@seamus66
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am so sick of cancer…Sorry, not literally. YOu know what I mean.Now we have these superfast cancers that kill you in months. RIP Dr. Meldrum.
Yes, we have sent Ukraine through the meat grinder. All the able-bodied Ukrainian men will have been destroyed by the end, which, for a pointless war, is genocide.
I wonder what the plan is to fill that vacuum? I have heard speculation that Israel wants Ukrainian wheat fields. All I know is that what Isreal wants, Israel gets. But predatory U.S. multinationals have already been moving in to scavenge the Ukrainian economy. It seems clear that Ukraine is meant to be a puppet state of one kind or another (as is true of any country rich in resources)…otherwise, why destroy it to fight a war that can’t be won?
I’m very sad for Ukraine. I am also fearful, because this playbook, including the normalization of genocide, having been tolerated and indulged for so long, will be used upon anyone deemed by the establisment as being in the way of their plans. People are pawns for them, disposable, “useless eaters”.
Tragic but true. The national security deep state, which was founded, by the way, by a bunch of Wall Street types, got into the drug trade simply because it was lucrative (although also useful, at times, for destabilizing certain societies or sectors thereof). Oil barons have also certainly had their say in ‘intelligence’ agendas, as well.
Trump is messing with Venezuela over the oil. He himself has intimated as much in the past. Venezuela has greater oil reserves than any other country on the planet. Do you think that US oil corporations, or any other corporation that depends on oil & the petrodollar (which is all of them), want to sit there, be respectful, and leave that oil alone, letting the Venezualans, whom they continually try to coup, profit from it rather than Shell or Haliburton? The drug thing is the cover story. Not necessarily to take the oil, but at least to prevent the Venezuelans from refining and selling it, which they would do sidestepping the petrodollar, which would tank the petrodollar and thus the US dollar.
I believe it may be true that Trump actually wants peace, and wants his legacy to be that of a peace president. Maybe I’m wrong about that and he’s just lying. But, in any case, were he to really make efforts towards global peace, they would tighten the vise that his balls are trapped in until he stopped. The “tighteners” I’m mainly speaking of are his donors, of Israel, of his cronies.
Also, Trump would do anything he thought would strengthen the US economy, because he also wants to go down in history as a prosperity president, although I don’t read him as having any true desire to raise up the laboring class too much. Prosperity would trump peace, for Trump, I think.
The mode of locomotion doesn’t look quite human, although a kid in a gorilla suit getting creative in his bigfoot role might move through the frame with knees heavily bent, and be able to keep that up for a stretch. A juvenile might impulsively follow a well worn path at the risk of being seen, that’s plausible enough. Maybe he was making for the path behind that wall we see in center and right of the frame. There’s not too much else you can say about this one, aside from that–unless this YouTuber turns out to be that kind of practical joker.
From Geert Vanden Bossche (pretty accessible article for him, but I have added notes in caps and in parentheses for clarity, in case people are unfamiliar with the terminology). Here he rebuts the claim that viruses “always” evolve into more contagious but less deadly forms, one that’s been made continuously throughout covid by doctors, ‘experts,’ and the people who listen to them:
Let me reiterate, once and for all, that the claim that viruses ‘naturally’ evolve to become milder—because supposedly it’s not in their interest to kill us—is sheer nonsense! The origin of such primitive statements lies in a blatant lack of knowledge—not necessarily in virology, but in immunology, especially population-level immunity. Viruses that spread extracellularly [OUTSIDE THE CELL], like coronaviruses, will eventually face transmission dead-ends when the majority of the population develops high titers [LEVELS] of neutralizing antibodies (Abs). These Abs have the capacity to neutralize the virus before it can infect susceptible cells, thus mitigating disease symptoms and eventually terminating the infection. The more the virus spreads, the more people will be infected and re-infected, driving their [ANTIBODY LEVELS] higher—until transmission collapses entirely.
This basic immunological mechanism leaves immunologically illiterate scientists with the absurd impression that a virus somehow possesses a brain, capable of strategically deciding not to kill its hosts in order to ensure its own survival! The stupidity of this reasoning is exposed by the observation that even mild pandemics—those with low mortality rates—can still lead quite quickly to a decline in cases and disease severity, even though such viral behavior does not require the virus to evolve into something particularly ‘gentle’.
As outlined in the referenced article (New HIV variant discovered in the Netherlands | Financial Times), viruses like HIV can combine high virulence [MAKES YOU SICKER] with high transmissibility. If that is the case, there is absolutely no scientific basis to assume that a highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) variant couldn’t also become more virulent!
Given the high level of immune resistance exhibited by the currently circulating SC-2 variants [BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN THE VIRUS AND WEAKENING IMMUNE SYSTEMS, PEOPLE ARE HAVING GREATER DIFFICULTY ELIMINATING THE VIRUS], any further evolution toward greater virulence would culminate in a catastrophic triad: high immune escape [ABILITY TO EVADE THE IMMUNE SYSTEM], high transmissibility, and high virulence [DEADLINESS]. Ominously, the ongoing erosion of innate immunity (cfr. NB. 1.8.1) by currently circulating variants suggests we are already heading in that direction [“INNATE” IMMUNITY IS WHAT KIDS ARE BORN WITH–VERY GENERAL AND ABLE TO ADAPT TO GERMS IT’S NEVER COME IN CONTACT WITH BEFORE].
Yet, public health authorities remain willfully blind, arrogantly issuing insane recommendations to continue mass Covid-19 (C-19) vaccination—directly fueling the disastrous immune escape this virus is exploiting [MEANING THAT MASS VACCINATION, BECAUSE IT HAS PRODUCED SO MANY ANTIBODIES OF THE SAME TYPE IN SO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, HAS GIVEN THE VIRUS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EVOLVE ITS WAY AROUND THE ANTIBODIES SPECIFICALLY PRODUCED BY VACCINATION, AS WELL AS THE MORE GENERAL ANTIBODIES PEOPLE COULD OTHERWISE COUNT ON] . Anyone with even a basic biological education will recognize the grave warning presented in the attached publication: “The HIV and SARS-CoV-2 pandemics demonstrate that viruses can—and will—evolve higher virulence when such traits are favored by natural selection.” This report also confirms that under high, suboptimal intra-host immune pressure [MEANING THAT THE “PRESSURE” EXERTED ON THE VIRUS BY THE PEOPLE’S IMMUNE SYSTEMS INCLUDES LOTS OF ANTIBODIES, WHICH ARE NONETHELESS RELATIVELY WEAK], extensive genetic changes can occur [IN THE VIRUS]—resulting in significant phenotypic [STRUCTURAL] differences—without intermediate steps in the viral evolutionary pathway, a process known as ‘saltational’ [LEAP-FROGGING OR QUANTUM] evolution. Yet, when it comes to taking these principles into account in the formulation of policy recommendations for managing SC-2 in highly C-19–vaccinated populations, heads that once nodded in agreement suddenly begin to shake in denial! Large-scale antiviral treatment [IVERMECTIN, HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, ETC]—a strategy proven effective even against HIV—is not even considered, because its implementation would threaten the most profitable strongholds of the Vaccine Industry!
This level of reckless, willful blindness is unprecedented—a direct, arrogant assault on science itself. And tragically, it is one that will come with enormous public health consequences [MANY WILL GET VERY SICK, MANY WILL DIE…MOST WHO WILL DIE, ACCORDING TO GEERT, WILL BE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN VACCINATED, BECAUSE ONE EFFECT OF VACCINATION IS THAT THE INNATE IMMUNE SYSTEM IS WEAKENED, MAKING ANY RESPONSE TO NEW VARIANTS OF THE VIRUS WEAKER].
Liberal/progressive alternative media also is critical of vaccines. I think the operative word is “alternative”. Jimmy Dore Show is an example.
My friend Kay was a big provaxer. She’s dead. She’d been obese her whole life, died at 70, so it’s hard to say what role the jabs played. But she was a wonderful person. But I know NO ONE around her, in her circle, except myself, would dare consider that the shots were even partially to blame.
My mother in law, 80, has never taken great care of herself. But she got 4 covid shots, just got a major blood clot in the artery going to her kidney, which I’ve never heard of before, in people of any age, ever. This gave her fluid on the lungs…But you know what they do whenever you get fluid on the lungs? They call that “heart failure”, even if there’s no evidence of heart dysfunction apart from the fluid. So they scare you with that. Keeping you scared is important, I guess. I asked the kidney doctor if it could have just been the kidneys caused the issue, he said, “it’s possible”. How about probable, unless some heart test says otherwise (her heart output–quantity of blood pumped–WAS tested and was normal)?
So, here’s the thing. That shot seems designed to take you out without its being too obvious that it had something to do with your demise. All the other health factors a person has may obscure this. It can take weeks after a jab for a crisis to occur, or months. If you die after the first covid shot, they still call you “unvaccinated” for two weeks after, because most crises occur within two weeks after a shot, and that would look bad if you became disabled while officially considered “vaccinated”. The mRNA shot can affect almost any bodily system–whatever cells turn into spike protein factories will be self-attacked by the immune system, and that can be in any organ of the body.
Plus the vaxxx industry has a loooooong history of hiding harms and hyperexaggerating benefits, a social gaslighting campaign that started even at the very beginning of vaccine development. And the society at large has just as loooooong a history of swallowing every steaming pile with a grin and a “bless you, vaccines, for saving us from all the diseases!”.
I don’t know if anyone on this thread has recommended “A Midwestern Doctor” and their substack, but here’s a typical article talking about the looooong history of association between jabs in infancy and SIDS.It’s full of takedowns of pharma phuckery, as are all their articles (I don’t know if the doc is male or female). I recommend this author highly.
The thing with SIDS is, it’s prevalent at exactly the ages that most infants get stuck with a bunch of vaccines–2, 4 and 6 months of age. But somehow, few people, doctors included (or least of all), make the connection. It’s mindblowing. During covid, infant vaccination rates dropped–so did SIDS. Japan stops giving babies vaccinations until 2 years of age–SIDS levels go down 85%. But the ghouls still want to stab our babies until they’re disabled or dead. Thanks God breastfeeding, at least, is protective against vaccine injury
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-century-of-evidence-that-vaccinesThe doc also writes articles about effective treatments of various ailments which do not simply recommend the last latest most lucrative pharma product. Interesting stuff about DMSO, which is something I’d like to try.
Also, look at Dr. Suzanne Humphreys’ stuff, on X at @DrSuzanneH7 ; her videos are on Odysee at odysee.com/@drsuzanneh:f She was on Rogan’s podcast, too. Also on Substack, Bad Cattitude writes about covid/vaxxx issues. “Unacceptable Jessica” is a biostatistician who focuses a lot on VAERS data (or the lack thereof).
All I know is, I myself am never getting another ‘vaccination’. I had been in the habit of getting tetanus shots regularly, because I read about tetanus and that sounded extremely scary, like something there’s no coming back from. And I work in the dirt. But tetanus itself is so rare, and my work always has my hands in the dirt, which means I build up an immunity. And the last tetanus shot they gave me, they tell me it’s actually 3 shots in one: tetanus, whooping cough, and something else. They say my insurance won’t pay for the tetanus shot alone, it has to be the 3-in-1. So, I get it. Now, brachial neuritis is the primary side-effect of tetanus shots, and the nerves in my arms are on fire now, makes it hard to work. I drop things a lot. It’s hard to control a power saw, or heavy tools. I’m strong enough, but there’s pain..Again, I can’t be sure it was the shots, but…sure as fuck could be. So, I’m done. No more jabs. Now I have to get my arms back, somehow.
I suppose it depends on what era you use as your touchstone. Mine centers on the 70s, when I was growing up. The parties have morphed and united and separated in various ways at various times. Of course, the Dixiecrats were quite conservative, as was the Chicago machine, in the final analysis. At certain times in history the Dem-Repub split seems like little more than turf wars rather than an ideological phenomenon.
But I’ll stand my assertion that corporatism is really what fuels both parties. Their apparent ideological differences, though they may be sincerely held and believed by their proponents, and one or the other may actually be the more useful in a given context, serve as a distraction from the reality that money talks. Both parties feature a core element of globalist donors, although these days those you will find speaking out against globalism are not Democrats, hardly at all, but America-first conservatives plus independents. Still, ‘Citizens’ United, plus lobbyists have ensured that money trumps democracy on both sides of the aisle.
I’m not sure what percentage of the Republican party are non-globalists; surely the percentages will be different depending on whether you are talking about the politicians and their main donors, the bureaucrats or the voter base.
If you take the terms very literally, leftists should be for change reflecting bottom-up goals and methods, decentralization, etc. Conservatives, as the name suggests, should be status quo-ists, and perhaps more authoritarian. However, those on the so-called left and right have developed a polarized list of main concerns (pro-life versus pro-choice, and so on) that don’t necessarily line up with the literal meanings of “liberal” versus “conservative”.
Traditional Conservatives tend to espouse values from a time period spanning from the American Revolution to the 1950s, roughly speaking–“family values” and so forth. But mainstream Republicans tend to defend monopoly, crony capitalism, even in its current form, which is far from how it manifested in 1776–much more centralized, now, with individual capitalistic entities relatively much, much more powerful than back in the day. Conservatives tend to be negative on unions and regulation, and environmental protection.
A certain subset of Republicans are all for small businesses and America first (non-interventionism), which is where they overlap with the far left. In my perception, such Republicans tend to be libertarians. I do get the feeling that many, if not most, Republicans would be quite comfortable lending any public undertaking a religious flavor (eg, teaching religion in the schools)….Correct me if I’m wrong, Republicans.
Modern-day liberals are, in comparison, poorly rooted. They go for what’s “new”. They do have a tradition of sticking up for the little guy, being pro-union, pro-regulation, pro-Environment and anti-monopoly. They tend to defend the line between religion and state. But they have shied away from deep criticism of the economic system, perhaps for fear of being labeled commununists by the right and by voters. They have participated in the corruption of regulation, thereby making it meaningless and seemingly indefensible. Therefore, they really can’t do much about the problems that traditionally concerned them–assuming they’re even focused on those same problems, still. And so the liberals’ current manifestation is bafflingly…non-liberal. Now, they glom onto new stuff like trans surgeries and DEI, which have the glow of liberal causes, even while their politicians & bureaucrats cheer on corporatist policies that hurt everyone but the über-rich. And you could say the same for many of the Republican body politic.
The problem, as I perceive it, is that both parties are warmongering, corporatist and globalist, reflecting their donor base, which means that both have been pulled away from their roots by centralized, monopolistic concerns–which muddies the waters, mightily, smearing the clear ink of both parties’ one-time identity. For example, Russia is a convenient enemy that stands in the way of even greater profits for the über-rich–as is any country that won’t surrender its resources to US corporations. This is why you see both parties agitating against Russia, and both parties approving more and more bloated military budgets.
So you can talk about what right and left used to be, but it’s considerably harder to distinguish between them, in a substantive way, nowadays. When both parties agree on globalist warmongering and support of monopolies–what might differentiate them under other circumstances instead pales in significance, IMHO. The corporatism and globalism, it seems to me, are the primary drivers of our society’s current values and agendas. Our highest value, in practice, now seems to be whatever makes people who are already obscenely rich…even more obscenely rich. Try to get a “left” or a “right” out of THAT.
Conservative conshmermative….I am a far-left radical classical liberal, and I agree with most of what has been said in this thread by “conservatives”. I think the far left (the real far left, not the corporatist-woke version) has much in common with libertarian righties, so….what is “left”? What is “right”?
I’m the ADD poster boy, and only got, like 7 vaccines. Imagine getting 72! Mumps vaccine–a failure (I got mumps). My parents–no allergies; us kids, most with allergies, sister with rhematoid arthritis, I have fibromyalgia. Of course, my mother was bulemic while all of us were babies/in utero, so…hard to say what effect that had. 2 of us are compulsive overeaters.
I saw two articles in the last 2 days about cures for autism. One claims an immunity-activating substance called GcMAF is suppressed by a substance called “nagalase” which is present in vaccines. People with infections and canceer have high nagalase, the theory goes, triggered by the cancer and the viruses themselves. But so do autistic people, and the 8 murdered holistic doctors thought it was because of vaccines. Sounds simplistic to me, but what do I know?
GcMAF, Nagalase: Why 8 Holistic Doctors Were Murdered & Others Poisoned
The other was itraconazole, an antifungal, which supposedly cures autism in 3 months, which implies that autism is a reaction to fungal overgrowth in the body.
Of course, some say it’s the heavy metals that cause autism–whether because of vaccines, or some other exposure. Last night, I was looking into a probiotic bacterium that is claimed to help remove toxic heavy metals from the body via the digestive system. People are generally deficient, to hear some tell it, in minerals that are cofactors in removing heavy metals–copper, iodine, selenium, molybdenum, etc. Maybe sulfur?
I’d like to see some indie studies done on these treatments.
Oh, and the other cure was NOT VACCINATING BABIES!!!
