Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

FallingAwake

Members
  • Posts

    828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FallingAwake

  1. Covid: Italy to require all workers to show 'green pass' certificate https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58590187 - Italy is to make it compulsory for all workers to have a Covid "green pass" - proof of vaccination, a negative test or recovery from the virus. - On Thursday, the Italian government approved a new law to extend the requirements to all workplaces and employees across all sectors, including the self-employed. Wow, so from health pass right into "mark of the beast" territory (if you can't work, you can't buy), without even passing "Go!" or collecting €1,500 (the fine if you're caught working.) But it's all just about a virus, right? 🙄
  2. It turns out the two people I mentioned, Marion Gruber and Phillip Kause, aren't leaving the FDA until October and November, and are currently its top two officials in charge of vaccine safety! The Meaning Of The Recent FDA Resignations https://www.zerohedge.com/political/meaning-recent-fda-resignations Gruber and Kause are co-authors of the letter in The Lancet suggesting booster shots aren't necessary at this stage, which conflicts with Biden's policy. Interesting...
  3. As you know, I'm pretty sceptical of covid vaccines, but to be fair to Zuckerberg, he said that in July 2020, when no vaccine had been approved yet. I think there were (and maybe still are) vaccines being tested that do alter DNA by getting the virus into the DNA sequence, but they haven't yet been approved... so the reporter is conflating something Zuckerberg said in 2020 about hypothetical vaccines, with the reality the reporter was experiencing (in 2021) once certain vaccines were approved. That said, it's good to see Zuckerberg expressing caution about RNA modification as well, which is still true a year later. We still don't know about the long-term effects of this.
  4. "The White House has said it plans to start giving COVID-19 booster doses during the week of Sept. 20, pending regulatory nods. After the White House unveiled its booster plan last month, critics questioned the scientific evidence supporting the plan, and some said it's not ethical to give third doses to Americans while many people around the world have yet to get one dose. The World Health Organization called for a booster moratorium until the end of the year, but several countries are ignoring that plea. Amid the debate, two FDA vaccine leaders—Marion Gruber, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and review director, and Deputy Director Phillip Krause, M.D.—said they'd be leaving the agency this fall. They didn't indicate a reason for leaving, but in a paper published in The Lancet this week, Gruber, Krause and others said it's too soon to start giving boosters to the general public. Current data supporting boosters are "preliminary and difficult to interpret," the authors wrote. Instead, those vaccines could provide more benefit in other countries." https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/as-pfizer-moderna-and-j-j-pursue-booster-nods-fda-staffers-say-covid-19-vaccines-are-working Here's the paper to which Gruber and Krause (who resigned from the FDA) contributed: Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext I guess now these two are gone, the FDA is going to go full jabs ahead, chaps! The data isn't "preliminary and difficult to interpret" when you have arms to jab.
  5. Shh, there are no victims. Except for the well-loved BBC journalist.
  6. Yes, this vaccine business is starting to look like an obsession now. (Although it looked like that, from my point of view, several months ago.) And to all those who say, "we vaccinate kids all the time", yes we do... but this mRNA technology (which is what Pfizer's is) has only been used in a pharmaceutical product for a matter of months. No other drug or vaccine was ever based on it before. So maybe we can afford to wait a few years, and gather more data first? If the JCVI politely turned down giving the nod to the 12+ age category, I can imagine their reports getting a little more, uhh, strongly worded in future. But not to worry, Chris Whitty will quite like the plan, so full jabs ahead eh!
  7. Don't forget, technically it's still Summer. Who wants to be thinking about lockdowns in the Summer? "Summer 2021 in Northern Hemisphere began on Monday 21 June and ends on Wednesday 22 September All dates are in United Kingdom Time." Source: Google.co.uk
  8. 10.8% of those 16 or over, as of 14th September. It's fascinating to see whether the second jab will reach the same level. There's 18.7% who haven't had a 2nd jab (which obviously includes the 10.8% who haven't had their first.) https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
  9. ‘I Just Want My Life Back’ Says 16-Year-Old Who Developed Neurological Symptoms After Pfizer Vaccine https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sarah-green-16-year-old-neurological-symptoms-pfizer-vaccine/ There's a lot more to this story than just "girl gets jab, girl gets symptoms", if you bother to read it. - She was 16. She was told her employer was going to mandate it, and Krispy Kreme were giving out free donuts to take the shot. (The Pfied Pfiper of Hamlin?) - It seems the entire medical establishment didn't want to connect her condition to the vaccine in any way. (WTF? And many on this forum have faith that they're going to be able to detect any long term symptoms?) - The family reported the symptoms to Pfizer. When they called back, Pfizer had lost the report. I'm sorry, but if you vaccine worshippers think ANY of this is acceptable, you're sick. Sorry, as you can tell, this gets me "a little angry". Not so much the vaccine itself or the girl's choice, but the way the Medical Establishment have dealt with her. All of this is coming to the UK shortly...
  10. Sadly we can't ask Kary Mullis about this because he died in August 2019, a few months before Event 201, the pandemic exercise in October 2019 to illustrate "areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic", which was a few months before an actual worldwide pandemic, which nobody could have foreseen coming, except Fauci, who said in 2016 there was definitely going to be one during Trump's administration, and who was definitely or definitely not financing research into gain-of-function for coronaviruses, to make them more infectious, for "science".
  11. Good article, and an example of the ridiculous hyperbole around these things. “All the measures we adopted against Covid around the world drove flu to very low levels and basically nobody got infected with flu last year and so immunity has dropped a little ... I think we do need to be prepared for a potentially quite significant flu epidemic later this year,” he told the BBC’s “Today” show in late June." That's our Neil Ferguson speaking Nobody got the flu, so now winter is going to be catastrophic... 🙄 ... unless you also happen to sell flu vaccines.
  12. I think they're mimicking a news headline link. Would be interesting if the media actually reported like this. "Stop Press: Even Though A Plane Fell From The Sky Today, Good News Is: Most Didn't." Same with the unvaccinated. Most haven't died yet
  13. Might as well close down the adverse affects reporting then, and wipe off the millions of adverse events reported, and the tens of thousands of people who died shortly after taking a vaccine. Their deaths and averse reactions are all just coincidence, right? For someone who berates Arpeggio regularly, you sure sound incredibly anti-science. Anyway, the point is, there's a lot of politics here mixed in with science. Here's a few examples... - Person dies within 28 days of a positive covid test. Media assumes "covid death". - Person dies within 28 days of a vaccine. Coincidence. In other words, there's a bias towards reporting deaths in some way linked to covid, and against deaths related to the vaccine. Even other mainstream media have reported vaccine related deaths. How many have the BBC reported? As far as I know... ONE. And that's only because she was a BBC broadcaster 🤣 - Hospitals being paid for reporting a death as covid. (This is the case in the US, not sure about the UK situation). So hospitals (at least in the US) are incentivised to report a death as covid related. But I guess since those who run them are pure as the driven snow, they would never dream of getting free cash, right? - The sudden disappearance of flu hospitalisation, just as the covid pandemic shows lots of hospitalisation. (This is true both in the US and UK.) If Arpeggio is right about the PCR tests, watch the flu magically return (at least to the US) around Christmas and the New Year.
  14. Anyway, what happened to flu hospitalisations? It's literally been around ZERO since Week 40 of 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016276/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w36.pdf - Sceptics like @Arpeggiowould probably argue it's the PCR tests, and flu has been flagged up as covid (until the old PCR tests are abolished or phased out at the end of December). - I very much doubt it's just masks and lockdowns, otherwise wouldn't covid have been similarly defeated? (Or maybe flu just has a low transmission rate? Anyone know?) - I doubt it's a flu vaccine either, since they don't have great success rates. - If flu has been defeated (at least in terms of hospitalisations), why on earth do governments "fear" a winter flu epidemic, when it's literally been crushed? What are they basing this on? Something seems suspicious here. Why isn't anyone being hospitalised with the flu since the covid epidemic took off?
  15. Ah yes, the ones who your stats show are dying off anyway, to prove how successful the vaccines are?
  16. Good catch @Arpeggio https://imgur.com/a/3aZYgEZ So in terms of non-covid deaths, there were 65,170 in the unvaccinated, and 149,531 in those who received at least one dose. So if you don't want to die a "non-COVID-19 death", sounds like being unvaccinated is much safer! The more I think about this, the more shocking these statistics are, given that most of the people during this period were unvaccinated! I think the ONS have unwittingly opened up a can of worms with this data...
  17. Well maybe, but I'm playing to @zugzwang's view that these things are well-intentioned. Governments tend to impose draconian measures on people with good intentions and for their own good. If there's a mark of the beast, it won't be marketed as this, since they don't see themselves as beastlike. Instead, it'll be BestMark (tm)... the convenience of all your financial and government service needs, combined with easy access to all the fun stuff you like to do, like concerts and grocery shopping, all in one handy app in the phone you already hold in your right hand. You can even use it to easily identify yourself to your local licensed enforcement agent. Confirm your validity with just a simple wave of the hand! All just a few digits away. Because you're worth it. To us, you're not just a number. Then maybe it'll be... New: Tired of carrying around your phone? Now you can also print out your QR mark onto your hand, for even easier access to whatever you need! BestMark 2 (tm): Trust Us To Take Care Of Your Soul, So You Don't Have To (tm).
  18. For me, it's kind of ridiculous to think that any one human being knows the whole story. I mean, we live in a world run in part by intelligence agencies, who by their very nature do things in secret. If what they do slips out, it's by leaks and whistle-blowers, not by these agencies declaring "Yeah, we took out President X" on the six o'clock news. So @Staffsknotmay have a lot of "boots-on-the-ground" and/or "inside" knowledge, and I respect him for that (having to go places I would never dream of going), but at the same time it's also ridiculous to think he knows what the CIA, MI5, MI6, Mossad, MFI etc have planned. At the same time, the story of what they do or don't do can't be integrated into the "official narrative" until much, much later, if ever. This is why I know that neither the official narrative, nor the many conspiracy ones, can possibly be "the full picture" - unless you assume the CIA, MI5 etc never do anything (which is just as ridiculous as saying they're behind everything). Clearly they do "some stuff"... it's just we don't really know what
  19. I don't either, but combine it with a vaccine passport excluding you from basic economic activity unless you're regularly topped up with Pfizer, and it's a different form of addiction. We're not there yet, but we're seeing hints of this in places like Israel (where their vaccine passports will soon only be valid if they've had a 3rd shot) and Lithuania (where you're barred from health services except emergency treatment without one). There is a lot of potential for abuse in this system, which is why I'm keenly watching these vaccine passport developments. These things are always well-intentioned and temporary, until maybe they're not.
  20. Yeah, I think I was typing up my reply and so didn't see that you'd also answered. I accept that the unvaccinated are dying a lot more, relatively speaking, which is part of the "deal" (rightly or wrongly) with remaining unvaccinated. Coronavirus is still going to reap a certain fraction of those who don't have natural or vaccinated immunity, and especially those with other underlying health conditions. I suspect that part of the "sensationalist" message is really for the American audience, where vaccination rates are much lower. America has always been interesting, in that a lot of people are very independent minded, and have a "don't tread on me" attitude (Montana state motto?). I don't have hard figures, but I also suspect a much higher level of distrust in government. So when Joe Biden mandates the vaccine, it has a much stronger polarising effect. And not just in a Republican / Democrat sense, but in a deeper "don't trust the government" sense, which manifests partly but not entirely down R/D lines. Then again, I don't think a softer, more persuasive approach would particularly work for Americans either, because of the inherent distrust. If I'm honest, I actually think we're witnessing the gradual break-up of America, but that's a very different topic altogether 😮
  21. I think this is because (for some reason) they've only started reporting the "per 100,000" figures, which is a better way of seeing how effective vaccines are, relative to the population, rather than just raw numbers of people dying. It's their basis for claims like "you're x times more clearly to y", and I agree, the "per 100,000" are useful and important pieces of data to have. It should also indicate when vaccines become less effective. Based on the latest set of data, it seems like it's wearing off particularly for the older groups, who had jabs earlier.
  22. Question: How do they factor in vaccination rates? Case in point: according to the government dashboard, on February 1st only 17.7% of people 16 and over had had Jab 1, and just 0.9% were on Jab 2. By March 1st that had risen to 37.7% and 1.6%. By April 1st these figures were 57.6% and 9.1%. By May 1st, these were 63.5% and 28.2%. (Source: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations ) Almost by definition, then, the vast majority of people who would die in February were unvaccinated. Only 0.9% were even "fully vaccinated", if by this you mean x2 jabs. The same would be true of March and April, during which no more than 28.2% (by May 1st) were "fully vaccinated". In other words, unless you can explain otherwise, the deaths are naturally going to be heavily skewed, because the majority of people weren't "fully vaccinated" until 4th June, when the number of people (aged 16 or over) receiving a 2nd dose hit 50%. Conveniently, the report you cite goes up to July In short: dubious use of statistics, when the majority of people, by definition, weren't "fully vaccinated" anyway during the reporting period. I'll accept that, if the stats were properly weighted, it would show an advantage (in terms of death) to being fully vaccinated, but I don't think the figures are quite saying what you think they're saying. In fact, this should be a case study in how statistics can be used to make a misleading argument. Now we should look at the stats from July onwards, when the majority of people were actually "fully vaccinated", and see if they say the same thing.....
  23. They just prepared incredibly well for it. Event 201 being a good example. "The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences." https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/ We have to thank these people for their incredible foresight and timing. Of course it's the primary motivator. There are always good intentions. We'll see whether further good intentions are added on later, amounting in real terms to ever more restrictions and freedoms based on your level of compliance. Well, yes, it's arguably a "human right" if you simultaneously deny these humans access to services unless they have a legal identity. But it's a political choice to deny people a service in the first place unless they have a legal identity. This is also the case with vaccine passports. It's power is in its ability to deny you access to certain things unless you (a) have one, and (b) have it updated to the criteria you are told, i.e. two jabs, three jabs, four jabs etc. Will you be using this "human right" argument when people are denied access to basic services because they choose not to have, say, a third jab? (This is already the case in some countries. Read the account I posted earlier of the person living in Lithuania, denied access to basic healthcare because of strict vaccine passport requirements.) My guess is no. You're "zero covid", so you'll side with whoever can promise you the hardest boot stomping on the human face.
  24. It really depends who our "masters" are. If we lived purely in a world of political democracy, our masters would be the politicians we elected. However, we live in a world of competing "stakeholders" as the World Economic Forum term it, including corporate interests and the rich. These are the people and entities that actually have the money and power to shape your future. For example, they have determined that thou shalt have a digital ID, for your own benefit of course. The Need for Good Digital ID is Universal The ability to prove who you are is a fundamental and universal human right. Because we live in a digital era, we need a trusted and reliable way to do that both in the physical world and online. https://id2020.org/digital-identity Yes, it is your human right that you have this digital ID. Furthermore, a few more fun facts from the same page: - "A unique convergence of trends provides an unprecedented opportunity to make a coordinated, concerted push to provide digital ID to everyone." One of these "trends" was the worldwide coronavirus pandemic, which led to governments of the world introducing vaccine passports, a form of digital ID which has the opportunity to be extended to other areas of life. - "In September 2015, all United Nations member states adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, including their commitment to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration” by 2030." This is not a conspiracy theory. This is their plan out in the open, backed by some of the richest and most powerful entities in the world. In my opinion, there is no way these entitities will be able to resist tying this digital identity stuff into your ability to buy and sell. It's too much of an opportunity for further power, control and money. Vaccine passports have already set the direction of travel in this regard, and the pandemic probably has a few more tricks up its sleeve before it goes away.
  25. Yes, I just checked. "Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 97.7% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 18.1% that have antibodies from infection alone. Over 95% of adults aged 17 or older have antibodies from either infection or vaccination." (p3) Still, that's pretty good.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.