Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

A picture is worth a 1000 words:

kid-mask-1-scaled.jpg

Kids Face Masks Cause Cancer — It Even Says So on the Box​

It's my understanding that the box N95s come in say they don't stop viral transmission - anyone have a pic of that?
 
United Gnosis said:
A bit off-topic, but wanted to mention that isekai is such a common world-building trope, some anime websites don't even have it as a category, because it wouldn't help select anything - there are so many of them across all genres.

My favorite one recently is Kumo Desu Ga, Nani Ka? - So I'm a Spider, So What? and one I just started watching is How A Realist Hero Rebuilt The Kingdom. I don't want to make this a recommendation post, but it is definitely a very interesting trope for world building.
Click to expand...

Can we open a thread in trivia and movies? I find the isekai appealing because it somehow reflects what happens in our world when there are fortean events, people crossing from their dimension to ours, moving to another universe, passing to 4th density, etc.
 
Aeneas said:
In her case she had Covid in the past, so they were happy to just give one shot.
Click to expand...
On ne vaccine pas si la personne est déjà immunisée du covide, c’est logique !
Là, Ils lui ont donné une preuve que ce n’est pas un vaccin contre le covid…mais bien autre chose.

You don't vaccinate if the person is already immune to covid, that's logical!
Here, they gave him a proof that it is not a vaccine against covid...but something else.
 
What folks here think about a lot of unknown Bluetooth devices found when you turn on your Bluetooth? Tonight, when I went for a walk in my town at one moment more than a 100 were found nearby. Are those just MAC addresses or there's something more to it?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2021-08-07-22-04-28-646_com.android.settings.jpg
    Screenshot_2021-08-07-22-04-28-646_com.android.settings.jpg
    250.5 KB · Views: 26
Tomek said:
View attachment 47980
Brace yourselves, Cassiopeia variant is coming! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Annnnnd no sir! That's not a satire piece.

Right now there is serious discussion in P.R. agency board rooms as to the relative values of using, "Epsilon" as the next name, (to help train the public in the idea that taking mRNA drugs several times a year is perfectly normal), or whammie them with another round of de-stabilizing confusion by changing the naming scheme altogether to something weird and unexpected.

There are people being paid to figure this stuff out.
 
Aeneas said:
Straight after the vaccine injection she or her family applied vacuum cupping to the injection site and it drew the vaccine (or some of it) out. She did have a bit of a sore arm for 2 days, though. I thought that the idea was quite intelligent and might be something to consider along with the vaccine protocol for those who has no other alternative but to take the jab.
Click to expand...

Could anyone give me a link how such an device looks? I want one.
 
@Fallen_735

Excerpt from Catherine Austin Fitts' website:

Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring Covid-19 Injections

"This puts employers in a box. This is a form every employee who is faced with this needs to submit to the authorized officer of their company. It is 100% legally accurate, forces them to respond to your questions (already on the form for you), provide you with all requirements by the FDA, makes them review all of the ways they are breaking the law, and holds them 100% financially responsible, requiring a signature."

Solari Report Forms for COVID-19 Injections Available as Downloadable PDFs – Solari Report

home.solari.com home.solari.com

A link to the form itself:

Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring Covid-19 Injections

pandemic.solari.com pandemic.solari.com

As link mentions above, there's also a form for students.
 
Last edited:
Aeneas said:
In her case she had Covid in the past, so they were happy to just give one shot.

What I didn't mention as I was in two minds about telling it here or in another thread was that she did do something regarding the unwanted vaccine. Straight after the vaccine injection she or her family applied vacuum cupping to the injection site and it drew the vaccine (or some of it) out. She did have a bit of a sore arm for 2 days, though. I thought that the idea was quite intelligent and might be something to consider along with the vaccine protocol for those who has no other alternative but to take the jab.
Click to expand...
That's really smart!

Though...

The shot goes in very deep. An inch or more into the deltoid muscle just below your shoulder. It's not like squeezing out a zit or blackhead.

But the cup stays on for 20 minutes or so, with a strong vacuum inside the whole time; enough to draw blood up to the surface to form a dark purple bruise. Presumably it would get some of the drug out.

I think you could probably do it with something like a shot glass. Any thick glass cup which can make a seal against the skin.

-I've had a 'cupping' done before, and all it involved was holding a candle flame inside small, palm-sized bauble/cups made of glass. The flame heat expanded the air inside, and then the cup was placed immediately on the spot where, (apparently), you need a big purple bruise on your skin. As the air cools, the contracting volume creates a strong vacuum. (I'd been offered a massage therapy session and decided to take it. When asked if I'd like to try cupping, I agreed not quite hearing what was asked. By the time I'd figured it out, I felt embarrassed about changing my mind and so went through with it. It was actually quite interesting, but it looked like I'd been attacked by a giant squid for a few days after.)

Anyway.., if it comes down to it, I'd take a glass, 'cup' with me and a Bic lighter and immediately duck out of the clinic to perform the shot extraction. Seems like a good Plan B, if Plan A doesn't work out. (Plan A, of course, being to avoid being bullied by drug pushers altogether. Behind the gym, probably.)
 
This is the kind of lawsuit I want to see. Professor of law sues the school over mandatory vaccines. Emergency use authorization is one of the legal arguments.

www.aier.org

Prominent Law Professor Sues His School Over Vaccine Policy

"The significance of this case cannot be overstated with vaccine mandates and passports being considered and implemented across the country. One does not need a background in law to understand that the pandemic has sent the country into another constitutional inflection point." ~ Ethan Yang
www.aier.org www.aier.org
Prominent Law Professor Sues His School Over Vaccine Policy
Ethan Yang – August 7, 2021

Imposing a constitutionally dubious vaccine policy at a public university that not only has some of the top classical liberal law professors in the country but is also intimately connected with a global network of freedom advocates is a recipe for a lawsuit. That’s exactly what George Mason University learned recently when it imposed a school-wide vaccine mandate for students, faculty, and staff. Failure to comply subjects individuals to a list of penalties from social distancing requirements to potential disciplinary action. The plaintiff is Todd Zywicki, the George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, who has as impressive of a resume as anyone can imagine. He has held positions at numerous influential think tanks, executive positions in the federal government, and has taught at numerous respected law schools. His lawsuit is joined by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a non-profit law firm dedicated to advancing constitutional freedoms and founded by the prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger. AIER contributor Jenin Younes is also a member of their litigation team and one of the attorneys on this case.

Zywicki names the president of the school and numerous other officers as the defendants in his suit Zywicki v Washington. He alleges that as a public institution, GMU is obligated to follow the Constitution and its vaccine policy violates the 9th and 14th Amendments as well as the Supremacy Clause. Zywicki contends that his natural immunity from having recovered from a natural Covid-19 infection gives him equal if not superior protection than vaccines. His sentiments are supported by his immunologist, who informed him that receiving a vaccine would be “medically unnecessary”, as well as a joint declaration from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, prominent medical professors at Stanford and Harvard respectively. They write that,

“Multiple extensive, peer-reviewed studies comparing natural and vaccine immunity have now been published. These studies overwhelmingly conclude that natural immunity provides equivalent or greater protection against severe infection than immunity generated by mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna).”

The declaration, found in Exhibit A of the docket, also explains that the evidence to support mitigation measures such as vaccine mandates and passports is lacking.

Count 1: Violation of the Right to Refuse Unwanted and Medically Unnecessary Healthcare
The plaintiff asserts that GMU’s vaccine policy, in practice a mandate, and refusal to acknowledge the merits of natural immunity are problematic because they violate his right to refuse unnecessary healthcare. The complaint states,

“The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to privacy. A “forcible injection … into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty[.]” Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990).”

The 9th Amendment protects unenumerated rights, which are those that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment protects due process and equal protection under the law. The Covid-19 vaccine is currently deployed under the Emergency Use Authorization and citizens are therefore entitled to be informed of their right to accept or refuse. This fact, combined with the plaintiff’s already robust natural immunity and unlikeliness to infect others with a relatively mild disease, renders such a mandate a violation of privacy. Furthermore, established case law enshrines the right to bodily integrity. The suit asserts,

“Coercing employees to receive an EUA vaccine for a virus that presents a near-zero risk of illness or death to them and which they are exceedingly unlikely to pass on to others, because those employees already possess natural immunity to the virus, violates the liberty and privacy interests that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect.”

If the state wishes to implement a coercive measure, the burden of evidence is on itself to prove that its policy is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. The plaintiffs contend,

“Defendants cannot show that they have a compelling interest in coercing Professor Zywicki into taking a COVID-19 vaccine, because GMU has no compelling interest in treating employees with natural immunity any differently from employees who obtained immunity from a vaccine.”

Count 2: Violation of Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine and 14th Amendment’s Right to Due Process
The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine prohibits the government from imposing coercive incentives against exercising a constitutionally protected right. GMU’s penalties are therefore an impairment of Professor Zywicki’s right to refuse medical care. His complaint states,

“According to that body of law, GMU cannot impair Professor Zywicki’s right to refuse medical care through subtle forms of coercion any more than it could through an explicit mandate.”

Furthermore, the school’s policy is a violation of due process as it is incongruent, disproportional, and inappropriately flips the burden of evidence onto the plaintiff. In light of the robust immunity established by natural infection, the school cannot logically justify its penalties against those in the GMU community with naturally acquired immunity. The existence of such immunity fully serves the interest of the public health measures implemented by GMU.

The policy also is also deficient of proportionality, as the school indicates no intention to assess the level of antibody level of its targets. If the school believes that the prevalence of antibodies is important in advancing its public health goals, then it ought to recognize that they are acquired by both vaccination and infection. The school not only signals any intention to test for antibodies, but makes the premature conclusion that vaccination is superior, even assuming equality of effectiveness amongst all vaccines. The suit asserts,

“In short, allocating burden of proof responsibility to those with natural immunity like Professor Zywicki, coupled with GMU’s stacking the process with presumptions Plaintiff will show are scientifically unwarranted, contravene the Due Process Clause.”

The burden of proof is on the school to show that Zywicki’s naturally acquired immunity is in fact inferior to the vaccines accepted by its policy, and noncompliance poses a threat to public safety. The plaintiff alleged the school has not demonstrated this requirement.

Count 3: Violation of the Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause holds that federal law supersedes state law. GMU’s policy is Virginia state law and the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is federal law. Covid-19 vaccines are authorized by the EUA, which subjects recipients to informed consent. Because GMU’s coercive policies conflict with the letter and spirit of the EUA, it is therefore unconstitutional. According to the complaint,

“That is at odds with the Policy’s forcing Professor Zywicki to sustain significant injury to his career if he does not want to take the vaccine (in light of masking, frequent testing, social distancing, and looming disciplinary action).”

For these reasons and more, Zywicki asked the court to declare the policies unconstitutional and an injunction be issued.

Key Takeaways
The fight over the official narrative regarding Covid-19 is still alive and well. This lawsuit is only illustrative of the two camps that have developed and how insulated many core decision makers have been from one over the other. Natural immunity for example, although clearly affirmed by the supporting evidence, seems to be unacknowledged writ large. The disproportionate perceptions of the risk of Covid-19 are still rampant.

The significance of this case cannot be overstated with vaccine mandates and passports being considered and implemented across the country. One does not need a background in law to understand that the pandemic has sent the country into another constitutional inflection point. From emergency powers, to lockdowns, to eviction moratoriums, and now vaccine mandates, the precedents we set today will forever affect the ark of our system of constitutional government.
Click to expand...

Lawsuit

Zywicki v. Washington et al, Docket No. 1:21-cv-00894 (E.D. Va. Aug 03, 2021), Court Docket

www.bloomberglaw.com www.bloomberglaw.com
 
Last edited:
Christine said:
You don't vaccinate if the person is already immune to covid, that's logical!
Click to expand...
Yes, what you are saying is logical yet the opposite is what is being done. I had Covid in January, but the health authorities says that the antibodies are no longer sufficiently there after 6 months and thus one jab of vaccine is needed.. Those who receive the vaccine get a vaxpass which is valid for a year though studies show that the vaccine isn't effective very long if at all. So the approach isn't logical, but then again, not much of what they are saying is logical.
At work, from tomorrow we will also have to get vaccinated or present an antigen test no older than 48 hours when we work on the trains to France. The tests are paid for by the company. There has been a strong pressure on me and those of my colleagues who so far haven't been vaccinated to go and do it. The atmosphere is similar to what Sebastian Haffner is describing in "Defying Hitler" about the pressure to join the party.
 
It appears that Pfizer and Moderna destroyed their control group by vaccinating most of the placebo group after the initial trial phase, because "...it seemed the right thing to do". :wow:

theconservativetreehouse.com

This is Nuts, Moderna and Pfizer Intentionally Lost The Clinical Trial Control Group Testing Vaccine Efficacy and Safety - The Last Refuge

This is not just scientific madness, it appears to be very intentional and purposeful. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccine tests were conducted, as customary, with a control group; a group within the trial who were given a placebo and not the test vaccine. However, during the trial -and after the...
theconservativetreehouse.com theconservativetreehouse.com
The Moderna and Pfizer vaccine tests were conducted, as customary, with a control group; a group within the trial who were given a placebo and not the test vaccine. However, during the trial -and after the untested vaccines were given emergency use authorization- the vaccine companies conducting the trial decided to break protocol and notify the control group they were not vaccinated. Almost all the control group were then given the vaccine.

Purposefully dissolving the placebo group violates the scientific purpose to test whether the vaccine has any efficacy; any actual benefit and/or safety issues. Without a control group there is nothing to compare the vaccinated group against.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom