The Most Important News About Covid-19 !!!

[Pudgy]

34 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Can I count on you to also include your posts? They should be, without hesitation, be ignored. However, if this is your only source of income, then abide by the probation department guidelines, or is it, parole department.

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

One thing I have noted about Dmitar's posts that is universally true.

They can without exception be safely ignored.

... and very possibly SHOULD be.

BY being irrelevant, and WRONG, you have proved that your posts CAN be safely ignored.

100% of the time.

[Pudgy]

42 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

However, if this is your only source of income, .....

What does that even mean?

[Dmitar]

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. The point is that Gupta represents the mainstream. Thus, Rogan has spoken to doctors on both sides of the issue.

Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. 

[Pudgy]

Thank YOU, Dmitar, for confirmation ... to the extent that you don't even have any explanation for your own nonsensical comments, that somehow being here generates revenue.

From the 1978 Superman Movie:

122	INT. LUTHOR' S LAIR - NIGHT    (DAY)

CAMERA CLOSE on a TV monitor screen. OFFICER #2 
is seen on it, crossing the track. A disapproving,
clucking sound is heard. A hand comes into frame holding
 a remote control device. A button on it is pushed.
The TV image changes:  We now see OTIS walking 
nonchalantly down a narrow underground passageway lined
 with enormous steam pipes, still holding on to his
 newspaper.

LUTHOR'S VOICE (Offscreen)
It's a miracle that brain can generate enough power 
to keep his legs moving....

 

[TrueTomHarley]

21 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Thank YOU, Dmitar, for confirmation ... to the extent that you don't even have any explanation for your own nonsensical comments, that somehow being here generates revenue.

I just hit the $7000 marker. Are you not yet plugged in?

[Pudgy]

Shocking!

[Anna]

On 1/2/2022 at 8:18 AM, JW Insider said:

It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based.

Here is an article, which isn’t bad overall, and includes some useful references, but unfortunately uses some loaded language which in my mind unnecessarily detracts from the facts it’s trying to present. Without the ad hominem attacks on Dr. Malone it would have been much better. The impression it created of Dr. Malone is that he is this disgruntled underappreciated scientist kicking and screaming in desperation to draw attention to himself instead of really answering the question it (the article) poses : “Robert Malone claims to have invented mRNA technology. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?”

It is a very pertinent question and surely there must be a deeper answer than merely being an attention seeking ploy...

There is only a short mention that "His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions" .

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

instead of really answering the question it (the article) poses : “Robert Malone claims to have invented mRNA technology. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?”

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin)

Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?"

Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said:

The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/

I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article.

But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account.

And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. 

At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

Yes, that's why I thought it wasn't a bad article overall, but as you pointed out "but the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt". That's if the reader isn't really paying attention to the author's agenda. This is one those types of articles that I think are useful if you can separate the bias from the facts it presents. I liked that it admits that Malone did have a hand in inventing the mRNA and supports this with the reference to Rein Verbeke's seminal work in the field of gene transfer in his article a 2019 history of mRNA-vaccine development. It is then up to the reader to decide whether it was fair for other articles to say in broad statements that hundreds of scientists had a hand in this. Which is true of course, but someone had to pioneer this and it was evidently Dr. Malone and his team back in 1989. This was the one area I was trying to find some facts about and this article helped in that. It drives me nuts when I see obvious bias of someone trying to discredit someone else with these kind of broad statements and it's great when you can go back in time and read facts that were written years before the issue was raised. Which makes me think that there is so much more out there and hopefully eventually the truth will be evident. He (Dr. Malone) did mention towards the end (around the 2hr 50 mark) that these are unprecedented crazy times in many respects. This does give further support to the Bible's end times. And by the way the video has been taken down on YouTube. Grrrr...I had wanted to download it before this happened.

Edit: I found it on spotify, yay!

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, Anna said:

And by the way the video has been taken down on YouTube.

There are at least a dozen good YouTube downloading programs, and most are free. I have a couple of them, one free, and one I paid $7.99 for a couple of years ago. I'm not trying to promote any specific one for a couple of reasons.

1. YouTube puts in its terms of service that you aren't supposed to download their videos except those you own. This is mostly to keep competitors from starting their own service by stealing a lot of videos or breaking copyright rules against video owners. (Funny, because Google bought YouTube BECAUSE it was still gaining most of its popularity from copyright infringement, and they used internal algorithms to promote all the infringement they could get away with -- except where corporations forced exceptions, or monetization for Google was possible.)

2. A product I use might not be as good (or safe) as ones that are available now, and anyway I don't really trust software that tests perfectly clean from viruses and adware when it first comes out, but then might easily slip in some adware, virus, or undisclosed data collection, after it gains a good reputation. For that matter even anti-virus and anti-adware software has been known to slip over to the "dark side," which was likely part of their plan all along. 

If you search Google for "YouTube Downloader" or "Free YouTube Downloaders" or things like that, you will usually get sites that give a nice list. Like this one that gives 5 of them: https://www.techradar.com/best/free-youtube-downloader

Be aware, of course, that even these apparently useful lists are usually created by (or funded by) one or two of the items in the list, therefore you won't find those items on any other list. It's also ploy to make new or obscure programs look like they belong in a list with more reputable software. So always check multiple lists to get an idea of the most reputable suggestions.

I also use a program on my iPhone that strips the audio from a video into an MP3 so that I can listen to the video while driving. (I make a two-hour drive between New York City and upstate every weekend, which is 4 hours in total. That's nearly 8 hours of listening at 1.75 speed.)

[Witness]

 

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-12-02-smoking-gun-pfizer-document-exposes-fda-criminal-cover-up-of-vaccine-deaths.html

 

Thanks to the efforts of a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, we now have smoking gun confidential documents that show Pfizer and the FDA knew in early 2021 that pfizer’s mRNA vaccines were killing thousands of people and causing spontaneous abortions while damaging three times more women than men.

One confidential document in particular was part of a court-ordered release of FDA files that the FDA fought by claiming the agency should have 55 years to release this information. A court judge disagreed and ordered the release of 500 documents per month, and the very first batch of documents contained this bombshell entitled, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

Or here, mirrored on NN servers:

https://www.naturalnews.com/files/536-postmarketing-experience.pdf

The document reveals that within just 90 days after the EUA release of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, the company was already aware of voluntary adverse reaction reports that revealed 1,223 deaths and over 42,000 adverse reports describing a total of 158,893 adverse reactions. The reports originated from numerous countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and other nations.

Aside from “general disorders,” the No. 1 most frequently reported category of mRNA vaccine adverse reactions was Nervous system disorders, clocking in at 25,957 reports.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

One confidential document in particular was part of a court-ordered release of FDA files that the FDA fought by claiming the agency should have 55 years to release this information.

Amazing that the head of Pfizer knew about all these adverse effects and even deaths, and still claimed publicly that there were no deaths. Also, while it's true that there were several reporting defects and this concerns millions of vaccines administered over about a 3.5 month period covered in the report(s), you can still tell from the average "delay" that most of these adverse effects happened within 24 hours of the jab.