Isn't RFK Jr's net worth $50 million?
— RogueAI

If you say so. Your point? — Isaac

Shouldn't we suspect RFK (and Trump) of "[engaging] in underhand, clandestine deals (conspiracies) to extract more wealth"? That's what wealthy people do, right?

Shouldn't we suspect RFK (and Trump) of "[engaging] in underhand, clandestine deals (conspiracies) to extract more wealth"? That's what wealthy people do, right? — RogueAI

Yes.

So it would be fair to say that it's kind of strange that people who distrust the wealthy support wealthy candidates? Esp. ones like,

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/federal-court-approves-25-million-trump-university-settlement-n845181

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/

Yes. Very strange. Can you think of a non-wealthy candidate they should have been supporting instead?

How about this guy?

The Termitinator for president! So much better looking than than the average average.

:up:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/ — RogueAI

Good read. Shows what real lies and distortions look like. All in the service of attempting to thwart proper healthcare for e.g. kids to the extent that could cause their deaths. It's great that he's binned himself now and a nice irony that he's complaining about being misquoted in the process. Essentially a parasite that used his wealth and family connections to manipulate the gullible and ignorant into supporting him on an issue he helped manufacture.

@jorndoe Ask @Baden if he sees even the slightest hypocrisy in his now lauding an article condemning a man for taking quotes out of context and stringing them back together to insinuate something the sources did not originally intend.

I asked Baden. He said you need to watch this video.

:lol:



No, as, for one thing, I never "lauded" the articles you criticized. Also, I (charitably, considering the context) expressed agnosticism on anti-semitic intentions. And @unenlightened exposed Kennedy's tactic neatly. So, there's nothing left to say except he did it to himself and it's a good thing he did.

Are you defending RFK and/or his supporters? It sounds like you are.

Here's a game we can play. You know the black squiggly stuff that fills the space between emojis in people's posts? Why don't you have a crack at reading that, see if you can work out what it means and if that's not too hard we could have a little conversation about the things I've actually said? Sound fun?

Careful! You know actual discussion with those who disagree with you can lead to a number of serious health conditions, are you sure we're ready...

I never "lauded" the articles you criticized — Baden

...

Good read. — Baden

Hardly a glowing review, I know, but...

Also, I (charitably, considering the context) expressed agnosticism on anti-semitic intentions. — Baden

So if you're charitable enough to express agnosticism on the matter, you're suggesting that a good way for Politics to proceed is to smear a person for something they possibly thought or didn't think because we disagree with them on some other policy which we can't argue directly against because...?

I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. It's a 'good' thing that a paper engage in slander on some unrelated topic rather than just address the politician's actual policies that it disagrees with?

The scientific American article was a good read, yes. I don't have anything to add on the other articles as I only read Kennedy's words there, and confirmed them in Wiki. His words themselves are enough to justify the criticisms of him. That's my last comment on this.

Right...

So you think was a good read, whilst also not lauding it?

And you think accusations of antisemitism are justified whilst also remaining charitably agnostic about it?

Got it.

A recent Swiss study done on the risk of side-effects of mRNa vaccines, this time producing a 1 in 35 risk of developing myocardial injury.

Quite stunning numbers, considering the vaccines were marketed as being completely safe.

As this and other recent studies are pointing out, the risks may have been considerable.

Thanks for sharing. Another important and informative video. Some points to consider of:

I will never be enough grateful to all of those scientists and researchers who do this to open our eyes, and escape from lies and corruption from governments.

Yes, it is important to point out that most of the researchers are independent. He said that the paper is important because is not made by "money searchers"

Minute 9:16. Yes, I would be furious too if I were not well informed about the risks of the mRNA-1273 Booster vaccine. Completely unacceptable.

Minute 11:46. An informed consent statement is usually a trap. But this is the subject of another thread.
I agree with him. Let's get legal implications.

A thought experiment, if you will, turning the heat slightly up.

Suppose some mutations occur that are about as contagious/transmissible as the Omicron variant, about as dangerous as SARS-CoV-1 (the 2003 outbreak), where symptoms appear after 4-5 weeks, though some 25-50% turn out asymptomatic.

While this stuff remains unknown in the thought experiment, at first at least, what might we reasonably expect?

We have some data (including historical and also new) regarding propagation, medical establishments, medicine industries, general populace reactions, (emerging) policies, etc. These would be among the things where we could expect something.

I'm thinking the scenario is realistic enough, so, what might we expect, and how best to tackle such a situation (with partial/gradual knowledge along the way)? Say, what's a(n) (un)favored response/policy?

Personally, I wouldn't expect a tenth of the population wiped out, nor "1984". Tackling...not quite sure. (Looking to WHO guidelines is a starting point.)

EDITORIAL: Preparing for the next pandemic
^{— Toronto Sun · Jul 27, 2023}

↑ has comments

They'd have a vaccine pretty quickly: that's the cool thing about the mRNA technology.

Peripherally (measles, not sars) ... London, UK ...

Unvaccinated pupils face 21-day isolation as measles cases rise
^{— Daniel Keane · Yahoo · Sep 15, 2023}
Unvaccinated children face 21 days in isolation after rapid rise in measles
^{— Sara Odeen-Isbister · various via MSN · Sep 15, 2023}

The stupidity of the anti-vax movement emerges yet again. Eventually we should prosecute these people for child endangerment— or at the very least not allow them to infect others.

Stupidity should have consequences beyond natural consequences.

"We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt...

"... We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite."
— Professor Woolhouse, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at Edinburgh University, previously Scottish Covid-19 policy advisor

"The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared"
— Member of UK SAGE - wishing, quite rightly, to remain anonymous talking to the Telegraph

"implementation was often too harsh, too inflexible, too slow to adapt and too dismissive of basic rights...

"... the balance between the costs and benefits of lockdowns swung towards costs long before governments were willing to lift them.

"... Political calculation was never far from the surface of COVID-19 decisions. This had a negative effect on economic activity and national morale. Leaders routinely claimed to base policy on expert advice. It is true that some CHOs favoured harsher measures. But it became clear that experts (both within and outside government) often differed in their advice"
— Fault lines: An independent review into Australia’s response to COVID-19

"No strong reason against [masking children] in corridors etc, and no very strong reasons for. ...not worth an argument"
— Chis Whitty, UK Chief Medical Officer in leaked Whatsapp message

"In reality we haven’t found shielding easy or very effective first time round and I don’t think anyone else has either."
— Patrick Vallance, the UK chief scientific adviser in leaked Whatsapp message

"Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference"
— Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

"A large study in the UK and another that surveyed people internationally found that people with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced greater rates of side effects after vaccination. Among 2000 people who completed an online survey after vaccination, those with a history of covid-19 were 56% more likely to experience a severe side effect that required hospital care.

"Patrick Whelan, of UCLA, says the “sky high” antibodies after vaccination in people who were previously infected may have contributed to these systemic side effects. “Most people who were previously ill with covid-19 have antibodies against the spike protein. If they are subsequently vaccinated, those antibodies and the products of the vaccine can form what are called immune complexes,” he explains, which may get deposited in places like the joints, meninges, and even kidneys, creating symptoms.

"Other studies suggest that a two dose regimen may be counterproductive. One found that in people with past infections, the first dose boosted T cells and antibodies but that the second dose seemed to indicate an “exhaustion,” and in some cases even a deletion, of T cells. “I’m not here to say that it’s harmful,” says Bertoletti, who coauthored the study, “but at the moment all the data are telling us that it doesn’t make any sense to give a second vaccination dose in the very short term to someone who was already infected. Their immune response is already very high.”"
— https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101

"Vaccine injury is a subject that few in the medical profession have wanted to talk about... Regulators of the medical profession have censored public discussion about adverse events following immunisation, with threats to doctors not to make any public statements about anything that ‘might undermine the government’s vaccine rollout’ or risk suspension or loss of their registration"
— Dr. Kerryn Phelps, former chair of AMA

"Since the pandemic began, there have been just over 30,000 excess deaths involving heart disease - on average over 230 additional deaths a week above expected heart disease death rates.

"...Covid infections are no longer a driving force behind the excess heart disease death rate.

"...significant and widespread disruption to heart care services has driven the ongoing surge in excess deaths involving heart disease in England."
— British Heart Foundation

"The COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of global progress in tackling tuberculosis and for the first time in over a decade, TB deaths have increased, according to the World Health Organization’s 2021 Global TB report.

"In 2020, more people died from TB, with far fewer people being diagnosed and treated or provided with TB preventive treatment compared with 2019, and overall spending on essential TB services falling.

"The first challenge is disruption in access to TB services and a reduction in resources. In many countries, human, financial and other resources have been reallocated from tackling TB to the COVID-19 response, limiting the availability of essential services.

"The second is that people have struggled to seek care in the context of lockdowns."
— World Health Organisation

...and in case anyone was thinking this was an unexpected side-effect...

"Even temporary disruptions can cause long-term increases in TB incidence and mortality. If lockdown-related disruptions cause a temporary 50% reduction in TB transmission, we estimated that a 3-month suspension of TB services, followed by 10 months to restore to normal, would cause, over the next 5 years, an additional 1⋅19 million TB cases (Crl 1⋅06–1⋅33) and 361,000 TB deaths (CrI 333–394 thousand) in India, 24,700 (16,100–44,700) TB cases and 12,500 deaths (8.8–17.8 thousand) in Kenya, and 4,350 (826–6,540) cases and 1,340 deaths (815–1,980) in Ukraine. The principal driver of these adverse impacts is the accumulation of undetected TB during a lockdown."
— The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tuberculosis epidemic a modelling analysis - The Lancet

... does that give any clues as to who might now be too embarrassed to comment retrospectively on how we handled the pandemic? — Isaac

Campbell is an idiot.

From the study he cited:

Hospital employees scheduled to undergo mRNA-1273 booster vaccination were assessed for mRNA-1273vaccination-associated myocardial injury, defined as acute dynamic increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T(hs-cTnT) concentration above the sex-specific upper limit of normal on day 3 (48–96 h) after vaccination withoutevidence of an alternative cause. To explore possible mechanisms, antibodies against interleukin-1receptor antagonist(IL-1RA), the SARS-CoV-2-nucleoprotein (NP) and -spike (S1) proteins and an array of14 inflammatory cytokineswere quantified. Among 777 participants (median age 37 years, 69.5% women), 40 participants (5.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7–7.0%) had elevated hs-cTnT concentration on day 3 and mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated in 22 participants (2.8% [95% CI1.7–4.3%]). Twenty cases occurred in women (3.7%[95% CI 2.3–5.7%]), two in men (0.8% [95% CI 0.1–3.0%]). Hs-cTnT elevations were mild and only temporary. No patient had electrocardiographic changes, and none developed major adverse cardiac events within 30 days(0% [95% CI 0–0.4%]). In the overall booster cohort, hs-cTnT concentrations (day 3; median 5, interquartilerange [IQR] 4–6 ng/L) were significantly higher compared to matched controls (n=777, median 3 [IQR 3–5]ng/L,p<0.001). Cases had comparable systemic reactogenicity, concentrations of anti-IL-1RA, anti-NP, anti-S1,and markers quantifying systemic inflammation, but lower concentrations of interferon (IFN)-λ1(IL-29) andgranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) versus persons without vaccine-associated myocardial injury.

Conclusion: mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men. The possible protective role of IFN-λ1(IL-29) and GM-CSF warrant further studies.

Big fucking yawn.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

The study concludes a significant amount of people are developing adverse effects within 30 days of their injection and somehow these effects weren't known beforehand?

The implication is you've either been lied to, or they've basically done no testing at all.

Campbell is an idiot. — Benkei

Classy opening, by the way. Yea, I'm sure Campbell is the idiot here. :roll:

Oh, that must be why the clinical trials of Novavax already showed "an increased risk of myocarditis".

Classy opening, by the way. Yea, I'm sure Campbell is the idiot here. :roll: — Tzeentch

I'll correct my statement. He's an immoral asshole who goes on youtube telling lies. I hope he dies sooner rather than later.

Oh, that must be why the clinical trials of Novavax already showed "an increased risk of myocarditis". — Benkei

I'm not sure who you think you're fooling if you are seriously arguing this was all common knowledge when people were being vaccinated en masse. Yourself, perhaps?

I hope he dies sooner rather than later. — Benkei

I think you got out of bed without taking your medication.

I get that this makes you angry, because you seem to have bought into it yourself.

I'm not sure who you think you're fooling if you are seriously arguing this was all common knowledge when people were being vaccinated en masse. Yourself, perhaps? — Tzeentch

The clinical trial reports were publicly available and there was no actual risk. Why report on something that wasn't a risk? Or are you actually thinking myocardial injury equates with a heart attack?

Why report on something that wasn't a risk? — Benkei

You really need me to answer that?

When you read a medical label and it says "may cause headaches", did the company put that there because they thought headaches were a major health risk, or because people ought to be informed of all the adverse effects they may suffer as a result of the medication.

it's in Dutch so maybe you understand this "bijsluiter". This is for Cominarty. Maybe next time do some research before believing that asshole shill. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/comirnaty-epar-product-information_nl.pdf