What stood out to me was Chris’ ability to immediately use any chance he was given to pivot to a meaningful data point or observation, without getting mired in the numerous of-tangents. Chris would tee it off beautifully, but in most cases, Tim just didn’t listen at all, or didn’t have the ability to carry the thought forward.
It really speaks to Tim’s limited skill set in having a meaningful conversation at depth.
I’m glad that Chris is willing to experiment with different forms or delivery of the PP message.
Due to the reviews of my trusted fellow PPers, I’ve decided not to listen to the Timcast- too many other things to do…The inability of people to be able to have an actual conversation is one of my ongoing peeves in the modern world. This applies to both the young and old. I’m reminded of an exercise we did in The Great Sebastopol Seminar of '18. I believe it was called Authenic Listening, or something like that. Very powerful and insightful, part of the Gottman relationship technique I think. In a nutshell, turn off your own chattering mind, and Listen to the other person. Why don’t they teach this stuff in school (along with any hands-on skill)? Aloha, Steve.
Listening skills seem to be a lost art.
I wonder how much of that goes along with the post-modernist mindset that has developed like cancer in our society. If there is no (absolute) truth, why even listen intently to somebody else ? After all - what’s to be gained ? Further, if all one is interested in is entertainment or opinion, active listening is not important.
Truth will rarely hit you smack in the face.
Truth will rarely hit you smack in the face.Yeah, and if it does, it may be too late to respond appropriately, unless you're prepared for it....Aloha, Steve.
An oldie but a goodie.
This seems the way almost any conversation goes with most people I encounter these days.
Tim: “I tell my audience to discuss the vaccines with their doctor.”
Me: “Tim, keep in mind that most Drs. have forgotten about the Nuremberg code, because, to offer true informed consent would result in fewer shots given, and their bosses have made their wishes crystal clear. So, rather than telling people to ask their own Dr., why don’t you say this instead: 'The VAERS numbers are terrifying. Don’t even think about getting this ‘vaccine.’ Ivermectin cures Covid. Don’t fear the disease. Instead, fear the police state being constructed as all our personal data is gathered and stored indefinitely. Fear the merging of the government with large corporations. Fear the power of the health-security complex, which used propaganda to trick half the country into submitting to experimental gene therapy. Fear the power of Youtube to induce self-censorship, or risk losing a revenue stream, if anyone speaks out against these human medical experiments.”
Very well put. I lasted till the 45:00 mark. I joined this site as a paying member last year because Chris’ videos were way ahead of the curve, and simply invaluable. I continue to be a paying member because the quality of comments by other subscribers. I would describe a good many of the posts here as ‘ahead of the curve.’
Now that a few of you have said it, I also notice most of my real world conversations quickly turn into a joke, or are deflected my memeing the moment they are in danger of turning substantive. The subjects change in rapid fire as they are managed with superficial expressions that are intended to demonstrate that you are plugged into the current way of thinking (if you say Zeitgeist, someone will quip “Who hurt you?)”
The older people around me will stick to a subject for at least a bit of time, but not people my age or younger.
Maybe Tim’s conversational style fits in with our times better than we realize. Will be cool if Chris can attract some young blood so we don’t just turn into an old age home for the last of salaried classes. Some young people care.
I made some searches and made a little list today. Some of these are spike protein vaccines, and I think some are “whole virus” vaccines. Not finished researching, but here are some names:
Vaccine candidates
Novavax contains Matrix X adjuvant, and spike proteins.
Valneva I think is French VLA2001 is currently the only whole virus, inactivated, adjuvanted vaccine candidate in clinical trials against COVID-19 in Europe. About VLA2001. VLA2001 contains inactivated whole virus particles of SARS-CoV-2 with high Spike (S) protein density, in combination with two adjuvants, alum and Dynavax’s CpG 1018. It is intended for active immunisation of at-risk populations to prevent carriage and symptomatic infection with COVID-19.
Medicago’s “plant based proteins with adjuvant
COVAXIN is Biotech’s India vaccine, approved there already. COVAXIN is a highly purified and inactivated vaccine that is manufactured also, made by Ocugen.
Biovacc-19
Is south African company. Not too much in July 2021 on updatesThat’s why COVID 19 and the Ivermectin story was such a gift; truth hit me in the face. As Chris puts it, I may be wrong on some issues now, but I’m not confused.
I just came across the story of Dr. Winfried Stöcker who developed a peptide based vaccine with very minor side effects and quite high efficiency 95%+ (well - antibody production as reported).
However, it seems it went a bit chaotic…
https://rairfoundation.com/breaking-famous-doctor-develops-safe-vaccine-against-covid-germany-prosecutes-him-video/#!/back
Has anybody had a look at this? Would be interesting to have some thoughts from our experts here. Chris maybe? If he is not too busy…
I was surprised that so many people didn’t get this interview. Having been a classical pianist since Age 3 I’m use to following multiple strands at the same time. I guess many people can’t do that.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by that ? (many people don’t „get“ this Timcast ?)
In terms of substantive conversation, it‘s only about 10%-15% of the time.
If you mean by “get” to appreciate an informal, meandering, entertainment-heavy conversational style then yes, I admit, I don’t “get” it. As I said, this is a matter of preference. But even if one prefers this style, it doesn’t make it a great substantive conversation. It’s still mostly entertainment.
You may have seen this phenomenon before whereby researchers publishing work find ways to publish otherwise worrying data while stating a different outcome. This is one such case that comes from the twitter of one Dr. JohnB. I will first show the study, and then his reanalysis of the data in a following twitter link.
My question to the team is this; On what basis did the writers of the paper draw a line high enough above all the anti-syncytin-1 antibody data such that all results were, “negative”. The OD492 results are an optical density test… so light transmission and some kind of linear (Beer’s law) correlation to a reactant specific to the antibodies of interest . The paper states that the researchers developed their own ELISA assay for these particular antibodies… so it looks to me like it was a completely arbitrary way of presenting this otherwise disturbing data , suggestive of increased autoimmunity towards one’s own reproductive tissues, as being, “in the noise”. When two reasonably substantial data sets have literally no crossover, then the first conclusion should not be that it’s all in the noise…
The paper:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.23.21257686v1.full.pdf Addressing anti-syncytin antibody levels, and fertility and breastfeeding concerns, following BNT162B2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccination What are the novel findings of this work? COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162B2 did not elicit a cross-reacting humoral response to human syncytin-1 despite robust neutralising activity to the SARS-CoV2 spike protein, and while vaccine mRNA was isolated from plasma, it was not found in breast milk.Now here is the original data as presented in the paper for these autoimmune antibodies; Here then is Dr. JohnB's reanalysis of the data - he just accumulated all of the post vax datapoints into one data group. The same conclusion is easy to reach looking at the original data once you disregard the arbitrary line the authors call their threshold for, "positive". I guess if you make your own ELISA test, you can set your own, "positive" threshold. Nice. https://twitter.com/DrJohnB2/status/1409786933841207301
A researchers conclusion doesn’t completely follow from the actual data in the same paper. It is one strategy to “sell” a paper to publishers and put the data into the public arena, just as you suggest, Jim H.
Just a guess here, but it looks like the antibodies induced by the vaccination (and response) cross react with a human protein ‘syncytin-1.’
As announced, there was effort to divert youtube from finding something to censor. That was also in Chris’ title. It’s something Chris has been struggling with, and Tim has his own tricks to share. There was entertainment for Tim’s usual crowd - don’t put them down because they are a different demographic. They may be surprised and curious about Chris’s part and join PP. There were some spoof’s against youtube, which Chris’ joined by saying “curse words!” There was, of course, Chris’s material, which may have seemed sparse to us because we’ve been hearing about it all for so long, but it was probably new to much of the audience. As Dr. Peter McCullough said in his interview a few weeks ago, keep it short and simple or you will loose people. Some people here seem to have a distaste for Tim’s demographic, but they deserve to know, too, and they are entitled to join if they wish, and contribute to the conversation. I’m sure there were strands that I didn’t pick up because I don’t know everything going on with Tim’s crowd.
You sound sincere in your response, so I’ll tell you briefly how it is done. It’s not a quick trick. It takes a lot of work and experience:
Each strand needs to be simple in itself. It needs to have its own balance and coherency. The art is in the juxtapositions and interweaving. It’s easy enough for me to detect and analyze after all these years, like analyzing a Beethoven sonata. But I find it atrociously difficult to create myself. I was fascinated by Tim’s work.
I hesitate to say this and maybe shouldn’t: I’ve noticed some anger here when the material presented is aimed at someone else besides oneself. No, not you, but some people. Maybe I do that, too, so I’ll watch out for it.
Thanks, Agnes.
I must admit, I did not recognize the “art” in the way Tim seems to construct his show. It felt very unplanned and improvised to me, but I can accept that it’s a skill that I can’t identify as such. Perhaps it’s similar to things like TikTok, which I don’t “get” either.
As I said, I don’t have a problem with it - it’s a delivery form for a different (younger) audience.
