Below The Fold ...
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
The kind of conspiracy you allege is virtually impossible.
For you to know that you'd need the stats. Please post them.
It not only is possible, but obviously happened.
Anything on the internet critical of mRNA injections was illegally censored for years.
It is only now that you can actually talk about how badly the mRNA failed.
Fauci had absolute emergency powers to do whatever he wanted.
And the stats all prove mRNA did not work at all.
{...
Did you know?
More than 99% of adults and most children in the U.S. have been vaccinated against COVID-19, been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or both....}
Vaccine Effectiveness
Information for public health professionals and researchers on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
www.cdc.gov
This study said the mRNA worked better than I thought, and said there was a 39% reduction in infection spread.
{...
Results
Among 3344 adults, the adjusted VE of a bivalent vaccine against infection was 37.2% (95% CI, 12.3%–55.7%) within 7 to 59 days of vaccination and 21.1% (95% CI, −0.5% to 37.1%) within 60 to 179 days of vaccination when compared with participants who were unvaccinated or had received an original monovalent vaccine dose ≥180 days prior. Overall, the adjusted VE of a bivalent vaccine against infection, in conjunction with prior infection, was 62.2% (95% CI, 46.0%–74.5%) within 7 to 179 days of vaccination and 39.4% (95% CI, 12.5%–61.6%) at ≥180 days when compared with naive participants who were unvaccinated or had received a monovalent vaccine dose ≥180 days prior.
...}
However, it could simply be that by harming so many human cells by making them grow spike proteins and be destroyed, the mRNA simply caused the whole immune system to ramp up.
That does not imply a specific immunity to covid, but a general threat to the body the immune system had to respond to.
And it is this general increase in immune response that then caused all these additional deaths.
And that is not a normal aspect of immunity, to cause death from heart attacks or amputations from hemorrhaging of the capillaries.
Making our own cells grow spike proteins so they will be destroyed, is actually a very risky autoimmune response.
{...
Results
Among 3344 adults, the adjusted VE of a bivalent vaccine against infection was 37.2% (95% CI, 12.3%–55.7%) within 7 to 59 days of vaccination and 21.1% (95% CI, −0.5% to 37.1%) within 60 to 179 days of vaccination when compared with participants who were unvaccinated or had received an original monovalent vaccine dose ≥180 days prior. Overall, the adjusted VE of a bivalent vaccine against infection, in conjunction with prior infection, was 62.2% (95% CI, 46.0%–74.5%) within 7 to 179 days of vaccination and 39.4% (95% CI, 12.5%–61.6%) at ≥180 days when compared with naive participants who were unvaccinated or had received a monovalent vaccine dose ≥180 days prior.
...}
However, it could simply be that by harming so many human cells by making them grow spike proteins and be destroyed, the mRNA simply caused the whole immune system to ramp up.
That does not imply a specific immunity to covid, but a general threat to the body the immune system had to respond to.
And it is this general increase in immune response that then caused all these additional deaths.
And that is not a normal aspect of immunity, to cause death from heart attacks or amputations from hemorrhaging of the capillaries.
Making our own cells grow spike proteins so they will be destroyed, is actually a very risky autoimmune response.
There's more than one possible explanation.
Your interpretation CERTAINLY would explain it. BUT !
Another possible explanation: it didn't.
So either it did, or it didn't.
Which of these two do you consider the Ockham's Razor explanation?
And if you insist in the global conspiracy explanation, for what purpose? What benefit do each of the billions of conspirators derive? From whom?
Because such censorship is so common in the U.S.?
Reminds me of Bradly, who used to snap his fingers, clap, and fart continually.
I asked him why he kept doing that. He said it's to keep all the pink elephants from stampeding.
I told the guy outright: Brad! There are no pink elephants!
He said: "See! It's working!"
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Why would it need "billions" of conspirators when in reality it could easily have all been done by just the one man in charge, Fauci?
Nor is it global.
Only the US used the fake mRNA.
And the profit motive was $90 billion.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
You really do need to get a new hat.
Fake data.
If you irritate the immune system with the simulation of an infection, any real infection will also end up being attacked.
But that is not at all an "immunity" as we expect from a real vaccine, that lasts for 40 years.
This immune response activity only lasted for a couple of months.
Because if it's Fauci alone, the global pandemic protocols would not have been followed in Beijing, London, Berlin, & DC.
R5, the entire globe was in on it. If you assert they were all duped, how do you explain all the corpses?
So Fauci's rich now? How enviably elegant to be able to wear golf shoes at the supermarket !
The pandemic was real.
It was only the mRNA that was fake.
The fact it lasted so long in the US was from Fauci's "flattening the curve" with masks and social distancing, that prevented herd immunity, in order to give time for Moderna and Pfizer to make $90 billion.
{...
The fortune of Dr Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, doubled to about $15 million between 2019 and the end of 2023 over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, a report revealed.
This is according to a report obtained by a watchdog group, OpenTheBooks, published in the New York Post on Monday.
...}
We should have learned from the 1918 Spanish flu.
You only mask, social distance, and full quarantine with something with high lethality, like Ebola.
With something with low lethality like covid or Spanish flu, you have the lowest death toll if you speed up infection to end it quickly.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
So you think that more people should have been allowed to die?
And the vaccine was real (and it worked).
Accelerating spread achieves herd immunity sooner and greatly reduces death toll.
The death toll from covid was 30k/month.
Most deaths were over 60 years old.
If we had accelerated spread in those under 60, we could have achieved herd immunity in 2 months with only 60k deaths.
Instead we preserved hosts so it could not end for over 3 years, killing 1.3 million.
Vaccines provide specific immunity for decades.
The mRNA was just a generic immune stimulant that only lasted a few months.
It was a treatment, not a vaccine in any way.
Like with the Spanish flu, it is a proven mistake to try to "flatten the curve" with things like masks.
All it does is prevent herd immunity, make it last 10 times longer and kill 10 times as many people.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
So tell us where you obtained your multiple PhD's in the relevant subject. I think we'd all like to know why you somehow believe you're qualified to make statements like that.
Meanwhile my local grocery store is running a special this week
Obviously when you "flatten the curve", the duration of the epidemic is lengthened.
You are preventing herd immunity that would end the epidemic.
Essentially what you are doing is preserving easy hosts for the epidemic, so that it can't end.
And since the death rate of 30k/month stays about the same, you end up with a much higher total death count.
The way to achieve the lowest death count instead, is to accelerate spread among those least vulnerable.
Like those under 40 years of age, who are not going to die from it.
We could have ended covid in 2 months if we had accelerated infection among those under 40.
Then the death total would only have been 60k instead of 1.5 million.
There are no experts who support "flattening the curve".
They all say it just prevents herd immunity.
{...
Up to recent times, the generally accepted view on how to face epidemics of any kind favored a soft approach: letting the virus run in the population with the objective of reaching the natural "herd immunity." For instance, in a 2007 paper, four respected experts in epidemiology still rejected such ideas as confinement, travel bans, distancing, and others. On quarantines, they stated that "There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza." But military planners were working on the idea that bioweapons would be orders of magnitude deadlier than the seasonal flu, and that changed everything.
...}
Flattening the Curve. The Origins of a Bad Idea
In 2003, the "Anthrax scare" led many people to use duct tape to seal the windows of their homes to protect themselves from the deadly germs.
senecaeffect.substack.com
Shiftless2
Well-known member
So where did you get your multiple PhD's? You're expressing an opinion about a highly technical subject and I think it would benefit us all if you could tell us what your qualifications are.
A PhD would not at all qualify one to make a conclusion like that.
One can be taught how particular mechanism work, but when it comes to a conclusion of different strategies, that requires logic, not rote memorization.
And logical conclusions are not "opinions" either.
Do you need me to explain what "herd immunity" is and how epidemics end?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
And you need a lot of background knowledge before your "logic" is meaningful.