Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

FallingAwake

Members
  • Posts

    1,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FallingAwake

  1. I didn't say it did. mRNA codes for proteins. I was just making the simple point that proteins often have multiple functions... and therefore, could the proteins coded for by the injected mRNA affect the body in unexpected ways? It's hard to tell, since we've only been doing this for a period of months. But anyway, it doesn't really matter. Most people seem happy to find out for themselves. That's not what I was worried about. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Anyway, you make a good point in that... what the virus does is arguably worse. In the end, the choice is between the chance of the virus damaging you, versus the chance of the vaccine damaging you. Most people have chosen the latter. Fair enough.
  2. So you don't think there's much of a distinction between eating a courgette, and injecting the mRNA for a spike protein into your body?
  3. Courgettes are also natural. Injecting an mRNA into your body to induce your cells to produce a spike protein... not so much.
  4. Do we know why yet? Since the world is injecting itself with a new technology, I'd like to think they've nailed exactly what coronavirus itself does to the body, and why.
  5. 9/11 was, first of all, a crime. The normal course of action is to find and charge the perpetrators. Of course, since it was a suicide attack, the perpetrators supposedly died. Was it an act of war? This is dubious, since Bin Laden and his cohorts were a terrorist group, although you could make a case that they had links to and/or protection from both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. But whatever the case, the Americans had the resources of the army and navy, plus the resources of the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. Are you seriously telling me there were no better options, for bringing those responsible to justice, than the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? Either way, the past 20 years make much more sense if you look at it through the lense of these things being a pretext for a war they already wanted to fight. Yes, it's a more sinister and less rose-tinted view of the world, but a lot of things make better sense in this light, i.e. why Bin Laden was only supposedly captured TEN YEARS after 9/11, and the FBI's Most Wanted poster of him was never updated to mention 9/11. To capture him would be inconvenient, if your pretext is invasion and war.
  6. What's this "If you think Iraq was better under..." argument? I personally think most countries would be better under British style parliamentary democracy. That doesn't mean we should invade them and impose this on them.
  7. I thought the answer was obvious. Endless whack-a-mole.
  8. I agree, although by "we" it's really the British government. I don't recall them asking "us" about whether "we" wanted to invade Afghanistan. Can you please quarantine your anti-Brexiteer bile to the BREXSHIT echo chamber thread? Thanks.
  9. Well yes, except mRNA is what is used to build proteins, and proteins make up pretty much everything in our body... so mRNA is altering our bodies. The problem is, many proteins turn out to have multiple functions, so when you mess with one (i.e. by knocking it out) it may have unintended consequences, because the protein is also being used by the body in another context. However, some of this is mitigated because many proteins have built-in redundancy, i.e. knock it out and another system or set of proteins can take over. It's like having an emergency backup system. My simple point is, injecting mRNA into the body is a new technology, so under normal circumstances, we would be a lot more cautious about it. Of course, I appreciate we're not living in "normal circumstances", so governments have taken a gamble in pushing the drug companies to produce a quick vaccine. I sincerely hope the gamble pays off. For now, I'm happy to be part of the control group. That's all, really.
  10. Thanks. Yes, you've got my sort pegged. I'm impressed.
  11. LIVE: Johnson sets out UK response to Afghanistan PM Boris Johnson tells MPs the UK "succeeded" in its mission to stabilise Afghanistan. On the BBC News website right now. What kind of doublespeak is this?
  12. Agreed. The other thing that gets lost in these reports, at least from the mainstream media, is... who is actually dying? I don't just mean "vaccinated" versus "unvaccinated", but what age groups, what underlying health conditions did they have, were other treatments attempted, i.e. the other FDA approved one? Unfortunately, the media prefers to report either... (1) Hospitals Crammed, The Unvaxxed Are Dying In Droves or (2) Father Of Two, 43, Dies Of Coronavirus 3 Days After Cursing Pfizer. Last Dying Words: "Take The Jab, Everybody!" Both of which have clear and obvious agendas, rather than being "news".
  13. Ooh, thanks. It's good to know they are actually tracking this stuff properly. Thanks.
  14. I probably wasn't very clear in my previous post. I guess my point was, not too long ago (whatever the exact time frame), a lot of scientists believed most of the genome was "junk DNA". This was certainly the message conveyed to the public, as per this New Scientist article... Stuff or nonsense? 31 March 2000 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622324-700-stuff-or-nonsense/ "Most experts have doggedly maintained that this non-coding DNA is little more than useless garbage that has accumulated over time. If they’re right, then the vast majority of the DNA on Earth is meaningless. A few dissenters have argued all along that this so-called “junk DNA” must fill some useful role, or evolution would have eliminated it long ago. And now, two researchers have come up with a surprising explanation for what that role might be: stuffing. The huge excesses of non-coding DNA, they say, are the molecular equivalent of rags and straw." I'm sure you'll be able to quote many research papers saying otherwise, but my point is... (a) the general public were told most of their DNA was "junk", and (b) "most experts" believed this. This article is 21 years old. Of course, our knowledge has vastly accumulated since then... but relatively speaking, we're still in the infancy stage of understanding our own genome. Another example would be the LINE1, transposable elements that "represent nearly half of mammalian genomes and are generally described as parasites, or “junk DNA.”" A LINE1-Nucleolin Partnership Regulates Early Development and ESC Identity https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286741830655X The bottom line is, LINE1 (which takes up quite a large part of our genome) is critical for embryonic development. This discovery was in 2018. Again, my point is... we're still in the infancy stage of understanding our own genome. Yet the vast majority of the world's population are now trusting drug manufacturers to inject them with a brand new mRNA technology which has never been used before in a product.
  15. On the subject of "Delta", can someone tell me how many people are dying of alpha, beta, gamma, delta etc per day? Who is keeping track of this stuff? If nobody is actually keeping track on a daily basis, how do we actually know delta is "more X" than alpha or whatever? I appreciate that variants exist, and might be initially identified, but then as far as I can tell so far, nobody actually cares very much about the statistics after that... just some overarching narrative about the strain. In short... if you were to get covid tomorrow, who records which variant you got, and where are the stats for the public?
  16. ""The prime minister stressed the importance of not losing the gains made in Afghanistan over the last 20 years..." 🤣
  17. What's more, how many people are actually given full statistics so they can weigh up the risks for themselves? For example, if someone were to get their news solely from the BBC, would they know what the chance of dying of covid is for an 18 year old is, compared with the chance of dying for a 70 year old? I'm guessing probably not.
  18. So what are you saying then? From the article: "The researchers used an analysis of the protein codes favored by the new coronavirus and compared it to the protein codes from coronaviruses found in different animal hosts, like birds, snakes, marmots, hedgehogs, manis, bats and humans. Surprisingly, they found that the protein codes in the 2019-nCoV are most similar to those used in snakes." So I don't get your point. Maybe it came from a snake. Maybe a bat. Maybe it was genetically altered in the Wuhan lab. Either way, they were looking at coronaviruses. Personally, I think the most likely source of SARS-COV-2 was the Wuhan lab if "****-up", or anywhere really if it's "conspiracy" (because they could release it anywhere they wanted)... so bat or snake is also irrelevant, but for completely different reasons to the one you're suggesting. It literally says "isolated from patients". Well, yes, the Spike protein is a component of SARS-COV-2. Yeah, well the people of the world have decided to inject themselves with lots of these Spike proteins. I'll stick with being part of the control group for now Yes. But maybe they're both a cover for a deliberate release? I think lots of people are sceptical of this viewpoint because they can't grasp a motive. Money would be a good one, but control is also a good one. How do you control lots of people? It's tricky. Yet in a single stroke, so to speak, we've gone from a population where older people just about take a flu vaccine when cajoled (and young people think, what's a flu vaccine?), to one where 90% of the population will be taking vaccines every 6 months to renew their vaxxpass, if they want to engage in any significant social or economic activity. That's a significant step up in control over the population. I sincerely hope this is just paranoid ranting I guess time will tell. Let's compare notes on the Big Picture when we reach Page 4,000 of this thread.
  19. I read the article. I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying. I don't think they're saying it came from the snake's own genome, but from a coronavirus in a snake, just as it may have also come from a coronavirus in a bat, rather than from the bat's own genome. It's like when we say "coronavirus came from bats", we don't really mean bats donated a bit of their genome. Your linked article shows the relation of coronavirus with other viruses. "The pathogen responsible for this pandemic is a new coronavirus. It’s in the same family of viruses as the well-known severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), which have killed hundreds of people in the past 17 years." What are SARS-CoV and MERS-Cov then? They're all in the same family of coronavirus. If they have the technology to make the spike protein and get the body to do all the stuff that the vaccines are supposed to do... why wouldn't the conspirators (assuming a conspiracy is involved) make a virus in the first place? I get this. These are the same scientists who 20 years were telling us that 98% of our genome was junk. Now they're injecting us with mRNA and telling us, "trust the science". But rather than make up the whole virus thing, which seems incredibly risky, why wouldn't the people behind this just engineer a virus? Do they not have the technology to do this?
  20. I have a question for you. Actually a few, but the first is kind of a preliminary question. - Putting aside the "isolation" issue, would you agree that something called "SARS-COV-2" exists as a SEQUENCE of genetic code? - If YES, could that genetic code be used to build a tiny machine that acts like a virus? - If not, what does the "SARS-COV-2" sequence of genetic code actually do? Is it just useless code, or what does it code for? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to trap you.
  21. Proof of vaccination may be sufficient for travel but it doesn't solve the underlying issue of preventing coronavirus into a country, since vaccines aren't 100% effective. This is precisely why the CDC reversed its recent decision on wearing masks, at least for Americans. Their message was basically... still wear a mask, because even if you're fully vaxxed, you can still transmit the corona. There's also a danger that "proof of vaccination" gives people false confidence, compared to the unvaccinated who KNOW they could get it. In other words, testing is still a good idea, even for the vaccinated. Just like mask wearing is still necessary for the vaxxed, according to the CDC.
  22. Yes, I will concede this. It was governments who pushed the drug companies for a vaccine and allowed it to be sold after months rather than years of testing, so it's not unreasonable governments should take the brunt of the liability. The US government has already run up $27 TRILLION in debt, so I don't think underwriting this vaccine project is a big worry to them, at least in financial terms.
  23. Wouldn't covid tests upon entry solve that problem particular problem?
  24. Why? This seems to be an unquestioned assumption. But since countries in and around Australia don't seem to be impacted by this pandemic at anywhere near the same scale as other regions, why not focus instead on personal treatments that lower the death rate? At the very least, surely this would be far more cost effective, rather than administering vaccines to 10 million people, and then the same number of boosters every 5 or 6 months.
  25. Papa New Guinea has a population size similar to New Zealand (about 9 million). It looks like cases accelerated during March, but then dropped back down again. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/papua-new-guinea/ Based on dosages administered, it looks like less than 1% of the population are vaccinated. https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/papua-new-guinea/ So it seems that these countries in the Australian region (is that Australasia?) are affected by covid, but not in a big way. ("Big" by comparison with Europe and America). In which case, is there even a need for vaccines in these places? It seems that nature is already giving them a solution. I appreciate a case could be made that vaccines would still lower death rates, but surely in places like these, with death rates so low anyway, there is a stronger case to be made that for these people there is actually a higher risk of harm from the vaccine. Surely a more effective approach would be to find treatments for people who are ill from coronavirus, rather than a mass vaccination campaign?
×
×
  • 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.