Quiet Guy

I doubt that's the reason Hersch is using Substack. Some of the mainstream media vectors have been enthusaistically censoring people for a while now. I'm not sure what the current situation is but at one point anybody using the word "ivermectin" or "Hydroxychloroquine" on a Youtube video would have the video taken down and/or channel striked. Inevitably, those who want to talk about "forbidden" topics are corralled to the platforms that don't censor such as Bitchute, Substack and Rumble. https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/04/26/the-mass-media-will-never-regain-the-publics-trust/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyXsAK980vU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESG14_DsUIA If Hersch's source is real, it's pretty likely the source would be in jail or worse if exposed. There's nothing new new about using unnamed sources by journalists. https://www.foxnews.com/media/anonymous-sources-atlantic-donald-trump

A while ago on the other Ukraine topic I wrote some words about America, not Russia, being the one with the incentive to blow up the pipeline. I recall my theory that the USA blew Nord Stream was well received by most here (sarcasm.) So here we are again. Russian invested about $10,000 million dollars over a decade then blew up Nord Stream to show us ... that they could, handing the USA a major stragetic victory in the process. What I'd love to know now is how many on here say it was Russia and actually believe it?

So our CCP enthusiast is still pushing the vaccines. Disturbing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbFayD_S_54

Good spot. Fortunately, Lombardo has helped me out ... Thanks.

Pmax2020, Here's a piece I posted on here a little while back: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/is-geerts-prediction-of-a-deadlier Essentialy, Chudov's idea is that covid may be killing people in ways that aren't well understood. "If so, we can ask: are we undercounting COVID deaths? Do recent covid infections and reinfections explain many “sudden deaths”? In my opinion, yes. Saying that Covid deaths are undercounted would be unpopular with many vaccine skeptics." So there's a non-vaccine theory for you.

Great post. HPC's base rates graph should be mandatory viewing for anybody buying now. https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-base-rate-uk/ Does anybody have sources for future base rate predictions?

There isn't really anything new in this piece but it's still worth saying. Unwilling to admit that he, EcoHealth Alliance, and their Chinese collaborators, are suspects in one of the largest crimes against humanity, Fauci instead opted to conspire with his boss, Francis Collins, to declare “lab leak” a “destructive conspiracy” that must be “put down.” Sadly, it’s clear that from the beginning, these two distinguished scientists made up their minds about virus origin without evidence from both sides of the debate. Even worse, renowned scientists that rely on Fauci for their research funding, fearful of sanctions being placed on their life’s work, rallied around the “anti-lab leak” stance. One of the premier scientific journals, Science, whose political bias has become very apparent, attempted to provide legitimacy to Fauci’s position by publishing a paper by authors that claimed “dispositive evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from an animal at the Wuhan market. This paper allegedly “crushed” the lab-leak hypothesis, despite leaving much room for debate. https://brownstone.org/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-lab-leak/

It's fair to suggest there's plenty about viral infections we don't understand. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349026/ Thanks for the link to that influenza data site. Sorry, I'm not really sure what point you're making here. What is a PCR test? PCR means polymerase chain reaction. It’s a test to detect genetic material from a specific organism, such as a virus. The test detects the presence of a virus if you have the virus at the time of the test. The test could also detect fragments of the virus even after you are no longer infected. ( https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing ) And yes, there was some ****ery with excessive test cycle thresholds. Well is anything better than the "shiny new indirect evidence" available? I think I've said in the past that virology is a model used to describe things. It may not be perfect but it's all we've got as far as I know. Who proudly announced "cooperation with China over the vaccine in 2020" ? https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1729287/covid-19-infection-china-cover-up-conspiracy-USA-wuhan-laboratory-man-made-virus-weapon

There are databases of genomic sequencing for the sars-cov-2 virus, amongst many other things. The scientists performing this genomic sequencing have aggregated this data into a format where relationships (mutations) are catalogued. Anybody interested can have a look at (say) this database of sequences: https://nextstrain.org/ncov/open/global/6m?d=tree,entropy,frequencies&p=full You can click on the dots that represent each submitted data sample and get the genome if you wish. Here's the original Wuhan strain mentioned in the 60 minute clip: (Yeah, we can design avaccine in a few hours ... bonkers) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947 So the people submitting this data presumably did not phyically isolate viruses but think they've found some evidence of a physical specification (RNA) and their data seems to have a hierarchy. Are they doing something you disapprove of?

Now, more than two years later, two of the people involved with this, Professor Colin Butler from Australia and Delia Randolph from the University of Greenwich, London, have spoken out that it is clear now that all the evidence DOES support a lab leak and that there has been a suppression of the truth. There has been secrecy and cover-up of this issue on a truly Orwellian scale. First of all, why did it take them so long and why was the whole of the establishment, most mainstream media, and senior scientists, including those at the Royal Society, so prepared to ignore the evidence and go along with a narrative which looked weaker and weaker the more time rolled on? It became obvious that there was a complete lack of evidence to support this virus coming from a natural source. Indeed, all the evidence showed that this virus, unlike SARS and MERS, was so supremely adapted to infecting human cells that it did not need several months to adapt to infecting humans and causing disease, it had done so immediately. https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1729287/covid-19-infection-china-cover-up-conspiracy-USA-wuhan-laboratory-man-made-virus-weapon

A speculative interpretation of the excess deaths: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/is-geerts-prediction-of-a-deadlier

I've just been reading this, which I thought was pretty balanced: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/27/deaths-running-26-above-pre-pandemic-levels-and-the-vaccines-remain-a-leading-suspect/ Don't let the title put you off. "The Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) has noted this week that high-level mortality data like these do not contain an “obvious smoking gun” pointing to vaccines causing high numbers of deaths specifically during the vaccination campaigns. Rather, the excess deaths are broadly spread throughout the year. The appearance is of something generally raising the likelihood of death, or equivalently, reducing life expectancy." "What we really need, of course, are more and better data – split by vaccination status, age, health conditions, prior infection status and so on. Even better, we need well-designed, prospective controlled studies that look into these things properly. The fact that, after more than two years, we still have none of these things should give even the most ardent defenders of the vaccines pause for thought. If the data were favourable to the vaccines, would they not have been made available with great fanfare long ago?"

OK. Perhaps these are more credible to you? In the "An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic Interim Report" from the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions: "Based on the analysis of the publicly available information, it appears reasonable to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic was, more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident. New information, made publicly available and independently verifiable, could change this assessment. However, the hypothesis of a natural zoonotic origin no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt, or the presumption of accuracy ..." https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf Some other sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448488/ https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/an-interview-with-richard-ebright-anthony-fauci-francis-collins-systematically-thwarted/

A problem for those who chose not to get vaccinated ( sarcasm. )

My ignorance / indifference dosen't excuse your mistake. Why not admit it was in poor taste and move on?

I had a look. I won't say he's wrong. The Ukrainians are up against it but there have been some surprises for the Russians so far.

If anybody makes a serious case that Russia is winning I'll listen but that comment was awful. A laughing emoji about dead and wounded? Take a look at yourself.

The posting was in response to an assertion: "the vaccines went through exactly the same trials process as any other medical product." I disagreed. Apparently, that's dumb according to you. Question: do you think the sars-cov-2 vaccine testing was adequate for global deployment?

So you think it's dumb to question the vaccine safety. I presume you are content to keep taking boosters. It's one of the places we're still allowed to ask questions. It's unfortunate you don't like that.

The infographic described normal practice for vaccine development in 2015. Your "relatively dumb assertion" is a straw man you just constructed. Nobody said that. The point is that vaccines were tested very carfeully before sars-cov-2 and now we just seem to tick the box for anything. https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/fda-approves-bivalent-vaccine-for

MHRA Customer Services: "All the Covid vaccines and therapeutics authorisation decisions were taken by the Licensing Minister and were not delegated. The MHRA does not hold a document describing the flow of delegation from the Secretary of State to posts/people in MHRA who can authorise medicines for public use." Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in December 2020: "This is fantastic news. The MHRA, the fiercely independent regulator, has clinically authorised the vaccine for rollout. The NHS stands ready to make that happen." It's almost as if neither wants to accept the honour of having authorised the sar-cov-2 vaccines. How strange 🙄 https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/is-the-uk-health-regulator-disavowing

Well at leaat you're actually saying something now. I don't have the same trust you do in the vaccine development - "Warp Speed". I'm hoping we will find out more in the future.

Form the description: This video was produced in collaboration with the SF Department of Public Health and Bridge HIV. It's quite common to use infograpohics for illustrating concepts in videos. Why this would merit a 😂 is ??? It's almost as if you have nothing to contribute so attacked the format instead ...

Where are these contributors named? I did try Googling for www.covidfaq.co contributors and got nowhere. Maybe you can tell me what I missed since it's not hard? (and as Arpeggio pointed out, that link is a bit old) https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/how-can-vaccines-cause-damage "There is a large amount of evidence showing that the DPT vaccines in use up to the end of the 20th C., and still in use in some places, was thecause of brain damage in some children. As early as 1948, Randolph Byers and Frederick Moll, of Harvard Medical School and the Federal Drug Administration, carried out tests on DPT vaccines at Children's Hospital in Boston and concluded that severe neurological problems could follow the administration of DPT vaccines. The results of the tests were published in Pediatrics." In a way, I sort of agree with you - it sounds plausibe that most problems are probably discovered earlier rather than later but what if the testers are deliberately not looking? https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/outright-lying-australian-scientist-hits-out-at-tga-after-lifechanging-covid-vaccine-injury/news-story/c57a554e4f7b6750e8ae6ff2db6c9514 You seem to be implying that for every syptomatic case of covid, there are approximately 19 other non-symptomatic cases? That would have brought us close to 100% infection rates at some point!! https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/latest Or do you define mild infections as not really covid at all? (just redefine away the problem ...) Fail. I would very much like a good, honest risk vs reward discussion but I don't think it's happening (plus a similar discussion sbout the origins of sars-cov-2 but that's drifting the topic.) In an honest discussion, there could be a case for vaccinating some people based upon age and comorbidities but currently, our authorities just seem to be pushing the jab no matter what damage it may do.

This is a campaign site with no information about the expertise or experience of the authors yet you've complained about about the credibility of other people's sources. A couple of the more outrageous bits from the article you referenced: "Firstly, different phases of the trials have been run in parallel instead of sequentially, which would take far longer." You cannor identify long term risks this way. Long term risk assessment requires long term testing. "The trial reported that the vaccine can prevent 95% of COVID-19 cases. This means that in a group of 20 people who are vaccinated, if all are exposed to the coronavirus, 19 people will be prevented from getting COVID-19." Seriously? "Getting the vaccine is safer than getting Covid. After all our extensive, gold-standard testing, the major side effects of the vaccine have been found to be rare-to-nonexistent." I Hope Arpeggio will forgive me for nicking his diagram: