I like that theory up to the point where I am forced to take it.... Which is looking increasingly likely.
Also it seems fairly possible this vaccine is in fact a setup for depop. Vax the population then release the virus fatal to vaxxed. Hope not anyway
So,Covid-19 is the common cold, just developed to be a severe variety. The deaths have been inflate by a few methods we all know of by now: 1. Governors housing the sick with the elderly. 2. Government paying hospital corporations a premium for every covid patient, thus incentivizing them to inflate case numbers - i.e. a flu is now Covid, etc. 3. Altering the PCR tests to 30 cycle or more, so that basically anything will test positive for Covid, instead of the 15 cycles, where only sick people would test positive. 4. People who died of any cause - Car accidents, cancer, etc. listed as Covid deaths, if they simply ever had tested positive. and so on.
Agree 100%
But, it's not a flu shot - Influenza is a different virus. (Even though, as you observe, nearly all flu cases were classified as covid)
According to VAERS the flu shot killed 42/170M people, whereas covid vax killed 200x more...
Supposedly, researchers have spent 15 years attempting and failing to develop a working vaccine for SARS 1 (also a severe type of coronavirus, and prototype for SARS 2 / "covid"). So, it's possible that an attempt to do so in 3-6 months would also fail. (If you believe that they are mRNA technology .. that also has has 10 years of failure behind it, largely because they could not localize uptake or target specific cells)
The CDC is politically corrupted. We know this.
100%
But, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of corrupt CDC fraudulently pumping UP the adverse events, when normally any significant signal in that database would cause an immediate halt. (Which of course didn't happen).
Reviewing the Q posts, I think Q is saying covid was something about as deadly as a bad flu year but was amplified for political purposes - totally agree. The vaccine as a "way out" of the fear programming has been somewhat successful, but then there's the question of risks, even if it was developed with good intentions.
For me, I'm not afraid of covid because I know it's not a real threat, especially with the even less dangerous "delta variant", and viable treatments exist which should cancel the EUA but for the massive corruption.
... but that doesnt mean i'm not concerned about being forced to poison myself.
It's too bad Q stopped posting lately, but he didn't seem to be that pro-vaccine
https://qposts.online/?q=vaccine&s=keyword
All I can say is I can't wait for the credits to roll on this movie.
Maybe full hand count is not feasible. Supposedly the UK figured out how to hand-count their BREXIT referendum, so it might be possible. I'd rather throw a few B$ at the problem than deal with what we've got right now.
I guess the most important thing is to keep the hardware and process as simple as possible, to eliminate the complexity and black boxes that can be compromised, and to give the best shot at being able to verify it. Having standard hardware that has well defined functions and never gets updated, would also help. I'm thinking standardized on a fairly simple, bulletproof scanner unit, with open published designs, firmware, etc.
Openly publishing high quality ballot scans (showing handwriting artifacts, etc) would itself go a long way to securing the process, since anyone online can vet it on their own time. If a problem can be observed there then you delve into an audit.
I don't think it's strictly true that quantum can crack any encryption. (One time pad for example). It can definitely crack many forms of encryption though. But I think my position is that faking "real life" so well that a good investigator can't catch it, is very hard.
I very much appreciate your response. It's great to have a dialogue.
I know he has said "enjoy the show" and I do like that idea. There's no question that having the shots actually be saline (or even being actually safe and effective) would be vastly preferable to being harmful.
I also know the drops about multiple movies playing at once. In this case we have one movie claiming the shots are effective and work (pushed at face value by every layer of the establishment, and also by trump himself if you take his statement at face value) and another claiming that they are harmful (various social media sources, various heavily censored people on the internet, people on this forum and myself, being fairly well convinced.)
If I understand your position, it is that the vax/novax controversy is manufactured by creating false narratives of unsafety to further divide us, and to drum up more active conflict and provide new excuses for yet more authoritarian bullshit.
This theory implies: entering a lot of false data into VAERS, crisis actors to appear to keel over after the shots, social media / internet manipulation and corresponding fake censorship, and making sure real doctors and establishment people don't accidentally believe VAERS and other false sources of problems.
My dilemma is that taking the jab would make my life a whole lot easier - I'm under a lot of pressure to do so - and my children also are under pressure, and it could even be mandated for school next year. With my current mindset this is very distressing because I want to avoid it at all costs. Trusting the plan would suggest I should just get it and give it to the children. I understand trust the plan but I guess I'm not trusting enough to do this yet.
I have several other questions:
-
Do you think it's actually a vaccine that works, or just some harmless material?
-
Or is it an important vaccination against something else other than COVID?
-
Does COVID even exist at all?
Interesting data point: over at Quodverum they are strongly of the opinion that COVID exists and the vaccine is safe and effective and everyone should get it if possible, and its safety was not compromised by the speed of development and testing, which they attribute to removal of unnecessary red tape. Personally I don't think something like this can be developed safely in a year because by definition the long term effects cannot be known. Unless either: COVID does not exist and the shots are just saline; or COVID itself was under development for a long time before release and the vaccine was as well. Of course neither of those viewpoints are held by Quodverum folks.
I'm willing to go down these rabbitholes in good faith, but I'm still not ready to stake my life or the lives of loved ones on it. I would much rather take ivermectin prophylactically, which I believe to be known safe... but this doesn't help my pressure dilemmas. Because "CDC says ivermectin doesn't work".
Yeah, only problem is the new variants are less dangerous, as is always the case with the evolution of viruses.. more contagious, less deadly. In fact, the Delta variant works better than the vaccine, as a vaccine.
That's too bad, because I'd love to understand how it does work? Why is he getting a mask? I thought masks were to protect others. My mind is exploding.
This is confusing. If I cross the border illegally but am in fact a citizen, I'm assuming I still get thrown in jail?
I'm not saying the CDC is not lying about most things. AFAICT they in fact ARE lying about some aspects of the mechanism of the shots. My point was that even if you take what they say as true, what they describe is dangerous.
I'm just having trouble believing that somehow these shots are NOT dangerous, contrary to everything we have learned about them.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. I thought you were saying that these shots are NOT going to cause large scale death and suffering, that anecdotal reports on social media and VAERS reporting is not indicative of these shots' true nature. It is my opinion that both of those signals are fairly accurate and in fact the worst is yet to come.
Also, to clarify, when I say documented in medical journals, I am talking about things like the documented fact that subjects post vaccination have free floating spikes in their bloodstream at various times.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
Note that the authors did not seem to be too concerned about this finding. My interpretation was hmm, that's a free floating antigen I don't WANT in my bloodstream, and it can and does cause a lot of problems like strokes, heart attacks, inflammation, etc.
It's always important to separate the bullshit conclusion/narrative of an article from the facts it establishes - like how the CDC found that masks "slow the spread" by maybe 1%, but since 1>0, it's still worth it. Just because the topline conclusion they draw is wrong, doesn't mean that the data revealed in the study is wrong. The fact that the best they can do is publish counter-narrative data with a pro-narrative wrapup tells me the situation is if anything far worse for their narrative than the data suggests.
I used to think that too (I am also a computer guy). But it is very difficult to have every layer of the stack including hardware be verifiable. And while paper is a pain in the ass it's also just a lot more difficult to hack. Many of Jovan's methods rely on analyzing the unintentional corroborating redundancies like paper folds or scribble styles, that are virtually impossible to make line up when you're faking it. Digital techniques are always about eliminating unintentional redundancy, by representing artifacts in a more succinct digital format. Sure you can add in digital signatures etc but there are always ways around these things through the "real world" - like how social engineering, not cryptography, is usually the weak point in a digital security architecture.
I'm thinking hand marked paper ballots, kept in a sealed box with multiple observers. Why try to optimize this process further?
For the counting, I don't see why hand counting is out of the question, if it's done in a distributed fashion. An initial hand count at the precinct level followed by a machine scan and publish the scans and tallies.
All candidates can bring in their own machines to examine the paper, or download and analyze the scans, and reconcile differences.
I don't have it all worked out, but any black box is a huge risk and keeping the paper is the only reason we have any hope of sorting out 2020. (Even so in 2020 there are a lot of "ballot marking devices" in use, and who knows if they did what the voter intended. Those have got to go except for people who legit need assistance)
If the shots work as claimed by CDC, and as documented in medical journals, they are definitely harmful and the reports in VAERS are more or less what would be expected (undercounted by at least 10x of course).
Aside from the immediate and long term side effects, it also seems likely they set the recipient up for greater vulnerability to serious illness from similar viruses (e.g. colds) as the antibody levels reduce over time. If that is true then once you get the initial shot, you have to keep getting boosters or you have massively increased risk from what would be insignificant viruses to a non-vaxxed person. And every booster is rolling the dice on short/long term side effects, and incrementally destroying your remaining immune system. People will grow to hate those boosters.
This hasn't been proven to be the case yet, but it's a distinct possibility.
So, IMO we have to live with the unfortunate fact that better than 50% of our population is kind of fucked, including nearly everyone I know and care about. It's going to be tough but if it ushers in a new era of awakening and roots out the corruption in the process, I think we'll bounce back in a generation or two. Those of us remaining will need to start making kids though.
Imagine what WWII was like in Germany.. or any number of other massive calamities throughout history. The losses are incalculable, but somehow those remaining still create the future.
Yes, this is a problem, I can't boycott them any more than I already am!
Don't answer is by far the best strategy, which I already routinely employ anyway. Now is not the time to make a big statement with your name and address attached to it.
Waving flags? Sounds like they got a white supremacy problem down there.
Borrowing against their stock portfolio suggests they're not worried about a stock crash. Where are they putting the money? Back into the market? Real estate?
If it was back into the market it would just be called an increase in margin purchases.
Maybe they are buying ammunition :)
You know how in windows you have to serially install every security patch, and reboot 57 times and then the computer never works again? It's like that.
Fact is nobody knows. It seems fairly likely that once you take the first shot, as it wears off your odds of being killed by something like the common cold go way up.. unless you get the booster. Next question, are the boosters free?
I used to believe in technological solutions until 2020. Not anymore.. The paper trail is the only thing that can't easily be faked.
This calls for bounty hunters.
On the motivation of "Big Tech".
There's no question this would never have worked without the active assistance of the big tech narrative engine. I don't buy the idea that it's profit motive for them because even all the ad spend from Pharma is probably not really that large in their overall revenue.. and they could easily all make the same choice not to go along.
Maybe it's just going along with government so they can further their control, but there's enough smart people in big tech, even if they lack common sense, to be able to see through this. So it's hard to see they DONT know that this is a depopulation scheme or other weapon of war. (That's an opinion of course, not fact)
If that argument holds then it seems much more likely that the goal is in truth one of the super-evil ones - depopulation, transhumanism, radical environmentalism, or supporting an authoritarian and depopulated future by helping China get to the forefront. The people running those companies do seem fairly sociopathic, narcissistic, technocratic true-believers, and tied in with the elite, so it's not that far outside the realm of possibility I suppose.
Can it really be possible that big tech is really unaware of the clear substantial downsides or at least enormous risks, with little benefit of the vaccine push, and that they would make that choice just for government/pharma cheese, and not because they desire that outcome?
Another possibility to consider - the 2 part bio-weapon theory. I don't have strong evidence this is a real possibilty in terms of publications but it makes sense to me.
This mRNA technique generates a much more predictable set of antibodies, and generates antibodies that would not be, (or only rarely would be) created by a natural infection or even a more traditional vaccine that acts more like an attenuated form of the real infection. This means the "vax" population could have a predictable response to a new (engineered?) antigen that keys off those unnatural antibodies that are only present in the vax population.
That is, the vaccine rollout produces a vulnerability unique to that population, that could be exploited as if it were a binary (2 part) bio-weapon, one that primes and one that kills. It wouldn't even require collusion between the vax merchant and the person who wants to commit genocide, because it's easy to know precisely what antibodies these people will have. It's basically like a monoculture type vulnerability - the vaccine produces less diversity than the natural infection, and produces them predictably. As I understand it, china delivered the spike protein and suggested the idea of using it to pfizer et al... and they also banning use of the mRNA vax. At least that is what I recall. That's not a great sign if we really are at war with China or if things heat up.
If someone wants to engineer depopulation, this approach could be a lot more deadly than a natural ADE, and it's targeted. I think the Pharma plan is to sell boosters ad infinitum to keep those neutralizing antibodies up and provide updates for new variants, destroying your immune system in the process, and every booster is russian roulette.
But, it could be that people unrelated to Pharma have another plan.
I can't really imagine how you can really undo what this shot does, if the antibodies created are bad, you're basically permanently fucked.
Some more evidence that ADE could be a problem, even if it hasn't showed up yet. (I posted this in a reply but it's really a relevant reply to the original post).
The way this shot seems to work it causes the host's system to learn a large number of different types of antibodies. The majority of the unique antibody types are non-neutralizing (meaning that they bind to the antigen but do not stop it from working and replicating). (see https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2 )
The reason the shots appear to work initially is that the titers of the neutralizing antibodies are higher, even though there are more unique antibody types that are non-neutralizing.
Trouble is, the titers wane over time, not necessarily in a coordinated fashion. This could allow the balance to shift over time, and if the balance shifts to the non-neutralizing, and if a variant happens to activate more of those and exploit them, you have a big problem.
Another thing that is an interesting signal is in the reaction to delta variant among UK vaccinated people.
see table 4 in particular.
If you compute the Case Fatality Rate for unvaccinated, partly, and fully vaccinated, you get unvax: 0.10%, partly: .08%, fully: 0.64%. Note the CFR went up with fully vax people by 6x!
If you work out the population sizes of unvax, part and full vax, it turns out that the deaths overall in the population (which could be a measure of IFR assuming the infections are distributed evenly among the groups) are about 32% lower after the first shot, and 40% lower than unvax after the second.
This tells you a few things:
it doesn't really work on delta there is negligible benefit to the second shot in terms of death rate. the second shot does reduce the CASE rate a lot, which leads to much higher CFR. Here's my concern: does this mean there are 2 separate effects, one reducing cases (non-mild infections in some sense) and another one that is INCREASING odds of death given non-mild infection? If so and case prevention fades while the other does not, could be very bad.
All in all, I think the odds of a naturally occurring ADE situation in the next 5 years are fairly high.
On whether ADE is a concern - your characterization is correct but the fact that it hasn't showed up yet is not indicative of it not being a problem. It's unclear how long it might take to show up.
The way this shot seems to work it causes the host's system to learn a large number of different types of antibodies. The majority of the unique antibody types are non-neutralizing (meaning that they bind to the antigen but do not stop it from working and replicating). (see https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2 )
The reason the shots appear to work initially is that the titers of the neutralizing antibodies are higher, even though there are more unique antibody types that are non-neutralizing.
Trouble is, the titers wane over time, not necessarily in a coordinated fashion. This could allow the balance to shift over time, and if the balance shifts to the non-neutralizing, and if a variant happens to activate more of those and exploit them, you have a big problem.
The other concern I have personally about this (and I don't think I have seen this concern voiced elsewhere so maybe it's bullshit) is that this mRNA technique generates a predictable set of antibodies, and generates antibodies that would not be, (or only rarely would be) created by a natural infection or even a more traditional vaccine that acts more like an attenuated form of the real infection. This means the "vax" population could have a predictable response to a new (engineered?) antigen that keys off those unnatural antibodies that are only present in the vax population.
That is, the vaccine rollout produces a vulnerability unique to that population, that could be exploited as if it were a binary (2 part) bio-weapon, one that primes and one that kills. It wouldn't even require collusion between the vax merchant and the person who wants to commit genocide, because it's easy to know precisely what antibodies these people will have. It's basically like a monoculture type vulnerability - the vaccine produces less diversity than the natural infection, and produces them predictably. As I understand it, china delivered the spike protein and suggested the idea of using it to pfizer et al... and they also banning use of the mRNA vax. At least that is what I recall. That's not a great sign if we really are at war with China or if things heat up.
Another thing that is an interesting signal is in the reaction to delta variant among UK vaccinated people.
see table 4 in particular.
If you compute the Case Fatality Rate for unvaccinated, partly, and fully vaccinated, you get unvax: 0.10%, partly: .08%, fully: 0.64%. Note the CFR went up with fully vax people by 6x!
If you work out the population sizes of unvax, part and full vax, it turns out that the deaths overall in the population (which could be a measure of IFR assuming the infections are distributed evenly among the groups) are about 32% lower after the first shot, and 40% lower than unvax after the second.
This tells you a few things:
- it doesn't really work on delta
- there is negligible benefit to the second shot in terms of death rate.
- the second shot does reduce the CASE rate a lot, which leads to much higher CFR.
Here's my concern: does this mean there are 2 separate effects, one reducing cases (non-mild infections in some sense) and another one that is INCREASING odds of death given non-mild infection? If so and case prevention fades while the other does not, could be very bad.
All in all, I think the odds of a naturally occurring ADE situation in the next 5 years are fairly high. How deadly it ends up being, is harder to say. If someone wants to engineer depopulation, that could be a lot more deadly than a natural ADE. I think the Pharma plan is to sell boosters ad infinitum to keep those neutralizing antibodies up and provide updates for new variants. Of course it also destroys your immune system and every booster is russian roulette but it's going to be very profitable. It could be that people unrelated to Pharma have another plan.
I can't really imagine how you can really undo what this shot does, if the antibodies created are bad, you're basically permanently fucked.
So, when the commies take over and we end up needing to eat the zoo animals, will they be safe for human consumption?
It probably means ID is required to get a vaccine.
Rip it off! Fuck em if they can't handle it!