites. I surf around various fact-check sites in the hope of gaining a greater understanding of the subject being examined. I don't let confirmation bias delimit my searches to one or two preferred sites.

 

I wrote:

 

"As an aside, you might want to look up the definition of battue (if you don't already know it). Then, picture me seated in my hathi howdah directing my beaters to drive you to exactly where I want you to be."

 

You replied:

 

"That's exactly how I see many of your contributions: engaging in argument just for the sake of it. You do not often bring any useful information or perspective to the discussion. You do not even seem to have your own point of view."

 

Sorry that your weren't able to recognize that as a taunt for you to bring reasoning to the argument table. It's as if you feel that by providing a Barmecide feast, in this Potemkin village, you can satisfy the needs of a trencherman.

 

[Hip]

Advocatus Diaboli, you've gone off on such a tangental discussion that you've actually left Earth orbit!

 

It may be time to attempt re-entry, and come back down to terra firma. 

 

No matter what contorted logic you try to use, geopolitics is not about medical treatments for viral infections, it is about political international relations between nations. So it remains very odd for a geopolitical website like Swiss Policy Research to advise on the treatment of viral infections, especially when this organization has no known medical credentials (or indeed no known credentials of any kind). 

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

 

Re post #235

 

The point, which you have clearly missed, entirely, Hip, is that any element of a field which is subsumed by the more general field-category is obviously a subset of that general field, by definition. Why is it so difficult for you to follow, and comprehend, the nexus which I have essentially spoon-fed to you?-->Geopolitics--Applied science--Medicine. Venn diagrams or tree-structure diagrams beyond your ken?

 

The geopolitical aspects of medicine (distribution of vaccines among nations, for example, or sharing treatment strategies among nations during a pandemic) is subsumed by "geopolitics", and thus is fair game for a geopolitical website, despite your trying to limit geopolitics to its top-level definition and not consider that subsets of the field exist.  And, it isn't "strange" to see geopolitical sites discuss matters which fall within their ambit. (Well, at least not strange to those that can think logically.).

 

I suspect that you have been indulging in too much omphaloskepsis, and not enough reality checking.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 04 August 2021 - 03:21 AM.

[Gal220]

McCullough interview with Del, much better host/questions than Stew.  Interesting point on targeted vaccination, that would have potentially prevented the immune escape of Delta and future variants.

 

Video 

[Ames]

No, it states that vaccines may speed up the virus's evolutionary process.

 

 

Yes.

 

What I said:

 

that the article states that the vaccines cause mutations,

 

and what you said are the exact same thing.

 

The article is trying to hide "vaccines cause mutation" under careful language and you are trying to do their work by keeping their PR language nonsense in place for them.

 

No one here is beholden to the article authors nor to you, in terms of not reading through undifferentiated synonyms (evolutionary process = mutation). 

 

Trying to resurrect the article's transparent soft peddling is useless and dishonest. Its a waste of time and a non-point.

 

Using the word "may" is politicians language in this instance. It is meant to give them an out for stating a major risk (which we see playing out with the variants), without giving vaccines critics a definite reference. 

 

But fine: "may". And my point still stands. Because its still an admission that there is a great reason not to promote  / de facto mandate leaky vaccines. And it looks like that risk has come to bear. 

 

And that's unequivocally a bad thing. 

 

 In other words, the mutations would have happened anyway,

 

 

 

That's a rhetorically convenient switch from "may" to "would". 

 

Is that the result that we've seen with leaky vaccines used elsewhere? 

 

https://en.wikipedia...Marek's_disease

 

Try your "may / would" sleight of hand in three card monte at the park. It won't win you any arguments here.

 

Have significant "mutations happened anyway" with other COVID diseases and that scale (to the relative severity of the original disease) with that of the threat of the Delta or Lambda variants, absent widespread immunizations?

 

Or just with this, given widespread immunizations?

 

So we haven't agreed that mutation would happen naturally to a significant degree...

 

 

but vaccination with leaky vaccines may speed it up.

 

 

 ... but thanks for the admission that vaccines "may" (do and did) cause mutations.

 

Again, circling us back to my first point that you tried and are failing to respond to: promoting widespread leaky vaccines is a bad idea for this disease. 

 

And even that is not proven, it's just a theoretical possibility. 

 

 

Mutation in response to leaky vaccine is absolutely proven. And here we are with several unusually fast appearing mutations after an unprecedented vaccination drive.

 

But if you reach herd immunity, so that the virus dies out entirely, then that will totally prevent any mutations, because no humans will have the virus, and mutations occur during an infection of the host. No infections = no chances of mutations occurring. 

 

 

Except that the virus dying out entirely is not possible with leaky vaccines. But mutations are possible.

 

Herd immunity is the holy grail, which will allow society to go back to normal, and will also prevent new variants from appearing (except in animal populations, which is why we may need to vaccinate them also).

 

 

Is that the old official definition of herd immunity, or the new official definition that was repurposed to only encapsulate vaccination status?

 

Forgive me if I don't take anyone seriously that unironically uses the phrase "Holy Grail" while trying to persuade in regard to such a malleable and now politicized concept, or in regard to an injection. 
 
 

It is estimated that around 70% to 85% of the population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

 

 

Is it? I remember when those percentages were changing each week with Fauci's discontent with public vaccination enthusiasm, as well as when the definition of herd immunity formally changed.

 

So total elimination of coronavirus may be possible, as long as the anti-vaxxers comply.

 

 

"So" is generally used, in rhetoric, before a conclusion and after a cogent presentation of logical proofs. Not after the mish mash of hand waving, buzz words, scary adjectives, and scaepgoating that you employed here. 

 

Stated differently, at no point in your presentation did you come close to any logic that concludes that anything whatsoever is dependent on "anti vaxxers" complying.

 

In fact, we are now much closer to "vaxxers" being a problem. However, I wouldn't be so retrograde, as you are, to attempt to lay blame for a disease on a population of people.

 

If they do not, then the anti-vaxxers may actually create the super-killer mutant coronavirus which kills 1 in 3.

 

 

Right on cue.

 

As long as it isn't the superman-killer-monster-crypto-irradiated virus then, given the case being made by you, I think we are good. 

 

But if we do get a 1 in 3 virus, then given what we know about leaky vaccines, viruses, and our specific comparative argument, then it seems as if the vaccinated will more than likely be the culprit.

 

If we were scapegoating people. Which I would never do, given historical lessons learned. Did you attend your history classes when they were covering the part about using concepts of flawed innate biology to scapegoat groups of people? I can't be the only one to have come away with that principle =  umbrella bad. Was I? I doubt it. 

 

 

Have you heard the expression "biting the hand which feeds you"? 

 

 

LOL, for so many reasons. I'll let this one stand on its own. It does all the work itself for readers, and I could never match what it says just hanging there.

 

One of the main reasons that life expectancy has gone up so much over the last 100 years or so is because of the products the pharmaceutical industry, especially antibiotics and vaccines. Better sanitation has also played a major role in increased longevity.

 

Unless you have a better approach at controlling the pandemic, I can't see the logic in criticizing the pharma industry.

 

 

Same here. ^^

 

"No logic" in criticizing the pharmaceutical industry. (of course, this is inaccurate shorthand for "don't refuse medication mandates").

 

You are truly self-satire. 

 

Because antibiotics = criticism free reign for literally everything else / for every pharamceutical mandate for healthy individuals (for approved or unapproved of meds).

 

Does any single company go an entire year wherein they don't refute this attempted axiom in one fashion or another? Maybe when extremely lucky. 

 

Pharmaceutical industry and its "also" sidekick santitation being responsible for lifespan improvement. We see what you did there! Nice one. (and nevermind the other contributing factors). Also, myself and Elon Musk are totally rich if you add all of our money together. 

 

Summary:

 

You're here to say don't question Big Pharma or the vaccine, in spite of any argument or variants, and to scare and group-scapegoat people into getting vaccinated. 

 

I'm here to tell you that your logic is bad and that, referencing historically taught lessons, you are an immoral and divisive danger for trying to scaepgoat unvaccinated people. Whatever the scale of the eventual bad result for your scapegoat target.

That will remain true whether or not you eventually revert to an attempt at an actual set of logical proofs, yet stick with the scaepgoating.

Edited by Ames, 04 August 2021 - 04:21 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Excellent review of the 6 month post market data compared to the study data of the Pfizer jab by Dr Chris Martenson.  

 

 

It's an hour long, so make some coffee, but best hour I've spent in a long time.  

 

Looks like some serious comorbidities were excluded in the trial (obesity, complicated diabetes), and adverse events were very poorly documented.  

[Ames]

These things are true:

 

The vaccine prevents illness in the vaccinated, to a degree.

The vaccinated can carry and transmit full virus loads.

The virus is more likely to mutate in the vaccinated, given current available vaccines.

The virus isn't going away.

 

What this means:

 

The vaccinated are just as protected / vulnerable no matter who they are around.

The vaccinated are as much a danger to anyone as the unvaccinated

There is zero logical reason for vaccine passports or social exclusion. The only threats are hysteria induced social toxicity and political exploitation.

Unvaccinated avoidance of illness will come down to personal avoidance of literally everyone else / risk tolerance. 

 

editorial: I'd argue that vaccinations would be higher if this situation wasn't made political from the beginning, which it clearly was. If the election year lockdowns were  meant to be seen as apolitical, then a year's worth of riots should not have been sanctioned by the media and politicians concurrently. We have serious censorship issue in regard to certain aspects of the narrative, which is clear to the portion of the public paying attention. Some of what is questioned comes from percieved obfuscation and resultant truth distortions (ie: the method of counting deaths), and some it comes from percieved logical contradiction (restrictions based on vax status). Some of it comes from what appear to me statements that contradict science (the nature of mutation risk). All of which combines to create natural caution and skepticism as to sources of information, advice, and mandates that are ostensibly for health purposes. Skepticism that is heightened when clearly archaic rhetoric is being used by media and other personalities to try and foment serious divisiveness. Rhetoric that will not convince many more who are hesitant. It will serve other purposes. It will also scapegoat those who have physical limitations that prohibit vaccination.

Edited by Ames, 04 August 2021 - 04:49 AM.