I was talking specifically about the death penalty as part of the US justice system and even then did not refer to it's supporters in the absolute.
Of the 27 states with the death penalty, only six are currently Democrat states and three of those have a gubernatorial moratorium on carrying out executions. Of the remaining three, two went 'blue' for the first time in twenty years and the last a swing state Democrats won by a narrow margin. Of the current 25 'red' states, 21 of them have the death penalty. That's a behavioural pattern.
A phrase I've heard repeatedly from interviews in areas where the death penalty is carried out, is members of the public claiming they, and the locale, are Christian conservative, so they support the practise on their doorstep. That behavioural pattern sticks in my memory as a completely mindless thing to say, based upon group belonging rather than reasoned argument. It's also at odds with traditional (conservative) Christian tenets.
Not so much a conspiracy theory as knowing that the US justice system is frequently about about wheeling and dealing rather than truth and justice, and our monarchy is all about 'sensitvity'. It's a match made in heaven given the money and whiteness is there for effective negotiations.
It's a far cry from laser beam weilding Jews in space, or fish 'n' chips in the vaccines.
I'm not sure you could even call it corruption, given the US justice system is obviously and openly faulty. It doesn't require corruption to achieve an end result like this for our monarchy, it just needs to be used as it is designed to be.
Bumping off Epstein, or letting off prison guards for dereliction of duty is likely corrupt, but no one is going to mind that, eh? The principle of the matter clashes too much with the other principle of the matter in a country where self-described Christian conservatives are so often blood thirsty when it comes to certain offenses, regardless of guilt.
Speaking as someone who generally doesn't respond well to conventional medicine, you're preaching to the converted there.
I don't dismiss conventional medicine completely and without sound reason, however, just like I don't accept all non-conventional medicine completely and without sound reason.
You do realise that no vaccine does that, right? I mean, not one, ever?
The measles vaccine has a 97.1% seroconversion rate (antibody production), rubella 98.8%, but I've had both jabs and both diseases. Seroconversion does not automatically mean that you're immune, or resist infection, but vaccination does mean that, like myself, the disease symptomology is likely milder and rarely kills as it did before these vaccines were created.
Sound familiar?
The success of a vaccine depends upon a number of factors including the successful production of antibodies (as above), the longevity of the protection (how long the body is able to produce the antibodies) and vaccine strategy (who gets the vaccine and when). That's why some diseases have been 'eradicated' (there has been no evidence of naturally occuring smallpox infection since 1977 and WHO declared it eradicated in 1980), but tetanus boosters are recommended every ten years.
And it's not just about successful vaccines, but how successful the pathogen is. The measles virus is an old faithful because it doesn't survive mutations, but colds, 'flu and covid thrive due to their ability to mutate.
That's just a teeny weeny bit of an explanation in lay person's terms and it already sounds complicated, right? If you're expecting a miracle jab and global eradication of a successful pathogen over night, you're going to be disappointed.
I have no idea how you jump from one topic, or conclusion to another without any sequential logic, Dedo.
In the post you originally questioned I was talking about the vaccines being two decades, or more in the making. The clue was in me saying 'the vaccines were two, or more decades in the making.'
You can guess all you like about where the virus (the one you think has never been isolated, so you think may not exist) originated, but this thread is about the supposition and extrapolation from a sample of 15, that 93% of those who die a couple of weeks to six months after being vaccinated have died as a direct result of the vaccine.
If you want to play Guess The Caped And Knickered Anti-Hero, please don't try and mix it in with my posts about the realistic possibilty of adverse reactions to the vaccines.
If you are so paranoid that you think the ingredients list for each vaccine might be doctored, false, or fake on the GOV.UK site, then you can't trust any information from anywhere, ever.
There are enough covid virus and covid vaccine issues which warrant exploring (including the ingredients listed) without getting to the point where you make your mum test your supper before eating it in case she's out to poison you.
No, the 'weakened virus of some kind' is the antigen.The antigen triggers an immune response in the body.
The newer vaccines contain the blue print for producing the antigen, rather than the antigen itself.
The pathogen (e.g. a virus), or antigen (e.g. weakened form of the virus) causes antibodies to be produced; the production of antibodies causes memory cells to be produced.
The memory cells remember how to make more antibodies if exposed to a pathogen, or an antigen more than once. The immune response is faster and more effective on subsequent exposure, hence the boosters.
Remember 'viral load' (the number of pesky virus you catch) is a factor in the severity of the disease. The larger the number of virus in your system, the more ill you are.
When virus enters your system they immediately start to replicate, increasing your viral load and making you sicker. The first time you catch a virus antibody production takes a while, so your viral load gets to replicate unchallenged for a while.
The quicker antibodies are produced, the quicker the virus is killed off, the lower the viral load, the milder the symptoms.
Vaccines and boosters don't make you 'immune' to a virus, they make the immune response quicker and more effective so you experience milder, or no symptoms.
We already know that covid causes long term issues for 10-30% of those infected. It doesn't really surprise me on an intuitive level that a vaccine containing the blue print for a covid antigen might cause those same long term issues, as might a traditional antigen covid vaccine. What we do know is that considerably fewer people die from covid infection, if the catch it and if they are vaccinated. That makes for a complex health gamble on a personal level.
Allergic reactions to the non-active ingredients complicates the personal lottery even more.
Let's not complicate it further with sensatonalist stories about green monkey bollux, eh? We have enough to deal with trying to understand the genuine risks.
Blind obedience to the system is no different from blind obedience to the deviation.
You come across as having blind obedience to the deviation when you repeat stuff without question.
I just found an article on mercury in vaccines. I'm still wading my way through it, but the issue isn't nearly as simple as chewing on an old style thermometer.
It's easy to look at the word 'mercury' and ask what the hell are 'they' doing to us?
It's much harder to pick apart and research every word and phrase in a 'news' report, mainstream, or otherwise.
If you watch the video, you might see that my post was specifically referring to the video. I did make that clear in my post.
I did refer to a range of status within the journal culture in my post, but it seems you didn't read that either, before you dismissed it. I raised the subject because of what was said in the video that you haven't watched.
I'm aware of the narcissistic politics that can go on in research projects, but that's irrelevant to malpractice with respect to scientific methodology, or dodgy reporting.
Maybe if you watched the video (just the first 10 minutes, or so) then you might have something relevant to say about my comment, including whether Dr.Bhikari (the author of the article the report was based on) was rather drunk and emotional in the clip. I would have found it funny if it weren't malpractice that some members of the public might base life and death decisions upon.
Why won't you share your knowledge that is greater than mine?
It comes across as horribly selfish when people are scared and suffering.
If you know why it's sound scientific practise to generalise from a (possibly non-random) sample of 15 subjects and have this data taken seriously without it being journal published, nor peer reviewed, please let me and everyone else in on the secret.
Or indeed, what might have happened had there been no lockdowns, other restrictions, or vaccines during this pandemic.
That's not to say that there shouldn't be ongoing research into the vaccines, including the incidence of adverse events. It just needs to be carried out and reported in an ethical and meaningful way.
Quackery provides no more information than does ignoring issues.
This doesn't challenge my post which you dismissed without argung your case.
I'm not dismissing that some deaths are caused by vaccinations, I'm dismissing that the video the OP cited provides no proof of what is claimed, or implied. It's quackery and I outlined some of the reasons why it's quackery.
Challenge my post that you dismissed with reasoned argument and we have a basis for debate.
I'm really interested in this stuff because I may, or may not have had an adverse reaction to the AstraZeneca active, or non-active ingredients.
Go ahead, challenge the reasoning in my post that you dismissed without reason.
But you haven't critiqued my post, just poo-pooed it.
I could have said the video was crap and left it at that, but that would have been as meaningless as your post.
Please feel free to challenge my post in a meaningful way. Things have moved forward considerably since I practised any scientific methdology, so I'm up for a refresher.
online today!jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
<--- don't inhale
RE: Ghislaine Maxwell
I always try not to act like I have superior skills on the rare occasions I respond to you, but, y'know, mission impossible and all that.