CoronaVirus / Adolf Putin / The Apocalypse etc

[begeegs]

I tend to read a lot of information both pro and con regarding particular subjects and by nature tend to be mistrustful of the relationship between the government and corporations. I do agree with Nut Flush that a lot of things on social media is contextualized to suit a narrative, so I look and see this and dismiss them. That being said when things did start to get censored by big tech (google, youtube, twitter and now even duck, duck, go), I get very suspicious about this as it now seems to be the new normal (censorship). I don't want the UK to become like China with censorship rife except for state sponsored media.

The website that I posted has a lot of information (again, please go to the end to view the sources) which was well sourced.

Even if you don't agree, that's fine. I accept that, but for me, I like to know why. Perhaps I am wrong.

[A11M11]

You have the right to believe whatever you want and however misguided you are to accept this clap trap is up to you.
When ever I see a headline that states that Big Pharma or major industry don't want you to know something I realise that I am reading something probably espoused by a 14 year old or someone trying to scam people into buying a twenty first century equivalent of snake oil .
I do believe that however there are in the background people trying to propagate a new world order but not by injecting microchips into people . Even Elon Musk ain't that crazy .
Yet.

[Gunner Rob]

I tend to read a lot of information both pro and con regarding particular subjects and by nature tend to be mistrustful of the relationship between the government and corporations. I do agree with Nut Flush that a lot of things on social media is contextualized to suit a narrative, so I look and see this and dismiss them. That being said when things did start to get censored by big tech (google, youtube, twitter and now even duck, duck, go), I get very suspicious about this as it now seems to be the new normal (censorship). I don't want the UK to become like China with censorship rife except for state sponsored media.

The website that I posted has a lot of information (again, please go to the end to view the sources) which was well sourced.

Even if you don't agree, that's fine. I accept that, but for me, I like to know why. Perhaps I am wrong.

If you got diagnosed with cancer would you trust the diagnosis or try and find a website that would convince you that you hadn’t got it?

The point is I don’t need to read any conspiracy theory on the internet. I trust the medical advice in this country ( that is different from trusting the government by the way )

[begeegs]

You have the right to believe whatever you want and however misguided you are to accept this clap trap is up to you.
When ever I see a headline that states that Big Pharma or major industry don't want you to know something I realise that I am reading something probably espoused by a 14 year old or someone trying to scam people into buying a twenty first century equivalent of snake oil .
I do believe that however there are in the background people trying to propagate a new world order but not by injecting microchips into people . Even Elon Musk ain't that crazy .
Yet.

First of all - thanks for insult. When I see the narrative from Covid that was sold to us crumbling and what was once censored now accepted as truth, I can only start to question more.

Big Pharma consist of some of the most criminally fraudulent companies on the planet, so the question shouldn't be in their defense, but rather why should we trust them. In the US, they underwrite just about everything on/in traditional media and in the UK, the MHRA receives funding from those same pharmaceutical companies. This isn't a conspiracy theory, but factual. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... foi-21-624). So my question is, are the MHRA influenced in their decision making because of this funding? Answers on a postcard.

[begeegs]

I tend to read a lot of information both pro and con regarding particular subjects and by nature tend to be mistrustful of the relationship between the government and corporations. I do agree with Nut Flush that a lot of things on social media is contextualized to suit a narrative, so I look and see this and dismiss them. That being said when things did start to get censored by big tech (google, youtube, twitter and now even duck, duck, go), I get very suspicious about this as it now seems to be the new normal (censorship). I don't want the UK to become like China with censorship rife except for state sponsored media.

The website that I posted has a lot of information (again, please go to the end to view the sources) which was well sourced.

Even if you don't agree, that's fine. I accept that, but for me, I like to know why. Perhaps I am wrong.

If you got diagnosed with cancer would you trust the diagnosis or try and find a website that would convince you that you hadn’t got it?

The point is I don’t need to read any conspiracy theory on the internet. I trust the medical advice in this country ( that is different from trusting the government by the way )

Couldn't you get a second opinion along with your own research? Doctors are humans, but when you are wary about some of the same doctors making commissions on medicines they are prescribing to you, doesn't that make you suspicious? I want to trust doctors for certain, but with creeping privatization of the NHS and the funding of the MHRA (UKs regulatory body for drug approvals) from Big Pharma, doesn't that corrupt the whole process?

Here is anecdotal story - My son has autism and was recently diagnosed with ADHD. We went to the pediatrician to see what could be done and the doctor commented something odd (paraphrasing here) - 'I don't get commission on this medicine, but I think that he should try Ritalin.' This begs the question, doe NHS doctors now make commissions on prescribed medicines. I sure hope not.

My point here is that the medical profession should be called into question and not blindly accepted as factual especially in light of funding sources.

[nut flush gooner]

I was on to a very interesting website which has a broad overview of the whole coronavirus situation which is excellently sourced as well. It also goes into some detail into the WEF and the transhumanism movement which is frightening indeed. If you have time to read, start with the Spartacus Letter as this is the high level view, but still incredibly detailed. The rest of the website goes into the sources referenced. It reads like some sort of Bond film minus Bond and his entourage of women.

https://iceni.substack.com/

I get really angry when I see this sort of shit posted on Social Media, I guarantee not one of these articles has been peer-reviewed by any of the major medical bodies in the world.

Our greatest failing in this pandemic has been allowing material like this to be put out on the internet without accountability. This is highly politicised and ironically a lot of the material emanates from the US, which has one of the worst COVID records in the world.

As a result, despite the advances in medical technology, many thousands more have died than needed to.

Real-world info, I have taken Paxlovid from Monday, it's given me mild side effects and stopped what would have been a much more severe version of COVID knocking me out. Given my existing health conditions it could have been very nasty. Today, five days in I feel fine.

Did you actually take time to look at the sources at the end of the document before dismissing it? If you did, you'd see that quite a lot of these are from what you would term credible institutions and traditional media.

As I said, this was well researched and rather than get angry about it and try to smear the article - try scrolling to the end and see why I said that it was well sourced.

I am glad that you recovered from Covid. I have had it twice now with both times very mild.

None of them are credible, no CDC or BMJ for example?

I read the Sparticus article, it was written by someone who didn't even have the balls to confirm what his/her name was and their level of qualification? At least someone like Dr. John Campbell, who was slaughtered by the BBC a few months ago has the backbone to standby everything he says rather than use a pseudo alias. Professor Tim Spector another stalwart of the COVID pandemic has had funding removed by the government because his site is still showing how bad the level of infections are in the UK (over 330k yesterday), when Boris wants us to live with it.

Seriously take your links and post them elsewhere. No one on this forum has any time for this sort of shit, echoed by DB10s comments (and a few other contributors).

The whole site is politicised. Most people don't realise the billions that have been spent in R&D by pharma companies only for a lot of treatments not to be authorised (eg Glaxo's). The facts are a company like Pfizer has so quickly produced an antiviral, that is much more effective than Ivermectin, which lets face it I wouldn't trust the Indian Pharma industry as far as I could throw it when it comes to approving credible COVID treatments, when they were an absolute shambles in dealing with the Delta Variant and their government have wholesale lied about the true death levels on the subcontinent.

So yeah I won't be going to my local Vet for a prescription if I get COVID again, I will stick to Paxlovid thanks very much.

If people want to go off to their local vet to get some Ivermectin over Paxlovid, and by the way well-sourced doesn't mean peer-reviewed. That give it the credibility that would entertain my attention. But hey Sparticus is a mythical expert on all things COVID ehh.

[begeegs]

None of them are credible, no CDC or BMJ for example?

I read the Sparticus article, it was written by someone who didn't even have the balls to confirm what his/her name was and their level of qualification? At least someone like Dr. John Campbell, who was slaughtered by the BBC a few months ago has the backbone to standby everything he says rather than use a pseudo alias. Professor Tim Spector another stalwart of the COVID pandemic has had funding removed by the government because his site is still showing how bad the level of infections are in the UK (over 330k yesterday), when Boris wants us to live with it.

Seriously take your links and post them elsewhere. No one on this forum has any time for this sort of shit, echoed by DB10s comments (and a few other contributors).

The whole site is politicised. Most people don't realise the billions that have been spent in R&D by pharma companies only for a lot of treatments not to be authorised (eg Glaxo's). The facts are a company like Pfizer has so quickly produced an antiviral, that is much more effective than Ivermectin, which lets face it I wouldn't trust the Indian Pharma industry as far as I could throw it when it comes to approving credible COVID treatments, when they were an absolute shambles in dealing with the Delta Variant and their government have wholesale lied about the true death levels on the subcontinent.

So yeah I won't be going to my local Vet for a prescription if I get COVID again, I will stick to Paxlovid thanks very much.

If people want to go off to their local vet to get some Ivermectin over Paxlovid, and by the way well-sourced doesn't mean peer-reviewed. That give it the credibility that would entertain my attention. But hey Sparticus is a mythical expert on all things COVID ehh.

New England Journal of Medicine, National Institute of Health, The Lancet, CDC, Nature, BMJ, etc. So those aren't credible? They are all referenced at the bottom of the article.

"The whole site is politicised" - how? For me, the jury is still out on Pfizer especially in light of the FDAs approval process. I will wait until all of the documents have been released to see what that data says.

Mate - all governments lie. Ours did as well.

I honestly couldn't care less about the personal character about who the people are that wrote the article. As I have already said, some of the article contents I don't know about, but some of it, I do agree with. I like John Campbell as well and yes, I expect that he gets slaughtered.

Ivermectin did win the Nobel Peace prize a few years back, not for being an antiviral, but antiparasitic and on humans, so let's not mischaracterize the drug as you have done. During the beginnings of a pandemic, it was claimed that the CDC (in particular) ignored these cheap off-label drugs because it would have invalidated the Emergency Use Authorization because they may have been effective against it. There wasn't any debate on this, only censorship.

[nut flush gooner]

None of them are credible, no CDC or BMJ for example?

I read the Sparticus article, it was written by someone who didn't even have the balls to confirm what his/her name was and their level of qualification? At least someone like Dr. John Campbell, who was slaughtered by the BBC a few months ago has the backbone to standby everything he says rather than use a pseudo alias. Professor Tim Spector another stalwart of the COVID pandemic has had funding removed by the government because his site is still showing how bad the level of infections are in the UK (over 330k yesterday), when Boris wants us to live with it.

Seriously take your links and post them elsewhere. No one on this forum has any time for this sort of shit, echoed by DB10s comments (and a few other contributors).

The whole site is politicised. Most people don't realise the billions that have been spent in R&D by pharma companies only for a lot of treatments not to be authorised (eg Glaxo's). The facts are a company like Pfizer has so quickly produced an antiviral, that is much more effective than Ivermectin, which lets face it I wouldn't trust the Indian Pharma industry as far as I could throw it when it comes to approving credible COVID treatments, when they were an absolute shambles in dealing with the Delta Variant and their government have wholesale lied about the true death levels on the subcontinent.

So yeah I won't be going to my local Vet for a prescription if I get COVID again, I will stick to Paxlovid thanks very much.

If people want to go off to their local vet to get some Ivermectin over Paxlovid, and by the way well-sourced doesn't mean peer-reviewed. That give it the credibility that would entertain my attention. But hey Sparticus is a mythical expert on all things COVID ehh.

New England Journal of Medicine, National Institute of Health, The Lancet, CDC, Nature, BMJ, etc. So those aren't credible? They are all referenced at the bottom of the article.

"The whole site is politicised" - how? For me, the jury is still out on Pfizer especially in light of the FDAs approval process. I will wait until all of the documents have been released to see what that data says.

Mate - all governments lie. Ours did as well.

I honestly couldn't care less about the personal character about who the people are that wrote the article. As I have already said, some of the article contents I don't know about, but some of it, I do agree with. I like John Campbell as well and yes, I expect that he gets slaughtered.

Ivermectin did win the Nobel Peace prize a few years back, not for being an antiviral, but antiparasitic and on humans, so let's not mischaracterize the drug as you have done. During the beginnings of a pandemic, it was claimed that the CDC (in particular) ignored these cheap off-label drugs because it would have invalidated the Emergency Use Authorization because they may have been effective against it. There wasn't any debate on this, only censorship.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

Think DB10 should deal with your links tbh, it's his call if he thinks you are misinforming the people that read these forums. I have no time to even waste my energy on the bile your posting. You can reference all you like, I want to see peer reviewed evidence.

Have enough things to worry about like getting my energy back rather than reading this crap.

[OneBardGooner]

Everybody's favourite fashion obsessed fuckwad Linda McCartney-Zoolander or "Heccy B" as he likes to be known has waded in on the Ukraine with his observation that we are all racists because it is getting reported more than conflicts in other parts of the world.

Well Heccy Linda, you silly little cùnt maybe its getting reported more because it involves one of the so called "superpowers" that also just happens to have nuclear weapons.

Now fuck off and design a hemp manbag for David Beckham or some other cùnt.

[OneBardGooner]

Fuck me I swear I just saw a UFO fly by commanded by Putin!

Was the spaceship in the shape of a BIG Pink Pig?

If it was I think it's the same one that David Icke saw last week....

[begeegs]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

Think DB10 should deal with your links tbh, it's his call if he thinks you are misinforming the people that read these forums. I have no time to even waste my energy on the bile your posting. You can reference all you like, I want to see peer reviewed evidence.

Have enough things to worry about like getting my energy back rather than reading this crap.

Peer reviewed evidence of what exactly?

You have made a number of claims which have not been true and claim that I am posting bile.

My takeaways from the article was the corruption of the whole process (the FDAs approval of the EUA - which is why they may try to mischaracterize Ivermectin in the link that you shared), the narrative of natural origins, and Fauci/Modena/Wuhan. As you already know John Campbell, you will know that he covered some of the FOIA dump on Pfizers post-marketing paper on his YouTube video and it hasn't been good.

Look - I am not trying to make people angry. I was trying to have a conversation. I don't buy everything in the Spartacus article as some of it speaks of things which I don't know enough about - ie - transhumanism, but quite a lot of what is written was very well done, in my view and raise a lot of important questions about regulatory capture.

For the people that took the time to read the article - thank you.

[DB10GOONER]

Lads I appreciate this is a fractious subject. I'm not going to delete any links though. I absolutely refute and disagree with everything on that conspiracy site but there is nothing forcing anyone to read it or indeed believe it. It's a viewpoint.

The problem with free speech is we often have to accept the publication of things we strongly object to. And if it is not racist, homophobic or illegal then I can't in all good conscience delete it.

I'm not lecturing anyone here just explaining my position.

But also can we try and keep this debate respectful of our fellow Gooners please.

[OneBardGooner]

Is there such a thing as "Alienist" as in anti-Aliens?


Talking of which

I do agree with David Icke when he refers to the Royal Family as Reptiles, dis-respectful? Yes, BUT There is just something Soooooo Well Dodgy about them, besides the fact that they are ALL Butt-Fuck Ugly... except for this who they marry I mean Lady Diana was well "nice"


But the rest of the fuckers are for me all inbred Reptilain-esque creatures, who live off the people, don't pay taxes and have a free ride through life.. C.U.N.TS

[nut flush gooner]

Lads I appreciate this is a fractious subject. I'm not going to delete any links though. I absolutely refute and disagree with everything on that conspiracy site but there is nothing forcing anyone to read it or indeed believe it. It's a viewpoint.

The problem with free speech is we often have to accept the publication of things we strongly object to. And if it is not racist, homophobic or illegal then I can't in all good conscience delete it.

I'm not lecturing anyone here just explaining my position.

But also can we try and keep this debate respectful of our fellow Gooners please.

100% agree DB, you should remove the link but this is the world we live in today, you will get accused of taking a certain standpoint, even though its wrong.

[shu]

I know for sure that Adolph Hitler lived next door to my Nan in South Wales . Fact .

Also Bard is a reptile