CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[Elysium]

jameswills said:

Elysium said:

We had good information on the severity of the virus and we spent years planning for pandemics. But we ignored it all and panicked instead.

Well others spent quite a few years cultivating a response that played out exactly as it did, and weirdly positioned themselves to profit from it hugely and did.

That’s the questions people should be asking. But no, keep arguing about masks, and “it could have been worse”.

Did you ask a question?

[Tankrizzo]

jameswills said:

Yes those pesky viruses that no one can see or test for just moving around “infecting” people. And then “mutating” and creating “versions”.

And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.

"Viruses don't exist coz I can't see them". Prof. Wills, 2024

[Hants PHer]

jameswills said:

Hants PHer said:

jameswills said:

Yes those pesky viruses that no one can see or test for just moving around “infecting” people. And then “mutating” and creating “versions”.
And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.

OK, so you think viruses are just a fairytale? That they don't actually exist? Any of them? I'm genuinely curious to know if that is your view.

Yeah I do, I’ve found scant evidence that they exist personally from my digging. What have you found out to back up the virus theory?

Viruses can be 'seen' using an electron microscope. It is possible to sequence the DNA of a virus. Diseases such as influenza and colds can be transmitted without direct contact between individuals. I've had a few myself, viruses that is.

Meanwhile, I note that your Covid-19 denial and your opinion on viruses are shared by one David Icke. I wonder which of his other opinions you share. Do you, for example, agree with him that the Rothschild family helped plan the Covid-19 outbreak?

[Elysium]

jameswills said:

What have you found out to back up the virus theory?

Science

These GCSE biology revision notes might help

https://www.savemyexams.com/gcse/biology/aqa/18/re...

[jameswills]

Hants PHer said:

Viruses can be 'seen' using an electron microscope. It is possible to sequence the DNA of a virus. Diseases such as influenza and colds can be transmitted without direct contact between individuals. I've had a few myself, viruses that is.

Meanwhile, I note that your Covid-19 denial and your opinion on viruses are shared by one David Icke. I wonder which of his other opinions you share. Do you, for example, agree with him that the Rothschild family helped plan the Covid-19 outbreak?

Can they? Sure it’s a “virus” that is being “viewed”? How do you know you were ill from a virus? Was anything else considered for your illness at the time? Toxicity of your environment in other ways? Look at this way, ask yourself if there is the possibility that viruses aren’t what you’ve been told they are and maybe something else makes you ill, or in fact being ill is just a way of your body detoxifying now and again. Invert the idea of illness.

Ah denial again, of that belief system. I need to read David Icke to be honest, I haven’t listened to or read him no, but I’ve heard him quoted time and time again and sounds like he’s worth listening to. Rothschild and Rockefeller families is a huge subject and just can’t put it into a paragraph response.

[jameswills]

Elysium said:

Science

These GCSE biology revision notes might help

https://www.savemyexams.com/gcse/biology/aqa/18/re...

I’m pretty sure I’m not going to go along with anything from our education system, they now teach there are more than two genders

[Elysium]

jameswills said:

Look at this way, ask yourself if there is the possibility that viruses aren’t what you’ve been told they are and maybe something else makes you ill, or in fact being ill is just a way of your body detoxifying now and again. Invert the idea of illness.

Interesting theory.

Science works by looking at the available 'empirical evidence' to see if it supports or counters such theories.

I know there is a lot of evidence to support the existence of viruses and their role in illness. Which is why it is the settled view of scientists, medics and educators.

Do you have any evidence to support your thoery or is it more of a hunch?

Without evidence it is equally reasonable to ask ourselves if viruses are just the devils way of punishing sinners.

[Hants PHer]

jameswills said:

<edited for brevity>
I need to read David Icke to be honest, I haven’t listened to or read him no, but I’ve heard him quoted time and time again and sounds like he’s worth listening to. Rothschild and Rockefeller families is a huge subject and just can’t put it into a paragraph response.

My bold italics, but really? And my interpretation of your last sentence is best kept to myself; I don't want a PH ban.

[BigMon]

David Icke is worth listening to? Really?

I suppose if you're feeling a bit down and want to guffaw hysterically, or if you want to examine a proven way of setting up a model to part the gullible from their hard earned then it may be worth checking in on him.

I suppose, like many of these social media peddlers of utter mince, he may say the occasional thing bordering on the sane (in the same way a stopped clock is right twice a day) but otherwise I'm happy to park him in the 'utter pish' folder along with some of the social media grifters so beloved by (fortunately) a tiny proportion of the few on here.

Edited by BigMon on Friday 17th May 10:11

[Elysium]

Hants PHer said:

jameswills said:

<edited for brevity>
I need to read David Icke to be honest, I haven’t listened to or read him no, but I’ve heard him quoted time and time again and sounds like he’s worth listening to. Rothschild and Rockefeller families is a huge subject and just can’t put it into a paragraph response.

My bold italics, but really? And my interpretation of your last sentence is best kept to myself; I don't want a PH ban.

[alangla]

BigMon said:

David Icke is worth listening to? Really?

I suppose if you're feeling a bit down and want to guffaw hysterically, or if you want to examine a proven way of setting up a model to part the gullible from their hard earned then it may be worth checking in on him.

I suppose, like many of these social media peddlers of utter mince, he may say the occasional thing bordering on the sane (in the same way a stopped clock is right twice a day) but otherwise I'm happy to park him in the 'utter pish' folder along with some of the social media grifters so beloved by (fortunately) a tiny proportion of the few on here.

Edited by BigMon on Friday 17th May 10:11

To be fair, he did used to have a pretty good column on one of the football websites about 15-20 years ago. The problem appears to be when he talks about anything other than sport.

[jameswills]

BigMon said:

David Icke is worth listening to? Really?

I suppose if you're feeling a bit down and want to guffaw hysterically, or if you want to examine a proven way of setting up a model to part the gullible from their hard earned then it may be worth checking in on him.

I suppose, like many of these social media peddlers of utter mince, he may say the occasional thing bordering on the sane (in the same way a stopped clock is right twice a day) but otherwise I'm happy to park him in the 'utter pish' folder along with some of the social media grifters so beloved by (fortunately) a tiny proportion of the few on here.

Edited by BigMon on Friday 17th May 10:11

Don’t know, but he’s written a lot of books going back decades, way before “social media”. He’s obviously got a lot to say and some of it might be entirely nonsense but some of it may be well worth listening to. Even for a laugh as you say! I’d say reading a David Icke book would be far more worthwhile than listening to BBC News, that’s for sure.

I find it odd people get riled up about certain folk offering up alternative views though, it’s as if they are scared of the narrative they have grown up to belief being questioned. We should not stop questioning anything, ever.

[jshell]

Douglas Quaid said:

Elysium said:

jshell said:

ruggedscotty said:

Elysium said:

jshell said:

Elysium said:

RemarkLima said:

The mask debate rumbles on:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...

Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.

The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.

The virus outsmarted us.

We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.

The virus simply did what viruses do!

We chucked the established pandemic response procedures in the bin and went straight for lockdowns and fast-tracked vaccines which is folly inside a pandemic.

We have NO idea what evolutionary pressure that we've put on this virus or how we've pushed it to mutate down various paths.

Agreed. None of it worked. It is purely through luck that we ended up with a more transmissible, but less severe version of the virus.

This is the thing that no one should forget, go back to the beginning, the very beginning, no one knew how this was going to pan out, some serious time was given to it and breakdown of the situation that faced us. there was a fear in a lot of people involved with virus and health care that this could have gone the other way, there was nothing to stop it, just natural variance of the virus genetics. it didnt go the way they feared. If it had....

Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.

Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.

we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.

Chucking the established pandemic response plans in the bin and following the anti-scientific plans of whomever was co-ordinating the global response was not necessarily the thing that we should have done. And, BOY are we paying for those mistakes now!

Why did we have pandemic plans and responses formulated anyway if we were just going to follow others into damaging lockdowns, spending and non-sterilising pseudo-vaccines?

We had good information on the severity of the virus and we spent years planning for pandemics. But we ignored it all and panicked instead.

I don’t think it was ignored. It was deliberately sidestepped to make some people rich beyond their wildest dreams.

It was a useful medium for the greatest wealth transfer in history!

[jshell]

Elysium said:

isaldiri said:

jshell said:

Add in a non-sterilising vaccine that can force evolution off the natural rails and we could have had a far worse Covid experience!

exactly how? infection is non-sterilising as well, exactly like the vaccines. whatever the virus did as far as an evolutionary path being 'off the rails or otherwise' being taken was going to be the same whether or not exposure was gained via vaccine or infection.

I think there is a difference though, as the vaccine exposes the immune system to the spike protein, whereas infection involves the entire virus.

At the beginning of the vaccine roll out there was a lot of discussion about the risks of vaccinating during a pandemic, when viral mutation might be more likely as this creates the danger that the immune system will not be able to adapt to the new variant.

I was interested to see that Wikipedia states this may be why the bivalent booster was relatively ineffective against Omicron:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_s...

Thankyou!

This is the point that people have been performing mental gymnastics to avoid. Prior infection can give broad-based immunity/resistance, whereas the vaccine is developed and synthetically primes the body towards a single variant. That's why researchers are looking into why the vaccinated are now more open to infection from recent variants. If the IG4 paper is correct, this could spell disaster in future if a highly virulent and transmissable variant is borne.

[jshell]

And yesterday, finally, the NIH actually admitted to funding GoF on viruses at the Wuhan lab.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director...

[grumbledoak]

jshell said:

And yesterday, finally, the NIH actually admitted to funding GoF on viruses at the Wuhan lab.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director...

What's that now, Conspiracy Theorists 52 : 0 Government Agencies ?


An utterly untrustworthy bunch demanding that we trust them and obey on command.

[jshell]

grumbledoak said:

jshell said:

And yesterday, finally, the NIH actually admitted to funding GoF on viruses at the Wuhan lab.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director...

What's that now, Conspiracy Theorists 52 : 0 Government Agencies ?


An utterly untrustworthy bunch demanding that we trust them and obey on command.

The score is mounting - fast.

Add to that the CNN 'anchor' who was part of villifying Ivermectin in 2020, but who is now admitting to taking Ivermectin to treat infection! Clownworld!

[Elysium]

jshell said:

And yesterday, finally, the NIH actually admitted to funding GoF on viruses at the Wuhan lab.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director...

They have always accepted that they funded the research.

Until now, it has not been accepted that it was 'gain of function'. I think this is a significant shift, which follows moves to debar the relevant research company Ecohealth Alliance:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/should-no-...

Brad Wenstrup said:

We’ve come to the conclusion in a bipartisan fashion that Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance should no longer receive one penny for any type of research forever

There is good evidence now that Fauci and Daszak were actively engaged with the authors of the Proximal Origins paper that was then used to decry the possibility of a lab leak as conspriacy theory:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/the-covid-c...

We also have Fauci's emails obtained through an FOI request that show that his first though when told about the virus was to wonder if his agency was involved.

Fauci and Francis Collins were also involved in the 'takedown' of the Great Barrington Declaration, although Collins now appears to accept that launching into lockdon with no thought for the consequences was a mistake.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/watch-faucis-for...

Worth noting that Jeremy Farrar, ex chief scientist at the WHO and former member of SAGE was at the centre of these discussions. He was also a co-author of this statement, along with none other than Peter Dazsak

Farrar et al said:

We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

I am beginning to suspect that we are on the verge of an enormous scandal. The scientists at the centre of our public health response were complicit in something that may well have caused the crisis to happen. It is enough to make you wonder if lockdown was actually nothing more than a guilty over reaction.

[jshell]

Elysium said:

jshell said:

And yesterday, finally, the NIH actually admitted to funding GoF on viruses at the Wuhan lab.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director...

They have always accepted that they funded the research.

Until now, it has not been accepted that it was 'gain of function'. I think this is a significant shift, which follows moves to debar the relevant research company Ecohealth Alliance:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/should-no-...

Brad Wenstrup said:

We’ve come to the conclusion in a bipartisan fashion that Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance should no longer receive one penny for any type of research forever

There is good evidence now that Fauci and Daszak were actively engaged with the authors of the Proximal Origins paper that was then used to decry the possibility of a lab leak as conspriacy theory:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/the-covid-c...

We also have Fauci's emails obtained through an FOI request that show that his first though when told about the virus was to wonder if his agency was involved.

Fauci and Francis Collins were also involved in the 'takedown' of the Great Barrington Declaration, although Collins now appears to accept that launching into lockdon with no thought for the consequences was a mistake.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/watch-faucis-for...

Worth noting that Jeremy Farrar, ex chief scientist at the WHO and former member of SAGE was at the centre of these discussions. He was also a co-author of this statement, along with none other than Peter Dazsak

Farrar et al said:

We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

I am beginning to suspect that we are on the verge of an enormous scandal. The scientists at the centre of our public health response were complicit in something that may well have caused the crisis to happen. It is enough to make you wonder if lockdown was actually nothing more than a guilty over reaction.

The deatils of the deals, cash, GoF and design to make it more infectious to humans has been known for years now. But, the change os that some of the media are actually covering it instead of running cover for the authorities.

On your last point, I firmly believe that the lockdowns on top of the faked vidoes from China and the faked scare stories from Italy were at best part of a societal experiment. We failed.

Add to that vaccines that proved ineffective for anyone under 70 that wasn't already carrying some illness/disability, then it's a malign motivation.

[Elysium]

jshell said:

The deatils of the deals, cash, GoF and design to make it more infectious to humans has been known for years now. But, the change os that some of the media are actually covering it instead of running cover for the authorities.

On your last point, I firmly believe that the lockdowns on top of the faked vidoes from China and the faked scare stories from Italy were at best part of a societal experiment. We failed.

Add to that vaccines that proved ineffective for anyone under 70 that wasn't already carrying some illness/disability, then it's a malign motivation.

It is fascinating that there is very little discussion of the bizarre videos from China that emerged in the early days.

The number of deaths in Bergamo and New York are also still something of a mystery, although there are people looking into the New York numbers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-mystery-why...

45,000 deaths in a population of 8.5million equates to a population fatality rate of 0.5%. About 70% higher than the UK.