Covid vaccine - opinions?

[El Dude]

Interesting stuff, Tented.

I'm leery of the whole Russia thing, especially as promulgated by Rachel Maddow (for a funny bit, click here). Not only does it come off as a distraction, but the era of nation states holding global power is long over. We need to look at mega-corporations and, more so, the banks that essentially own them, and even more so, those who own those banks.

In my mind, the most important movie of our time is Network, which showed both how anything authentic is co-opted by the media, but the underlying forces that control the media (the infamous Ned Beatty speech).

In related news, this video is worth a watch:



It was slow at first, but more an more relatively well-known independent journalists are pulling the curtain back on the covid debacle: Max Blumenthal and Jimmy Dore in that video, but also Kim Iversen, Glenn Greenwald, Whitney Webb, and sprinklings from Matt Taibbi, etc.

 

[britbox]

Interesting stuff, Tented.

I'm leery of the whole Russia thing, especially as promulgated by Rachel Maddow (for a funny bit, click here). Not only does it come off as a distraction, but the era of nation states holding global power is long over. We need to look at mega-corporations and, more so, the banks that essentially own them, and even more so, those who own those banks.

In my mind, the most important movie of our time is Network, which showed both how anything authentic is co-opted by the media, but the underlying forces that control the media (the infamous Ned Beatty speech).

In related news, this video is worth a watch:



It was slow at first, but more an more relatively well-known independent journalists are pulling the curtain back on the covid debacle: Max Blumenthal and Jimmy Dore in that video, but also Kim Iversen, Glenn Greenwald, Whitney Webb, and sprinklings from Matt Taibbi, etc.

Maddow, the Rhodes Scholar... things are almost so beyond ridiculous, it defies even parody.

I'm also wary of the Russian stuff, but not wary of the strategy. There are countless records of different groups using the same subversive tactics. Kennedy's speech was enlightening where he talked of the monolithic ruthless conspiracy to take over the world. Disraeli (former British PM) also alluded to the fact that the real levers of power in the world are many degrees beyond what we think of as national government.

 

[tented]

Excerpt from a New York Times article:

Some American adults with weakened immune systems who received a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna coronavirus vaccine authorized just for them will become eligible for a fourth shot as a booster next year, according to updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“In such situations, people who are moderately and severely immunocompromised may receive a total of four vaccine doses,” with the fourth coming at least six months after the third, the C.D.C.’s guidelines said.

In August, federal regulators cleared a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for some immunocompromised recipients of those vaccines, instructing them to get it at least 28 days after their second shot. Federal agencies said that studies have shown that those people may not be adequately protected by just two shots.

Here’s the whole article:

Starting next year, some immunocompromised people may receive a fourth Covid vaccine dose, the C.D.C. says.

Now I’m more suspicious than ever of Big Pharma’s motives. First, we only needed two. Then a booster, for a total of three. Now a fourth is being recommended. As of now, only those with weakened immune systems are part of this fourth group, but I suspect it’s only a matter of time before these recommendations are expanded to the point where everyone is included.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had routine bloodwork done a few months ago, and discovered when the lab sent me the results that I’m no longer immune to hepatitis B, even though I was vaccinated about 10 years ago. This surprised me, so I contacted my doctor, who replied it‘s “not an uncommon thing to happen, for whatever reason the immunity can wane over time.” I’d never heard of vaccines losing their effectiveness over time, but didn’t get too worried since it had been a decade.

But now the covid vaccines seem to be lasting only six months or so. Since it’s a different technology behind these vaccines I googled “how long do mRNA vaccines protect” and found ”How long will my vaccine protect me?” from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). It’s written in a Q&A format. This section grabbed my attention:

“So, when will I need a booster shot?

It depends on whether you’re asking CEOs or scientists.

CEOs of both Pfizer and Moderna have predicted that individuals like you, who were among the first to be vaccinated, might need a booster as early as this fall. But virologists, infectious disease experts, and other scientists are skeptical. Some have expressed “concern that public expectations around COVID-19 boosters are being set by pharmaceutical executives rather than health specialists.” All are in agreement on one point: that we need to follow the science.”

So there we are: pharmaceutical executives vs. scientists. Profit vs. science. With governments pouring billions into pharmaceutical companies, this is Big Pharma’s dream come true. If people keep needing additional vaccines, the money will continue flowing in. I can’t help but wonder how concerned these companies are about public health vs. profit. I don’t necessarily mistrust the actual science behind the covid vaccines, but I can easily imagine Big Pharma scaling down their effectiveness in order to keep the billions coming.

 

[El Dude]

My only point of contention, tented, is that the line between pharma and scientists isn't always so clear (see, "Fauci, Anthony"). A lot of doctors and scientists financially benefit from pharma. And then there's the whole social and political pressure; I've heard anecdotally that a lot of doctors are concerned, but not speaking out for fear of damaging their careers.

As for the vaccines waning in potency, this seems likely according to those countries which are ahead of the US on the schedule: Israel and the UK, among others.

 

[Front242]

^ Glad to see you're waking up to the corruption, tented. This was never about health, only money. 4th boosters in Israel to people of a very young age, all about money and power/control and nothing else. They have their bs green pass system there and if you refuse to take your boosters your "freedom" is gone after 6 months which is all this pass lasts for. Pure coincidence no doubt that the useless vaccines last around the same amount of time so they'll be stamping their cards like people in Starbucks every 6 months like good little sheep all while making Big Pharma and Bill Gates even richer.

Given this was only ever meant to be for the vulnerable and it's not even helping the majority of them, the ONLY reason to backtrack on that plan and to create a global agenda to vaccinate the whole planet is money. Plain and simple.

Anyway, the lies are coming to the fore more and more each day. Government over here are telling people constantly how massively at risk the unvaxxed are and lying about deaths. Check this out...listen to the end (it's very short anyway) to hear the most alarming you're being lied to statement.

As they say, "never let a good crisis go to waste"...

 

[britbox]

Quick Edit: I posted this initially without any commentary... but I know that annoys some people (which is fair).

I think the video illustrates a reflection of the divide we are currently experiencing among us. If you watch this, ask yourself, which grouping do you fall into? The Pigs experiment is particularly telling IMO.

 

[britbox]

One critical thing above all others is understanding the difference between data and information. I'm very critical of the current education system in western civilizations (particularly), but when I was in that matrix, an esteemed Professor guided us on the concept that learning to process data is far more valuable than studying information. Data is the raw. Information is the processed (by somebody else).

Example:
Data: Raw Adverse Reactions Data (VAERS Database)
Information: NY Times Interpretation of that Data.

Data: Wikileaks Dump of DNC Emails
Information: CNN Interpretation of that data.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

 

[Moxie]

One critical thing above all others is understanding the difference between data and information. I'm very critical of the current education system in western civilizations (particularly), but when I was in that matrix, an esteemed Professor guided us on the concept that learning to process data is far more valuable than studying information. Data is the raw. Information is the processed (by somebody else).

Example:
Data: Raw Adverse Reactions Data (VAERS Database)
Information: NY Times Interpretation of that Data.

Data: Wikileaks Dump of DNC Emails
Information: CNN Interpretation of that data.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

It's also critical to understand the difference between reportage and editorial commentary and I think you miss the distinction here. Not everything the NYTimes or CNN, to cite your examples, prints or broadcasts is editorial. Some of it is straight reporting. What they choose to report on, and where they place it, however, are editorial choices.

 

[britbox]

It's also critical to understand the difference between reportage and editorial commentary and I think you miss the distinction here. Not everything the NYTimes or CNN, to cite your examples, prints or broadcasts is editorial. Some of it is straight reporting. What they choose to report on, and where they place it, however, are editorial choices.

That is a valid point to a degree, but even the nature of the news reporting is increasingly skewed. This is across the board - Fox, BBC etc. I was thinking the other day, has it always been this bad? and have we just been asleep or indifferent? or has there been a huge shift in the last few years? I'm thinking it's a combination of both. Also, the consolidation of many news outlets under the control of a handful of giant conglomerates, has had a devastating effect.

 

[Moxie]

That is a valid point to a degree,

I don't understand "to what degree" that is not a valid point. I think it's a really important one, and I won't let you pass it by. There is a huge difference between reporting and editorial. There is also an inclination nowadays to blur the lines when slamming the "mainstream media." I think it's sloppy, and misrepresents good, decent journalism.

but even the nature of the news reporting is increasingly skewed. This is across the board - Fox, BBC etc. I was thinking the other day, has it always been this bad? and have we just been asleep or indifferent? or has there been a huge shift in the last few years? I'm thinking it's a combination of both. Also, the consolidation of many news outlets under the control of a handful of giant conglomerates, has had a devastating effect.

As to my above, I don't think that news reporting is "increasingly skewed," as you say. I think that the perception is that it is increasingly skewed. Or where people search for their news is increasingly skewed. There is plenty of straightforward journalism still being practiced. And you may not like to hear it, but it tends to be on "mainstream media," where journalists get paid a living wage to do what they do. And have a bit of freedom from the editorial. I agree that the consolidation of news sources over umbrella conglomerates has had a terrible effect on local journalism and worldwide news consumption. But it doesn't mean that it has had a terrible effect on journalism, as a whole. When a person with a political agenda, like Rupert Murdoch, buys up so much media and uses it as his mouthpiece, yes, that is has a terrible effect. Fox "News" is barely news. And MSNBC gets created to react from the other side. But does this mean that the New York Times, The Guardian, El País, The Economist or even CNN have ceased to report general news and do it well? I don't think so. When someone like you decides that the mainstream media has ceases to publish a truth you can live with, you turn to alternate sources on the internet, which is full of misinformation, random people saying whatever they like, and suddenly, even intelligent people like you seem to prefer random internet opinions to vetted journalism. How did it get this bad, you ask? It got this bad because you don't believe that there is such a thing as real journalism, and you stopped believing real journalists more than you believe the blogosphere. And when I say "you," I mean you, Baron. I think all of this is an intellectual tragedy.

 

[britbox]

I don't understand "to what degree" that is not a valid point. I think it's a really important one, and I won't let you pass it by. There is a huge difference between reporting and editorial. There is also an inclination nowadays to blur the lines when slamming the "mainstream media." I think it's sloppy, and misrepresents good, decent journalism.

Moxie, the news (not just editorial) has been compromised and politicized for a long time.

Is it really just about perception? I don't believe it is. In fact, if you go back to 1987, the US abolished the FCC fairness act - a doctrine to provide balanced reporting. Of course, you then have a period of transition to the current crap that mainstream news has become. On that point - we may as well start calling it corporate news, rather than mainstream. It's dwindling in numbers and credibility.

This is nothing new. I was asking questions about the decline of CNN several years ago on this very forum.

The Project Veritas stuff (which I presume you'll never watch, as you don't wish to entertain anything outside of your comfort bubble) included an underground expose of some of CNN's reporting. Climb out of your bubble... go and watch it. The words are coming straight out of CNN staffer's mouths...

There is a lot of crap outside of the mainstream, but there is some incredible well-researched stuff also. Most people don't just go and read random blogs and go "Yeah, that must be true!!".

The biggest problem with mainstream news is the questions that they don't ask.

I'll leave you with a quote:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries. - David Rockefeller

 

[Kieran]

It’s for sure that the mainstream news media is now compromised to a huge extent. CNN=Fox News. They’re indistinguishable, and they’re obviously the propaganda arm of political stances. Watching what they prioritise as “news” that needs to be reported tells us all about them and their politics. Likewise, in other countries…

 

[Moxie]

What I meant by that is that our roots in the west have been Christian for the last 2000 years, and so our historic ideals should tell us that the making of wealth also contains an opportunity to use some of the wealth to help the less fortunate. We could do with some of that sense of seeing our fellow traveller as a sister, and a brother, again. As we know, we're not simply animals who fight to eat but don't share the spoils. I have seen these forms of Protestantism that associate financial gain with being good and God-chosen Christians, and they have some success proselytizing on those terms, unfortunately...

I have been meaning to comment on this from you. I appreciate your point that Christian duty, for those who feel one, does compel us to take care of the less fortunate, a point that often gets lost in the politics. And I know that you're in Ireland, and Britbox is from UK and now in Oz, but there is a distinctly (what we call) "Protestant work ethic" in the US, which has come to treat poverty as a moral failing. It gets combined and conflated with the myth of the "American Dream" to distill into some notion that if you're just good enough and diligent enough, you will succeed, in this capitalist system that invites success to all. Only it doesn't, really, or completely. This is why we treat governmental safety nets as "handouts," and people here resent giving them. Everyone who needs assistance as if they are just "scamming," or "gaming the system." And as if any wealth they accumulate is solely theirs, with no obligation to the common good. That charity is a personal choice, and benevolence should be rewarded with tax breaks. For all that many people in this country lean heavily into their Christianity, politically and socially, it surprises me how parsimonious they become on the subject of Jesus's mandate to take care of the least of us. In the US, we get called "Cafeteria Catholics" for picking and choosing what we decide to adhere to. But I think there are definitely "Cafeteria Protestants," too. I make this point as not Catholic/Protestant, as it's not really a thing here, but to say that religious outrage, on the political stage, tends to pick and choose as to where it aligns with outrage, but conservatives in this country, who are religious, seem to have lost the call to serve the poor.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, the news (not just editorial) has been compromised and politicized for a long time.

Is it really just about perception? I don't believe it is. In fact, if you go back to 1987, the US abolished the FCC fairness act - a doctrine to provide balanced reporting. Of course, you then have a period of transition to the current crap that mainstream news has become. On that point - we may as well start calling it corporate news, rather than mainstream. It's dwindling in numbers and credibility.

This is nothing new. I was asking questions about the decline of CNN several years ago on this very forum.

I understand about the abolition of the Fairness Act. Basically, the Supremes have been chipping away at anything that inhibits corporations, and benefits regular folks. In this, we agree.

The Project Veritas stuff (which I presume you'll never watch, as you don't wish to entertain anything outside of your comfort bubble) included an underground expose of some of CNN's reporting. Climb out of your bubble... go and watch it. The words are coming straight out of CNN staffer's mouths...

As to the bolded above: did I deserve that dig? Don't be a prick. FYI, I don't watch CNN or most TV news on any regular basis. I basically get all of my news from public radio, print journalism, and, yes, from watching some of the stuff you guys suggest, because I trust you. (To some extent.) I can't watch all of it, because life it too short, and you lot have done me wrong with some of this nonsense, on more than one occasion.

There is a lot of crap outside of the mainstream, but there is some incredible well-researched stuff also. Most people don't just go and read random blogs and go "Yeah, that must be true!!".

I disagree with this. MOST people actually DO go "Yeah, that must be true," and trust loads of crap they read on the internet. Not saying that you do, or anyone here, but it is a huge garbage dump for nonsensical conspiracy theories, and a lot of people are buying them. I don't mind if you're skeptical of "mainstream" or, if you prefer "corporate" journalism, but to pretend that it is not being practiced by real journalists with no motivation other than to get the truth out there, at least to some extent, is to wear a tinfoil hat.

The biggest problem with mainstream news is the questions that they don't ask.

This is what I said to you is the difference between "editorial" and "journalistic" choices. I understand that people feel that some things are not being heard, or being completely explored, but it doesn't mean that good journalism isn't being practiced.

I'll leave you with a quote:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries. - David Rockefeller

So is this "Deep-State" or no state? Just corporate world takeover? We're in the Matrix? David Rockefeller is dead, btw. So your solution is to just rely on wikileaks? That's rather global. No local solutions for you? I would advise that we rely on all of our arms, and including what is left of good journalism.

 

[Front242]

 

[Front242]

Been meaning to post this and finally got around to it. To all the ignorant sheep (sorry to be blunt but there's no other way of getting through to people at this stage and I'm also heartily sick of the pro-vax crowd talking to people such as myself the same way when it's THEY who are wrong and were wrong all along) believing their mainstream news, wake the fuck up! Governments worldwide are being paid off by Big Pharma to push these useless vaccines on people who do not need them. The world is fucked and even more so 'cos of all the people who are asleep, heads in the sand, you name it. We now live in a totally controlled world that is only going to get worse and because of the sheep, not the unvaccinated people who your stupid governments are shaming. The irony that the minority were right all along....but hey, we're all conspiracy theorists and "anti-vaxxers". No, we're the awake ones who can see what's happening and proud to be firmly in that camp. Sadly even my own family are asleep and refuse to see the reality.

 

[britbox]

I understand about the abolition of the Fairness Act. Basically, the Supremes have been chipping away at anything that inhibits corporations, and benefits regular folks. In this, we agree.

As to the bolded above: did I deserve that dig? Don't be a prick. FYI, I don't watch CNN or most TV news on any regular basis. I basically get all of my news from public radio, print journalism, and, yes, from watching some of the stuff you guys suggest, because I trust you. (To some extent.) I can't watch all of it, because life it too short, and you lot have done me wrong with some of this nonsense, on more than one occasion.


I disagree with this. MOST people actually DO go "Yeah, that must be true," and trust loads of crap they read on the internet. Not saying that you do, or anyone here, but it is a huge garbage dump for nonsensical conspiracy theories, and a lot of people are buying them. I don't mind if you're skeptical of "mainstream" or, if you prefer "corporate" journalism, but to pretend that it is not being practiced by real journalists with no motivation other than to get the truth out there, at least to some extent, is to wear a tinfoil hat.

This is what I said to you is the difference between "editorial" and "journalistic" choices. I understand that people feel that some things are not being heard, or being completely explored, but it doesn't mean that good journalism isn't being practiced.


So is this "Deep-State" or no state? Just corporate world takeover? We're in the Matrix? David Rockefeller is dead, btw. So your solution is to just rely on wikileaks? That's rather global. No local solutions for you? I would advise that we rely on all of our arms, and including what is left of good journalism.

Moxie, as goes for "Trusting Loads of Crap on the Internet"... yes, like I said, there is a lot of crap but also a lot of good stuff, and also a lot of more official stuff that people don't even look at.

Last year, I mentioned the Great Reset, Fourth Industrial (Technology) Revolution, Agenda 2030... and people either hadn't heard of it or dismissed it as "conspiracy theory".... despite world stakeholders using all the same language, straplines etc.

I follow the WEF news, MiT, Tavistock, Chatham House, UN + The various giant NGOs. Not to mention some great blogs who do incredibly detailed research. They aren't just churning out opinion, rather doing deep dives on who owns what, government documents, declassified documents, patents and patent applications, legislation... etc. - Solid research. You don't get that level of detail from any general mainstream news source.

If I search the New York Times website for example, there is absolutely nothing about the Great Reset. So why would I even consider this a viable news source when they aren't covering the greatest change in generations?

Sure, there are other sources which are more conspiracy-based, but the whole world runs on conspiracy. That's why there is so much secrecy and classified data. Anything that isn't public, could therefore be described as a "conspiracy theory".

This Romanian MEP makes some good points in the EU Parliament. What is happening in that place, is happening everywhere else. Secrecy and Redacted documents galore.




When people said mask compliance would lead to vax compliance and then digital ID compliance, people just mocked the notion. What's happening now? You can see where this is going in slow motion.

There is a much bigger game going on and in my opinion, humanity is in a very dangerous place.

As for your final point... yes of course Rockefeller is dead, but the foundation lives on. Matrix? That could be an interesting thread...

 

[Front242]

The sheep won't like this one bit...

Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial​

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

 

[the AntiPusher]

The sheep won't like this one bit...

Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial​

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Almost 7.5 billion doses of the Covid 19 vaccine has been administered worldwide.. your whistle blower's data is pretty much a fart in the wind at this point.

 

[Front242]

Almost 7.5 billion doses of the Covid 19 vaccine has been administered worldwide.. your whistle blower's data is pretty much a fart in the wind at this point.

It's never too late to educate the majority who have been proven wrong. Those boosters must be very safe going by that report anyway. 52 boosters later I'm sure people will feel just fine and dandy. Rather you than me but to each their own.