The mileage on Dr. Campbell’s videos vary. However this piece on the “debunking of Ivermectin” by BBC was music to my ears. Debunking the debunkers with data and yes, they were misleading indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy7c_FHiEac
This BBC “study” is not by accident, this is driven by an agenda. There is no reason in the world why a decent scientist and/or journalist would ignore evidence or even the numerous signals just to promote a certain narrative. Even if you would believe you would do it for the good of humanity (health), it is inexcusable. Still it keeps happening.
12 Likes
Talking about liberals as it relates to vaccines is a needless complication of the issue.
I am a lifetime semi-conservative who is vaccinated. I made the choice rationally, ignoring the politics that got so ludicrously attached to this debate.
From my perspective, it’s a simple risk/benefit analysis. I choose to be vaccinated and include dtsnbm 2 in my arsenal.
I know grandparents who have never met their 1 year old granddaughter because they will not get vaccinated. My sister-in-law does not see her mother because she will not get vaccinated.
In order to give blood today, I have to be willing to lay next to a person who is more than likely unmasked and possibly unvaccinated. The person standing over me, drawing blood may also be unvaccinated and may choose a shield, instead of a mask. Is a surgeon allowed to choose a shield over a mask, when in the operating theatre?
Choosing to limit exposure to unvaccinated people can be a rational choice. At least it is, for virtually everyone I talk to.
If it offends unvaccinated people, that some vaccinated people make a rational choice to steer clear of them, then perhaps the unvaccinated should consider the reality that their vaccination choice can also impact the health of others.
It’s not personal. It’s not about freedom. It’s about a nasty virus.
3 Likes
He did a great job on that, and the comments reflect it - has lots of followers on all “sides” of the V/UV debate. I respect him and his efforts, and feel his pain – in many instances he seems to see the lies and insanity and it upsets him. That he keeps posting and does not descend into anything that would get him censored is a good thing. He influences many many people.
6 Likes
I clearly recall a phone conversation with Mike Ruppert back around 2005. We discussed how crises in environment, the economy and energy would eventually be pushed through a funnel where they would ultimately jam up. I think we’ve reached that point. At the time I noted that humans in the future will probably define us by our denial.
Perhaps there is a subconscious collective realization that we’re now jammed in the funnel (aka “fucked”). Could mass psychosis be a symptom of our denial? Is it possible that the government, news media and even tradespeople who build studio sets are victims of the mass psychosis as well? Will some subconsciously - or consciously - choose the path that Richard Heinberg refers to as “last man standing”?
“One of the options discussed by Heinberg in his latest book is the “Last Man Standing” scenario, in which the powerful (most often the ultra-wealthy and politically connected within American society and societies of other nations) will use their assets to promote their own survival at the expense of everyone else.”
9 Likes
Could mass psychosis be a symptom of our denial? Is it possible that the government, news media and even tradespeople who build studio sets are victims of the mass psychosis as well? Will some subconsciously - or consciously - choose the path that Richard Heinberg refers to as "last man standing"? "One of the options discussed by Heinberg in his latest book is the “Last Man Standing” scenario, in which the powerful (most often the ultra-wealthy and politically connected within American society and societies of other nations) will use their assets to promote their own survival at the expense of everyone else."Well, possibly. But they have to relay this messages out of their bunkers since I hope that there will be still enough sane people waiting outside with pitchforks...
2 Likes
It’s not personal. It’s not about freedom. It’s about a nasty virus.I have no problem with vaccinated people CHOOSING to associate or not associate with whomever they want. THATS HOW FREEDOM WORKS. And, YES, it certainly IS about freedom. If you want the freedom to associate with or shun whomever you want, then I want the freedom to refuse to put something in my body that I do not trust or want. We all get to make our own choices in a free society. What you dont get to do is force everyone else to work their lives around your choices. If you dont want to sit next to me because I havent been vaccinated, then YOU have to move...don't try to make me move to accommodate you. Im not going to wear a mask, which does nothing, in order to appease your irrationality. You have the freedom to go somewhere else. In other words you may shun me all you want by removing yourself from my presence. But dont think you are going to have ME removed from yours. THAT is the difference between freedom and tyranny, the difference between us living in harmony, or coming to blows.
32 Likes
I’m very aware of mass sycosis here in Washington State with Portland just across the river from me. I have decided to stop wearing my mask when I go shopping. Most stores let me but I’m lonely in a sea of mask wearers. So I started a website, www.facethemask.weebly.com.
My plan is to pass out the web address to people who wear there magic talismans below the nose. I figure they may be more ready to wake up and join me in some peaceful non-compliance.
Hopefully I represented Chris well as he is one of my experts that I feature.
Would some of you please take a gander at my site and give me any feedback you may have on the content (I’ll have my editor catch all the grammar and spelling mistakes). I’m almost done with it but need some beta readers.
13 Likes
Hi Les,
“Choosing to limit exposure to unvaccinated people can be a rational choice. At least it is, for virtually everyone I talk to.”
Yes, it could be. If someone was concerned about the virus and coming in contact with people who are possible carriers, that someone could choose to distance from such people. If it was a rational decision, he/she would have to distance for ALL people, as we now know that any person regardless of their participation in the mRNA experiment can carry the virus, get infected, and pass infection to others.
So if such person chooses to distance only from ‘unvaccinated’ that is not a rational choice.
When someone says “I’m vaccinated, you are not, stay away from me”, basic logic tells me:
- he/she doesn’t think that vaccine works
- he/she is OK with segregation in society as long as he/she is in the privileged class
- he/she is OK with imposing inconvenience/hardship on others as long as it is to his/her benefit
35 Likes
If it was a rational decision, he/she would have to distance for ALLpeople, as we now know that any person regardless of their participation in the mRNA experiment can carry the virus, get infected, and pass infection to othersYou mean as YOU, ME, and the many contributing people here know. Les doesnt know, even though he has been told many times and directed to studies, threads, data, news articles , etc, etc by well meaning posters who have tried to educate him. He takes no part in those discussions, completely ignores the data and talking points that people on this site have compiled through painstaking research and discussion, then he blunders in about once a month and makes curiously identical statements which presume all of the mainstream talking points [ while ignoring all the information compiled by the afore-mentioned contributors ]. It happens like clock-work. In fact I remember Les popping up about a month or so ago and doing the same routine. He makes a post which off-handedly presumes all of the mainstream talking points. He ignores the pages of discussion about anti-body dependent enhancement, the data regarding outbreaks among the vaxxed in Israel, the UK, and most recently Taiwan. Guys like DaveFairtex, Jim H, and so many others have spent alot of effort researching these things. And for Les to consistently show up at intervals, completely dismiss everything that has been established and discussed here, and vomit those debunked mainstream talking points...is frankly, an insult to the people here. The way it is presented is always the same which makes me suspect that Les knows exactly what he is doing.
23 Likes
LesPhelps you said
“Choosing to limit exposure to unvaccinated people can be a rational choice. At least it is, for virtually everyone I talk to.
If it offends unvaccinated people, that some vaccinated people make a rational choice to steer clear of them, then perhaps the unvaccinated should consider the reality that their vaccination choice can also impact the health of others.”
Please do say more, what is that rational choice/story to steer clear of just one type of person, from the vaccinated person’s perspective? I’m really quite curious about how that story is told and why it is you’re saying it is rational? Doesn’t the decision to vax or not, in both examples include impacting the health of others? All choices made across the spectrum of life, impact health of others, not just vaccines. Are you saying you have access into knowledge or data where non vaccinated people disproportionately impact the health of all others negatively, or is it just vaccinated people? I’m quite confused about what your saying here. Please clarify.
5 Likes
Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40
This official UK government report suggests that once your second dose is a few months in the rear view mirror, what you have effectively done is protect yourself (by significantly reducing your risk of hospitalization and death while increasing the risk for others (by increasing your risk that you will get infected transmit the disease through a mild case, but with high viral load in the nasal passages). The second table in this article nicely summarizes the relative risks of infection, hospitalization and death for the vaxxed and unvaxxed by age group. Note that for people from 40 to 79, the risk of infection is 50-85% higher for the vaccinated. Note that older groups were vaccinated earlier, so their protection from infection waned first. The 30 somethings just progressed to negative protection this week. The vaccine still offers significant protection from hospitalization and death, but his has been declining slowly for middle aged groups and more quickly for elders.
This suggests that choosing to get vaccinated protects you, but puts others at risk, especially the unvaccinated whether they choose not to get vaccinated or are unable to. Also at risk are those that do produce a significant or even modestly durable immune response from the vaccine. Once this is widely known, choosing vaccination becomes a selfish act. It also totally undermines the logic of vaccine mandates. It also suggests that you should be more wary of the vaccinated whose second dose was months ago than you should be of the unvaccinated.
Here is the link to the UK NHS weekly reports. If you peruse recent reports, you’ll see that the trend has been towards lesser protection for the vaccinated for infection, hospitalization and death. The trend has been strongest in terms of infection protection going strongly negative for younger and younger age brackets as well as protection from hospitalization and death decreasing for elders.
The United States has (intentionally?) not collected the data as the UK has. But why should we assume it’s any different here?
Finally, just what does this trend towards negative protection say about vaccines as drivers of immune escape? This should be a top priority in the research community, but it is not.
I thank you Les for inspiring me to put together what I hope is a concise and well-written comment on the implications of the UK data: That the decision to be vaccinated from this point forward is essentially a selfish decision which protects the person who takes the vaccine (at least in the short term) while increasing the risk for others.
15 Likes
I totally agree that these effects can be temporary and those wish the clarity of mind and the will can heal themselves.
However, the longer this goes on and the more intense it is, the more people will sink so deep that they are unlikely to have either the clarity or the will. I think we need to accept that some, perhaps many will be permanently disabled by this mass hysteria. For them, it will be psychosis.
I have one family member with a history of mental illness who was functioning reasonably well at the basic life logistics level until the summer of 2020. This person, however, even back then, had a very difficult time talking about emotions, past actions, etc. It has gotten much worse in the past year with any reference to what might be actually going on for her even very indirect or just an environmental cue triggering so much anxiety that she is in total denial. Her level of function has declined to the point where she cannot hold down a job or hold a conversation about anything that isn’t light and fun or simple logistics.
Anything is possible, but I would put the odds of her recovering her former level of functionality quite low.
6 Likes
Chances are the unvaxxed individual is safer to be around.
They either have natural immunity or they are on alert for Covid symptoms and will stay home when sick. The vaxxed individual will be more likely to take a Tylenol for the weird headache and go to work and breath all over you.
If I had a choice of healthcare providers, the first choice would be those with natural immunity, don’t care about vaccination status, second choice would be an unvaxxed individual and the last person I would want providing me care would be a vaxxed individual.
19 Likes
Hey Les. I’m just curious. What’s your own personal risk assessment, assuming you were unvaccinated, of dying from COVID in a given year? Given your BMI, your weekly activity level, and your current vitamin D status (in ng/ml)? And make sure to add in the protection from eating that plant-based diet too.
Feel free to add in any reductions for early outpatient treatments you plan on applying at symptom onset.
And assume - just for fun - that wearing masks and “avoiding unvaxxed people at all costs” won’t affect the (estimated) 20%/year attack rate.
Do you have a 10%/year mortality risk? 1%? 0.01%?
I personally did the math a while back. It was like 3/100,000. Cancer is a bigger risk for me than COVID by about 80x. Heck. An accident is 20x more worrisome.
But that’s me. If you see your annual mortality risk at 10%, then I totally get your viewpoint.
[me: BMI=24, activity=“meeting guidelines”, vitamin D=51 ng/ml, early treatment ~95% reduction in mortality risk using 6 different compounds, COVID19 attack rate = 20%/year]
So yeah. Cancer risk = 263/100,000. Heart disease = 190/100,000. COVID19 = 3/100,000. Accident risk = 59/100,000.
We really need that calculator to educate everyone about risk. I wish we had a clever engineer that could write the code for it. Is there one in the house?
21 Likes
I started using Twitter in early 2016. Shortly after the election, I posted some negative comments about Trump. A couple high-profile influencers liked and retweeted a few of my posts. Then they followed me. And, sometimes, when I was arguing with a Trump supporter, these influencers would swoop in out of nowhere with a fact that supported my claim. I thought these things were odd because I was a noob with fewer than 50 followers, my posts were emotive not revelatory, and stuff like that never happened before the election.
One of those influencers was Bill Palmer, another was Scott Dworkin. I noticed the blog site The Palmer Report seemed to get some inside info, even scooping MSM on occasion. Both Palmer and Dworkin have become rabid pro-vaxxers, as are many of those who strongly oppose(d) Trump.
When Mueller announced, in March 2019, that he wasn't moving ahead with any charges, I immediately realized the Dems had been played, bigly. TPTB wanted Trump in office to further their larger plan.
Part of that plan seems to have been to greatly increase the fraction of adults who use social media to get their news, then share their opinions with their followers. It created a giant ecosphere of influencers at different levels, like an electronic Occupy Wall Street ring of echoing chants.
Another part of that plan was to scare liberals and Democrats into believing that Trump was the biggest (or only) threat to democracy. This crowd, which once included me, came to see Trump as the enemy of progressive values: the environment, universal healthcare, science, technology, Western alliances, NATO, global trade, free and fair elections. MSM constructed an elaborate lie that Trump was a would-be tyrant, then they positioned themselves, and the intelligence community, as our saviors. (Problem, reaction, solution.)
This anti-Trump psychosis blinded them to the real threat of being used as guinea pigs in a Nazi-style medical experiment. It made them accept censorship and propaganda. It made them unable to see they were becoming intolerant to others. They fell into the carefully laid trap of trusting their lives to pseudoscience (snake oil), while rejecting actual science. They're now ready to accept, and promote, corporate fascism, as long as the billionaire CEOs *promise* to protect the environment. Which they *say* they will do, starting *right after* the fascist takeover ; )
What made me change my mind? Realizing I had been lied to.
24 Likes
What I think I read is you perceive that Trump and Trump Derangement Syndrome (for lack of a better term) was an orchestrated nudge to get us closer to totalitarianism.
6 Likes
I can’t think of a single moment from 2016-2020 that felt like Trump was part of the oligarchy’s plan for anything. The election night meltdown, Disneys Hilary effigy in the Hall of presidents conveniently fitted with a blonde wig to turn it into “Trump”, the steele dossier, FBI spying, Democrat impeachments, stonewalling, crying, pissing and moaning, Republican turncoats and leaks just to name a few. Given what we’re seeing today from a disciplined conspiracy effort, where could you have any notion left that Trump was a part of that plan?
He was a firebreak if anything. Definitely not part of the plan. He was a throwaway, a joke, a narcissistic huckster. But his ego (from what probably started as a whimsical venture) was bruised when the MSM made fun of him. So what was supposed to be a joke campaign for the Dems to win an easy victory turned into a hilarious montage of bewildered and distraught political hacks melting down in Nov 2016. Trump, a part of anyones plan. Not a chance in hell no matter what you tell yourself to sleep at night the swamp was not eager to be drained.
16 Likes
I found this conclusion in the article to be amusing:
We believe the economy will continue to struggle until a vaccine becomes widely distributed. COVID-19 eradication has not occurred in any large-developed country, most of which are dealing with high levels of infection.Do the authors not know that a majority of those infected have been vaccinated and that it only makes sense that they were infected by the vaccinated since birds of a feather flock together. It should be pointed out that one of the authors is the Chief Investment Officer of an income fund. Perhaps she doesn't have the time to sift through the data... P.S. Another "amusing" quote from the article:
Apparently, most workers cannot perform their jobs entirely from home.You think so?! Maybe these authors don't know anyone who actually does real work.
3 Likes