Wuhan Coronavirus / COVID-19 Thread 2: Booster Shot - Resume all Corona sperging here.

JoseRaulChupacabra said:
What the fuck. Remember, xir could have used an anime avatar to sperg about the vaxxes, but nope, gotta plaster degeneracy all over the twatters.

Also:
>Anal Vore!?
How the fuck does that even work? (I dunn wanna know) The anus does the exact opposite of vore.
Click to expand...
analvoreparty.png
Anal vore has a very dedicated community.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Exterminatus, Clockwork_PurBle, The Spoony One X and 5 others
K-Hole said:
Still trying to get my head around how this has become such a left/right wedge issue.

Spoke to a mate of mine earlier. Good bloke. Lefty. But good person. Is a carer for old folk.

Boy, was he in in a 'tizz' about how the government have stopped testing. He was foaming at the mouth. Haven't spoken to him in a while. He asked me if I got jabbed and I just told him no, auto-immune shit and all that. Seemed to be good enough for him. Decent get out clause. If I'd said "no, fuck that shit homes my man, I don't want to die of extraneous circumstances" - he might have taken a different attitude. Fuck him anyway. He's a fucking bore.

Still, the question remains: how did this become such a wedge issue between right and left?

I consider myself 'right' by default, but actually, I'm pretty 'centre' on most things, and even quite 'left' on many others. I'm a humanist and want to see all of humanity prosper, though I know that is not realistic due to human nature and whatnot.

Another thing I've noticed from this 'cunty' mate of mine is how he can't have a conversation without checking if you are 'right or left'. He has to lead with that. Just checking in case your views have changed since the last time you talked to him. From there he can move forward. Knowing who he is dealing with. He constantly goes on about the 'Tories' (Conservative party in UK) and he hates them so much he would plant bombs to kill them. He loves Labour (the Left wing Commies) to a fault. He's fucking deranged and I want no more to do with him.

Still, question remains, how the fuck did these people get their minds poisoned so much over this non-issue? I can take any point of view. But they can't. And that is the difference between us.

Is it the media they consume? Like Reddit? Is it just the general left-wing propoganda a la the BBC? Is it both? He hates Trump with a passion and I don't really give a fuck, but I do like the Don, truth be told. That was enough to rouse him to violence with me. LOL.

Covid is all played out now. But there are still some questions I would like answered all the same.
Click to expand...
your "friend" needs to be dragged out in the street and shot. if someone DARED to physically attack me over saying i liked trump they'd be lucky if i didn't break their jaw, let alone continue to hang out with them
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: PooTube, The handsome tard, NoReturn and 6 others
FarmerKhourtney said:
This is such a predicable cycle
Cases are down, restrictions are going away
Oops wait “stealth omicron” is in 47 states, highly transmissible, more severe
What the fuck, how many times can this possibly happen ?
Click to expand...

See: Deltacron in the U.K.

Just last week media was trying to dismiss it and saying it doesn't exist, this week UKHSA confirmed it exists.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Tijuana Bible, Exterminatus, CashMoney! and 7 others
American Thinker keep rolling about covid articles, featuring the CDC and NYT flip-flopping.

February 18, 2022

Who's Best Situated to Figure Out the Truth about COVID?​

By J. Deane Waldman, M.D.

Is COVID truly a threat to life on Earth, comparable to bubonic plague? Are school closures and lockdowns really necessary? Will vaccines protect us, and what about side-effects? If this is a "pandemic of the unvaccinated," how are vaccinated people spreading COVID? Boosters? Really?
What is the truth? Why is COVID so confusing?
First, there are ever-changing messages. No mask, yes mask, two masks, avoid cloth masks. Vaccination will stop COVID, except maybe not — we need boosters, several. There is no natural immunity...well, maybe there is, but it won't protect you. Except that real physicians say it will.
No wonder people don't trust Fauci or Biden.

Words are critical when seeking truth. Since the outbreak of COVID, the meaning of common words has been spun and distorted. Positive COVID tests are reported as "cases," implying symptomatic patients. The vast majority of positive tests are people not sick at all.
More than 918,000 Americans are listed as "COVID deaths," even though only 12 percent to 23 percent of COVID deaths were actually due to the virus.
Uncovering truth requires the scientific method. One idea is tested against other opposing ideas. Truth is revealed through mental trial by combat.
Censorship suppresses information unacceptable to the censor. It imposes a single perspective and prevents dissemination of differing ideas. Censorship is mandatory one-idea-fits-all groupthink. Censorship is the enemy of truth.

To advance Washington's COVID "truth," people and ideas are censored by unelected third parties: bureaucrat M.D.s, viz., Fauci and Walensky; agencies like the FDA and OHSA; complicit news media such as the New York Times and the Washington Post; social media like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube; and search engines, viz., Google.
Questioning Fauci's pronouncements or Washington's actions is punishable by loss of status, character assassination, loss of federal funding, and loss of employment.
The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) was written Oct. 4, 2020 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts and signed by three medical faculty members at Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard. It countered Washington's draconian measures — lockdowns, PPE, mandatory vaccination, and suspension of the Bill of Rights — with a true science-based plan called "focused protection." This approach would have minimized the devastating social, medical, and economic effects of Biden's mandates.
The GBD had to be censored! No one should be allowed to question federal policy!
So, on Oct. 8, 2020, then–NIH director Francis Collins wrote to NIAID director Anthony Fauci the following. "This proposal [the GBD] from the three fringe [Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard?!] epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention — and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises. I don't see anything like that on line yet — is it underway?"
A campaign commenced to delegitimize the GBD. For months, Google searches for the GBD produced, "This site cannot be found." A host of hit pieces were placed online and in academic journals claiming to discredit the not-searchable GBD.

The dire consequences the GBD warned against did, in fact, occur. Experience proved we should have been using focused protection all along. Too bad the GBD was censored.
Robert Malone, M.D. is a virologist and immunologist instrumental in developing mRNA technology, the experimental gene therapy used in mandated vaccines and boosters. When Malone tried to raise concerns about effectiveness, safety, and necessity of mRNA vaccination, he was demeaned, canceled, and censored. The Atlantic described Dr. Malone as "The Vaccine Scientist Spreading Vaccine Misinformation." Wikipedia played the same tune: "Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines."
The definition of misinformation is that which doesn't agree with Washington.
Dr. Angelique Coetzee, the South African physician who first identified the omicron variant, says she was pressured by government censors to suppress (censor) how mild the illness is caused by omicron.
In January 2022, I experienced censorship when interviewed for the podcast Tipping Point. Based on research data, I proved that public service announcements assuring parents that vaccination was "safe, effective, and doctor-approved" were false. Like Dr. Malone, I advised parents, "Do not vaccinate your children" using mRNA technology.
Until that interview, Tipping Point had been viewable on YouTube. My interview was banned because I was "spreading misinformation, with statements inconsistent with WHO (World Health Organization) recommendations." The podcast is available on Rumble.
Washington claims to have a monopoly on the truth, and Fauci speaks it. If you disagree or even question the federal narrative, you are wrong, dangerous, spreading "misinformation," and you must be stopped, canceled, censored.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government." Well-informed means an electorate that hears all the facts and all sides of an issue, not limited to one side, false facts, and denied access to censored "misinformation."
The saga of Jessica Rose epitomizes how Biden's enforced orthodoxy stifles a search for truth. With her brand-new Ph.D. in computational biology, Dr. Rose looked for a project to test her skills and decided to study the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database. She had no medical preconceptions or political agenda.
Rose found that reports of adverse events had increased from 40,000 per year to more than one million after mRNA vaccination became mandatory. Deaths also increased from a few hundred per year to more than 21,000 following mandatory mRNA vaccination. Dr. Rose submitted a paper with her statistical analysis to an academic journal. The publisher, Elsevier, withdrew the paper. It was rejected not by peer reviewers, but by the publisher, with no explanation.
As someone who has published more than 150 academic research papers over 45 years, including in Elsevier publications, I have never had a paper rejected by a publisher or even heard of this happening.

For a truly frightening insider view of Washington groupthink, enforced orthodoxy, and strict censorship, read Scott Atlas's book, A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America.
The reason for COVID censorship is obvious: to justify a federal power-grab. If the public knew the truth about COVID rather than the greatly exaggerated threat touted by Washington, Americans would never tolerate Biden's nullifying the Bill of Rights.
The solution is equally obvious: Americans should deploy their ballots and their dollars. Vote only for politicians who follow the Constitution and who appoint judges who do the same. Elect only those officials who defend personal freedom, especially medical autonomy. We the People demand the freedom to decide for themselves; we reject tyranny by those to whom we elect to (temporary) power.
Americans should cease financial support of censors such as YouTube, Twitter, Google, CNN, and the New York Times. They need to feel pain in the pocket nerve. Transfer attention, content, and dollars to platforms, news venues, and social media that encourage open discussion of differing opinions and data, and who eschew censorship.
The only people who should decide what is COVID truth and what is misinformation are We the People.
Click to expand...

February 18, 2022

COVID prompts shape-shifting at the New York Times​

By Seth Grossman

Last Friday, the New York Times posted "Why 'follow the science' fails to answer many questions" in its daily online summary of news and opinion.
This was a remarkable article. The New York Times is the propaganda outlet of the Democrat party and its corporate and Hollywood institutional base. This article argued against many of the views promoted by the New York Times and top Democrats about the COVID pandemic during the past two years.
Why?
The influence of the New York Times goes far beyond its roughly 900,000 print and 5 million digital subscribers. The events it selects as the most important "news" of the day are routinely reported as such by most TV and radio networks, daily newspapers, and online news sites in America. This "news" is also used in the classrooms of most colleges and high schools in America. Roughly 49% of Americans say that the New York Times is a "trustworthy" news source.
The New York Times is also the de facto voice of the Democrat party. Roughly 91% of New York Times readers identify as Democrats. The far-left news and opinions of the New York Times consistently promote, justify, define, and announce the political agendas of the Democrats.
In many ways, the New York Times is to American Democrats what the Russian newspaper Pravda was to Soviet communists throughout the world from 1919 until the so-called end of the Cold War in 1991.
As with Pravda and communists, the New York Times and Democrats do not tolerate dissent or disagreement. In 2020, the Times pressured editorial page editor and writer Bari Weiss into leaving for not being far-left enough. A month earlier, it did the same thing to James Bennet. Bennet was forced out for letting a Republican U.S. senator publish an op-ed in its pages with a different point of view.

Pravda and communists often completely changed their "Party Line" whenever needed to advance their political goals. They did it without acknowledging or explaining the changes. They did it without ever admitting they had been mistaken or that their opponents had been right before. George Orwell described this in his novel 1984 when he said: "Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
For the past two years, the New York Times; the Democrat party; "woke" corporations; the media; and social media giants Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter all faithfully followed "The Science" when responding to COVID-19. That "Science" was whatever was announced or ordered by Dr. Fauci and other public health bureaucrats associated with the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC). These Democrats and their institutions all denounced anyone who publicly disagreed with the CDC. They all cheered the punishments of anyone who refused to comply with CDC-recommended orders on masks, quarantines, shutdowns, bans on public gatherings, and vaccinations.
As recently as Feb. 9, the New York Times published an opinion column by Thomas Friedman denouncing Joe Rogan. Rogan had interviewed Dr. Robert Malone on one of his podcasts on Spotify five weeks earlier. In that interview, Malone discussed well documented problems with masks, shutdowns, RNA vaccines, and big drug companies using undue influence to block effective treatments and discredit legitimate experts. Dr. Malone also suggested that reliance on natural immunity and early treatments with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were better ways to fight COVID in some instances.

Friedman called Rogan "shameful" for spreading "misinformation," which he blamed for causing nationwide suffering and death. Friedman did not dispute anything Dr. Malone or Joe Rogan said. He denounced them for not mentioning three statistics from the CDC that Friedman thought were of utmost importance. Although Friedman said Rogan and the executives of Spotify had the "right" to "free speech," he praised 1960s protest singer Neil Young for doing everything he could to ruin them for exercising that right.
However, just two days later, on Feb. 11, the New York Times prominently presented an almost opposite point of view by David Leonhardt. It criticized the CDC and the idea that "Science" has monolithic answers to how we should deal with COVID. It concluded that we needed "conversation" instead.

That article began by pointing out that most Americans routinely ignore the recommendations of the CDC. It said we do that every time we eat a medium-rare hamburger or lick the spoon from a bowl of raw cookie dough. This is because "public health, like the rest of life, usually involves trade-offs."
"If you want to minimize the risk of getting sick from food, you probably need to eat less tasty food. If you want to minimize your chance of dying today, you should not get inside a vehicle. If you want to minimize your children's chance of going to an emergency room, don't allow them to ride a bike or play sports."
The article also recognized that "many" coronavirus questions "are complicated" and that "the current stage of the pandemic presents its own set of hard choices and tradeoffs."
The New York Times article failed to mention the small risk of serious illness or death to young, healthy people from the coronavirus. It also failed to mention the Johns Hopkins study finding that lockdowns did little to slow the spread of the COVID-19. However, it did admit that mask mandates, restrictions on gatherings, and school closings "can also lead to mental health problems, lost learning for children, child-care hardships for lower-income families, and isolation and frustration that have fueled suicides, drug overdoses, and violent crime."
The article recognized that policies must change when facts change and that "CDC officials tend to react slowly to changing conditions and to view questions narrowly."
It also said they often "urge caution in the service of reducing a specific risk...and sometimes miss the big picture."
So how should Americans deal with the coronavirus? The New York Times article concluded, "The answer will not spring from Science." It said that we Americans need a "conversation" about it.

That makes a lot of sense. Benjamin Franklin praised the benefits of such conversation 300 years ago when he wrote, "By the collision of different sentiments, sparks of truth are struck out, and political light is obtained."
This is exactly what Joe Rogan did when he interviewed Dr. Robert Malone last January. But how can we have "conversation" if the New York Times and some most powerful people in America do whatever they can to ruin anyone who expresses a different point of view?
Is there now genuine disagreement within the New York Times and the Democrat party over how to deal with COVID-19 and people like Joe Rogan? Or are we seeing a typical change in the "party line" as described by George Orwell?
One more thing is worth mentioning. If the Democratic Party and its allies are now willing to tolerate real conversations on the "science" of coronavirus, are they also willing to tolerate real conversations on the "science" of "climate change"?
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spoony One X
K-Hole said:
Still trying to get my head around how this has become such a left/right wedge issue.
Click to expand...
I have some ideas: what characterizes "leftism" for me is harm reduction and principles of fairness taken to (what I personally consider to be) an often problematic extreme.

While I recognize a minority of individuals are vulnerable to this disease, and it might not be "fair" on them to be exposed to it, this knowledge is tempered and counter-balanced by the risks and costs and ultimate effectiveness of the counter-measures. I know humans have and will battle respiratory viruses for eons, I know you basically cant really stop them from spreading without insanely punitive and strict measures, I know that the vulnerable are likely to perish in short order to a number of other things and death and getting old is just a mundane part of life we cant deny or hide from.

These people just dont want to hear these nuances. All they hear is that Im some asshole who doesnt care if grandma dies because their primary political drive is misplaced harm reduction measures and ensuring "fairness". I dont agree with it, but I get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoopsInk, aphelion, CashMoney! and 4 others
K-Hole said:
Still trying to get my head around how this has become such a left/right wedge issue.

Spoke to a mate of mine earlier. Good bloke. Lefty. But good person. Is a carer for old folk.

Boy, was he in in a 'tizz' about how the government have stopped testing. He was foaming at the mouth. Haven't spoken to him in a while. He asked me if I got jabbed and I just told him no, auto-immune shit and all that. Seemed to be good enough for him. Decent get out clause. If I'd said "no, fuck that shit homes my man, I don't want to die of extraneous circumstances" - he might have taken a different attitude. Fuck him anyway. He's a fucking bore.

Still, the question remains: how did this become such a wedge issue between right and left?

I consider myself 'right' by default, but actually, I'm pretty 'centre' on most things, and even quite 'left' on many others. I'm a humanist and want to see all of humanity prosper, though I know that is not realistic due to human nature and whatnot.

Another thing I've noticed from this 'cunty' mate of mine is how he can't have a conversation without checking if you are 'right or left'. He has to lead with that. Just checking in case your views have changed since the last time you talked to him. From there he can move forward. Knowing who he is dealing with. He constantly goes on about the 'Tories' (Conservative party in UK) and he hates them so much he would plant bombs to kill them. He loves Labour (the Left wing Commies) to a fault. He's fucking deranged and I want no more to do with him.

Still, question remains, how the fuck did these people get their minds poisoned so much over this non-issue? I can take any point of view. But they can't. And that is the difference between us.

Is it the media they consume? Like Reddit? Is it just the general left-wing propoganda a la the BBC? Is it both? He hates Trump with a passion and I don't really give a fuck, but I do like the Don, truth be told. That was enough to rouse him to violence with me. LOL.

Covid is all played out now. But there are still some questions I would like answered all the same.
Click to expand...
You have no self respect.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Spoony One X and ddw
Cryptojew said:
My job no longer requires us to wear a mask while we're on the job. I began working there after covid hit, so this is the first time I'm actually seeing the faces of some of my coworkers.
Click to expand...

>> Sees hot woman you've been working with for years
>> woman takes off mask
>> has male facial features...
>> fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Backpack Knight, Clozaril Trial By Stone, Kramer on the phone and 28 others
K-Hole said:
Still trying to get my head around how this has become such a left/right wedge issue.

Spoke to a mate of mine earlier. Good bloke. Lefty. But good person. Is a carer for old folk.

Boy, was he in in a 'tizz' about how the government have stopped testing. He was foaming at the mouth. Haven't spoken to him in a while. He asked me if I got jabbed and I just told him no, auto-immune shit and all that. Seemed to be good enough for him. Decent get out clause. If I'd said "no, fuck that shit homes my man, I don't want to die of extraneous circumstances" - he might have taken a different attitude. Fuck him anyway. He's a fucking bore.

Still, the question remains: how did this become such a wedge issue between right and left?

I consider myself 'right' by default, but actually, I'm pretty 'centre' on most things, and even quite 'left' on many others. I'm a humanist and want to see all of humanity prosper, though I know that is not realistic due to human nature and whatnot.

Another thing I've noticed from this 'cunty' mate of mine is how he can't have a conversation without checking if you are 'right or left'. He has to lead with that. Just checking in case your views have changed since the last time you talked to him. From there he can move forward. Knowing who he is dealing with. He constantly goes on about the 'Tories' (Conservative party in UK) and he hates them so much he would plant bombs to kill them. He loves Labour (the Left wing Commies) to a fault. He's fucking deranged and I want no more to do with him.

Still, question remains, how the fuck did these people get their minds poisoned so much over this non-issue? I can take any point of view. But they can't. And that is the difference between us.

Is it the media they consume? Like Reddit? Is it just the general left-wing propoganda a la the BBC? Is it both? He hates Trump with a passion and I don't really give a fuck, but I do like the Don, truth be told. That was enough to rouse him to violence with me. LOL.

Covid is all played out now. But there are still some questions I would like answered all the same.
Click to expand...
Twenty years ago, if you dredged up evidence that the CIA, USAID, DTRA, and the NIH had outsourced bioweapon research to China, and that pharmaceutical companies were directly involved, you'd have dozens of dreadlocked hippies in flower power vans, anarchists, and crust punks ranting and raving against the "big pharma/military industrial complex globalist genocide partnership".

Today, the Left whine about how we all need more communism and how capitalist profiteering is evil while simultaneously rooting for hundreds of different for-profits: Pfizer, Moderna, big media, big tech, science publishers, and shady think tanks with national security ties.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: PooTube, Backpack Knight, Discourteous Discourse and 23 others
Sincere Sinner said:
I have some ideas: what characterizes "leftism" for me is harm reduction and principles of fairness taken to (what I personally consider to be) an often problematic extreme.
Click to expand...
That describes some of the more philosophical (or at least idealist) past leftisms. Today's left, in the Anglosphere for sure and presumably the whole West, is defined by its identification with power—more specifically, with power's grievances.

Obama really catalyzed it, I think, with his attitude that America was constantly failing his promise and he was in every way too good for us. Since him there's been no "message" from the left—meaning from those who, however they identify (as socialist or Marxist or whatever), run as and vote Democrat, Labour, etc.—just increasing rage that the people keep refusing to do what they're told.

No matter how many times and how forcefully the establishment propagandizes and "incentivizes" (hurts) him, the statistically average man (+ his wife) is still voting for Brexit or Trump, resisting some medical experimentation, not consuming "woke" corporate trash, won't "go home" when Trudeau says it's time, won't suck the feminine penis, doesn't want his children condemned as racists by sadistic teachers, doesn't want a Little Somalia planted over his childhood home, etc, etc.

Being a current_year leftist is taking all that prole insolence as a personal affront and demanding it be punished—with death, even.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: aphelion, Lady Round Buns, Basil Julep and 9 others
trailcamwhore said:
Being a current_year leftist is taking all that prole insolence as a personal affront and demanding it be punished—with death, even.
Click to expand...
Wasnt there studies showing that self-admitted mental illness is rife within the leftwing? I have brought up that people should look into personality disorders as it will explain a lot of the behavior you're seeing within the clown world, it even helps spot government shills in comment sections like Britain's 77th as the tactics they use are no different than the shit a BPD or NPD would use.

Narcissists are hypersensitive to perceived criticism.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Brain Problems, Wood, The Spoony One X and 4 others
JosephStalin said:
Looks like the state I live in (Insanity, also known as CA) is going to "endemic" status, whatever that means. Don't have to wear masks indoors in many places now. STILL not voting to re-elect that cocksucker Newsom, or ANY incumbent who has shoved the oppressive measures up our asses.


Archive taking forever.
Click to expand...
They are not oppresive
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Brain Problems and NoSpiceLife
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back