Just showed one friend of mine the monkeypox tabletop exercise: first I googled it and came up reuters fact-checker website:
They say because everything was drawn up exactly how it happened it is not a proof that it was planned. That's it. So they say it wasn't so we must believe it.
Atlantic article: "Gay Men Need a Specific Warning About Monkeypox
Tiptoeing around the issue carries its own risks."
Pity the poor Hive Mind: on the one hand, you feel the need to Promote the Narrative; yet on the other hand, you have a compulsion to reach out and help an allied group (the gays). If you're in the propaganda business, just how do you fail to mention that gays are mostly at risk, since it might reflect poorly on them? This is called a "double bind."
Historical interest: AIDS was first identified because researchers were studying the illnesses of gay men in the 1970s/1980s. To the best of my knowledge, AIDS has always been primarily a disease of the gay and IV drug abuser lifestyles. There are other factors of course, such as the fact that these groups don't exactly take the best care of their health. It's also the disease the let Fauci begin his empire building.
None of this is to say that others can't get HIV/AIDS or Monkey Pox --- but they may not be the most at-risk groups.
Aids was originally called GRID (Gay related immune disorder).
There was a decade or so where a study was allowed suggesting that young women were the fastest growing demographic with Aids because the argument was used "How do you know it's awful if you haven't even tried it?" (My opinion).
The only organization that gives you an indication of where the dangers are, is the blood donor clinic. There is one question that goes like this: "have you had sex with another man in the last year, even once?" (The Aids virus is not reliably tested for until a year after infection, although now it may be 3 months)
I saw and read that too. Umm... stunning, shocking, and fully confusing that they 'allowed' this. Perhaps calculating future legal battles where they can claim they published articles that went against the narrative. Don't know. Yes, it's excellent. I downloaded right away assuming it would be removed, but still there.
I also saw this a week or so ago on the NIH site. It's a great piece of work that outlines the whole fraudulent CV19 policy and response by our "leadership" but i doubt this is actually endorsed by NIH. What gives? Does anyone know what CDC and NIH are really doing here? I wanted to send this to some of my branch covidian true believer acquaintances but wasn't sure what to make of the link to the NIH.
Baylock’s excellent article with over 70 citations was originally published in Surgical Neurology International and is not endorsed by NIH or PubMed. This is the disclaimer on the website:
“This disclaimer relates to PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Bookshelf. These three resources are scientific literature databases offered to the public by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). NLM is not a publisher, but rather collects, indexes, and archives scientific literature published by other organizations. The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government.”
Blaylock is great but he's long been considered a lunatic by mainstream medicine. That began over a decade ago when he started openly questioning the ever expanding childhood vax schedule.
It's a good paper but it's just preaching to the choir unfortunately.
Amen Laura. My wife and I learned that lesson the hard way fifteen years ago when our first son had a serious adverse reaction when given eight vaccine doses as a toddler in a single visit. We trusted the white coats with their diplomas on the wall when they said it was perfectly safe. It never once dawned on us they were completely full of it and just parroting what pharma told them. It was a rude awakening and we have not made that mistake again.
BTW, Dr. Blaylock was one whose writings back then we found incredibly useful and informative. However, those writings destroyed his reputation in the medical industry.
Fortunately that hard lesson came in very useful with Covid. It was the exact same tactics, fear mongering, and threats used by pediatricians to guilt trip parents. We've been immune to it for a long time now.
Jeff C, I am so sorry to hear that your family was hurt by the pharmaceutical industry. So many families have suffered and been dismissed by the “professionals”. I don’t understand how people can’t see that our children are being used as Guinea pigs. It’s downright criminal 😡
well, now remember, this area on the NIH website are authored articles and many can read them and dispute. This website is pretty good about open discussion. I was surprised to find many dissenting articles on various medical discussions.
Just coz it's on PubMed doesn't mean it's NIH policy or admissions. Yes, it says "... nih.gov" in the URL, but it's a database covering a large set of publications that aren't sourced by NIH.
G.K. Chesterton said that the reason fairy tales were so grim was because children, who are innocent, love justice. Adults, who are not innocent, prefer mercy.
Man or God may offer it, but Nature offers neither. Well, maybe "justice" if you allow it to mean "Always according to my laws, impartially, immediately, with no exceptions granted, no appeals, and certainly no mercy, but no cruelty either."
Your post was fabulous and I was stunned by the Tyson quote. Who knew he was so insightful? Now I need to watch the video and listen to the music. Loved the poem too.
That fairy tale is from Hans Christian Andersen, correct? Not dark enough for the germanic tales collected by the brothers Grimm - one of whom was a linguist. I'm sure Klaus Schwab is an admirer.
For fun, I consulted an English-German dictionary. "Grimmig" exists in German. So the Grimm's name is not a perfect pun, but probably close to it. Grim tales indeed, and the American versions were toned down quite a bit, so I've learnt.
I was warned it was my last free article. Probably just as well; reading this tripe would turn me into a gibbering idiot. Even so, it's worth an occasional peek at one of the flagship Hive (Woke, etc.) premier media organs, even though it be a de-facto jobs program for leftist writers, a public service provided by Steve Jobs' billionaire widow.
This particular piece isn't too bad actually. It doesn't really tell us anything we wouldn't know, at least those of us who've followed the pandemic since 2019. Many of the claims seem to me level-headed, especially coming from a usually dubious source. Even so I found some inconsistencies.
Let's consider the title claim: "You are going to get Covid again and again..."; well maybe, but yes and no. Nowhere in the article does it distinguish between a virus, SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, and Covid-19, which is a cluster of symptoms caused by said virus, ranging from almost nothing to death. Given what we already know about this class of virus (some of which is elucidated in the article) we know that humans are prone to be re-infected; more likely with mutations of the virus, rather than the "old" virus. Thus, the claim seems valid: SARS-CoV-2 is a close relative of several common colds and no one gains lifetime immunity to those, AFAIK. Since early 2020 I have had perhaps two respiratory illnesses. Both were equal to a mild head cold. To the best of my knowledge, I have never caught "Covid-19." Of course that doesn't mean I never will, but given its communicability, I suspect I've been exposed by now. Is my experience typical? I suspect it is.
The article hints at SARS-CoV-2 being a bit unusual, and it is. The article doesn't say why, but it's likely this virus came from a lab and that it was modified in many ways, to include inserts to evade the immune system. It may never be proven that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. However, it remains incontrovertible that earlier SARS virus research engaged in precisely that type of alteration. It's rather hard to hide academic research papers dating back to the early 2000s. As such, I concede the point that even 2 1/2 years on, there probably remains a lot about the virus we don't know about and/or they aren't telling us. Thus serious disease can't be ruled out. But the same is true for "normal" cold, flu and other usually mild disease.
Finally, it's kind of amusing: they make the usual pitch for the value of the vaxxes several places. Yet it notes the virus mutates rapidly, thus tending to evade existing immunity, whether from a needle or natural. Also left unmentioned is that all the jabs use the Wuhan (original) spike, which hasn't been in the wild for over two years now.
Summary: mostly true, but just a fluff article that any high-school student could have written. Like much media, you are often better off not even reading it at all! I guess I do it for the stimulation.
Literally publishing a book titled "The Great Reset" and then having the Fact Checkers say that's a conspiracy theory be like:
Just showed one friend of mine the monkeypox tabletop exercise: first I googled it and came up reuters fact-checker website:
They say because everything was drawn up exactly how it happened it is not a proof that it was planned. That's it. So they say it wasn't so we must believe it.
Atlantic article: "Gay Men Need a Specific Warning About Monkeypox
Tiptoeing around the issue carries its own risks."
Pity the poor Hive Mind: on the one hand, you feel the need to Promote the Narrative; yet on the other hand, you have a compulsion to reach out and help an allied group (the gays). If you're in the propaganda business, just how do you fail to mention that gays are mostly at risk, since it might reflect poorly on them? This is called a "double bind."
Historical interest: AIDS was first identified because researchers were studying the illnesses of gay men in the 1970s/1980s. To the best of my knowledge, AIDS has always been primarily a disease of the gay and IV drug abuser lifestyles. There are other factors of course, such as the fact that these groups don't exactly take the best care of their health. It's also the disease the let Fauci begin his empire building.
None of this is to say that others can't get HIV/AIDS or Monkey Pox --- but they may not be the most at-risk groups.
Keep in mind the casual relationship to "poppers", a former ghey delight, and the destruction of the immune system.
Aids was originally called GRID (Gay related immune disorder).
There was a decade or so where a study was allowed suggesting that young women were the fastest growing demographic with Aids because the argument was used "How do you know it's awful if you haven't even tried it?" (My opinion).
The only organization that gives you an indication of where the dangers are, is the blood donor clinic. There is one question that goes like this: "have you had sex with another man in the last year, even once?" (The Aids virus is not reliably tested for until a year after infection, although now it may be 3 months)
check out this article on the NIH website https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/#sec1-2title now they’re openly admitting what they did without a care.
I saw and read that too. Umm... stunning, shocking, and fully confusing that they 'allowed' this. Perhaps calculating future legal battles where they can claim they published articles that went against the narrative. Don't know. Yes, it's excellent. I downloaded right away assuming it would be removed, but still there.
Pubmed is just a database. "They" didn't "allow" anything, it's published in a journal not by NIH.
I also saw this a week or so ago on the NIH site. It's a great piece of work that outlines the whole fraudulent CV19 policy and response by our "leadership" but i doubt this is actually endorsed by NIH. What gives? Does anyone know what CDC and NIH are really doing here? I wanted to send this to some of my branch covidian true believer acquaintances but wasn't sure what to make of the link to the NIH.
Baylock’s excellent article with over 70 citations was originally published in Surgical Neurology International and is not endorsed by NIH or PubMed. This is the disclaimer on the website:
“This disclaimer relates to PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Bookshelf. These three resources are scientific literature databases offered to the public by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). NLM is not a publisher, but rather collects, indexes, and archives scientific literature published by other organizations. The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government.”
Thank you. I figured as much but had not seen the actual disclaimer. Much appreciated!
Blaylock is great but he's long been considered a lunatic by mainstream medicine. That began over a decade ago when he started openly questioning the ever expanding childhood vax schedule.
It's a good paper but it's just preaching to the choir unfortunately.
Now that we know how careless the studies are for therapeutics, ie vaccines, can we really trust the childhood vax schedule? I definitely don’t!
Amen Laura. My wife and I learned that lesson the hard way fifteen years ago when our first son had a serious adverse reaction when given eight vaccine doses as a toddler in a single visit. We trusted the white coats with their diplomas on the wall when they said it was perfectly safe. It never once dawned on us they were completely full of it and just parroting what pharma told them. It was a rude awakening and we have not made that mistake again.
BTW, Dr. Blaylock was one whose writings back then we found incredibly useful and informative. However, those writings destroyed his reputation in the medical industry.
Fortunately that hard lesson came in very useful with Covid. It was the exact same tactics, fear mongering, and threats used by pediatricians to guilt trip parents. We've been immune to it for a long time now.
Jeff C, I am so sorry to hear that your family was hurt by the pharmaceutical industry. So many families have suffered and been dismissed by the “professionals”. I don’t understand how people can’t see that our children are being used as Guinea pigs. It’s downright criminal 😡
Simple answer… No
I previously read it as well and kept a copy. I am stunned that the journal has the intestinal fortitude to keep it up. Good show!
makes one wonder.
well, now remember, this area on the NIH website are authored articles and many can read them and dispute. This website is pretty good about open discussion. I was surprised to find many dissenting articles on various medical discussions.
Just coz it's on PubMed doesn't mean it's NIH policy or admissions. Yes, it says "... nih.gov" in the URL, but it's a database covering a large set of publications that aren't sourced by NIH.
Wow....shocking and unconscionable.
Wow, thanks for this article, Bob N! Absolutely unconscionable.
I got an access denied message, but I do use a VPN.
Some in the crowd would happily lick the emperors taint
You’ll get monkeypox! I haven’t heard taint in along time. Thanks for the laugh.
Clever as usual
G.K. Chesterton said that the reason fairy tales were so grim was because children, who are innocent, love justice. Adults, who are not innocent, prefer mercy.
And Chthonic! Good word!! I'm a big Serapis / Dionysis fan!!
Man or God may offer it, but Nature offers neither. Well, maybe "justice" if you allow it to mean "Always according to my laws, impartially, immediately, with no exceptions granted, no appeals, and certainly no mercy, but no cruelty either."
Probably moreso for the threat factor. Gotta scare those kinder into obedience.
Chthonic Reducer? Are you a fellow Dead Boys fan?
Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
https://changeandevolve.substack.com/p/the-emperors-new-clothes?s=w
Amazing, prescient post! Thanks for writing this and sharing the link. The embedded video by Canadian ethics professor is powerful!
Thank you, that means a lot to me. She is amazing and truly speaks from the heart!
Your post was fabulous and I was stunned by the Tyson quote. Who knew he was so insightful? Now I need to watch the video and listen to the music. Loved the poem too.
Thank you for your kind words... as I love writing, music and poetry I have found a way to bring all those passions together in my Stack!
Great post. Thank-you for adding, "I Rise," at the end. I love that poem. It's very powerful.
Thank you, it’s one of my favorite poems... and I am happy you enjoyed the stack
That fairy tale is from Hans Christian Andersen, correct? Not dark enough for the germanic tales collected by the brothers Grimm - one of whom was a linguist. I'm sure Klaus Schwab is an admirer.
I see physical as well as psychological similarities
I'm struggling to hit like. I mean, great point. I'm just scarred mentally after seeing it. I'm disturbed it's more true than I want to admit.
Been there
Eurgh!
Can we PLEASE get to the fairy tale ending, where we all live happily ever after? I'm not enjoying the Grimmer and Grimmier version of said tales!
For fun, I consulted an English-German dictionary. "Grimmig" exists in German. So the Grimm's name is not a perfect pun, but probably close to it. Grim tales indeed, and the American versions were toned down quite a bit, so I've learnt.
This one says it all.
That is so very funny and accurate on many levels! Thank you this is a keeper.
Need a Nuremberg for journalists.
dont recall Schwab having a tash
they were written by Mr. Grimm, I think.
Actually there were two brothers, I believe.
Frank Reynolds Responds:
https://tenor.com/view/backing-you-get-yours-danny-devito-danny-devito-gif-13052169
Here's an article in the infamous Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/05/covid-reinfection-research-immunity/639436/
I was warned it was my last free article. Probably just as well; reading this tripe would turn me into a gibbering idiot. Even so, it's worth an occasional peek at one of the flagship Hive (Woke, etc.) premier media organs, even though it be a de-facto jobs program for leftist writers, a public service provided by Steve Jobs' billionaire widow.
This particular piece isn't too bad actually. It doesn't really tell us anything we wouldn't know, at least those of us who've followed the pandemic since 2019. Many of the claims seem to me level-headed, especially coming from a usually dubious source. Even so I found some inconsistencies.
Let's consider the title claim: "You are going to get Covid again and again..."; well maybe, but yes and no. Nowhere in the article does it distinguish between a virus, SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, and Covid-19, which is a cluster of symptoms caused by said virus, ranging from almost nothing to death. Given what we already know about this class of virus (some of which is elucidated in the article) we know that humans are prone to be re-infected; more likely with mutations of the virus, rather than the "old" virus. Thus, the claim seems valid: SARS-CoV-2 is a close relative of several common colds and no one gains lifetime immunity to those, AFAIK. Since early 2020 I have had perhaps two respiratory illnesses. Both were equal to a mild head cold. To the best of my knowledge, I have never caught "Covid-19." Of course that doesn't mean I never will, but given its communicability, I suspect I've been exposed by now. Is my experience typical? I suspect it is.
The article hints at SARS-CoV-2 being a bit unusual, and it is. The article doesn't say why, but it's likely this virus came from a lab and that it was modified in many ways, to include inserts to evade the immune system. It may never be proven that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. However, it remains incontrovertible that earlier SARS virus research engaged in precisely that type of alteration. It's rather hard to hide academic research papers dating back to the early 2000s. As such, I concede the point that even 2 1/2 years on, there probably remains a lot about the virus we don't know about and/or they aren't telling us. Thus serious disease can't be ruled out. But the same is true for "normal" cold, flu and other usually mild disease.
Finally, it's kind of amusing: they make the usual pitch for the value of the vaxxes several places. Yet it notes the virus mutates rapidly, thus tending to evade existing immunity, whether from a needle or natural. Also left unmentioned is that all the jabs use the Wuhan (original) spike, which hasn't been in the wild for over two years now.
Summary: mostly true, but just a fluff article that any high-school student could have written. Like much media, you are often better off not even reading it at all! I guess I do it for the stimulation.
When I made this analogy to one of my son's teachers, in the late summer of 2020, I had to explain the story...
Sad