movielover said:

---

Brilliant https://t.co/WOrfvKP5Ih

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) May 12, 2023

---

TDS is back!!!! It's the only thing keeping these "news" organizations afloat.

movielover said:

---

Brilliant https://t.co/WOrfvKP5Ih

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) May 12, 2023

---

bwhahaa

tequila4kapp said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

My company is in the sector that provides life and disability coverage to workers. We saw a big spike in Covid related claims last year. So far that is no longer an issue this year.

---

---

So anecdotes are okay now? Got it. Dowd collected data for the entire industry. 2022 was the year of omicron, the mild variant. Did your company see a similar spike in 2020 and 2021?

Covid Retrospective Series, Vol. 1

Media: The Unvaccinated Are Scum pic.twitter.com/hPvLfEtW3O

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 12, 2023

To all the vaccine Nazis, it's time to get another booster. Vax up and go to class.

BearHunter said:

---

Covid Retrospective Series, Vol. 1

Media: The Unvaccinated Are Scum pic.twitter.com/hPvLfEtW3O

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 12, 2023

To all the vaccine Nazis, it's time to get another booster. Vax up and go to class.

---

they thought we forgot, I didn't. I do enjoy the crow eating though, like schwarzenegger who said he was wrong about what he said "Screw their freedoms". A lot of them just memory holed what they said and went on with their hate farming.

It's funny how some want to just forget and move on. I say, heck no.

Covid Retrospective Series, Vol. 1

Media: The Unvaccinated Are Scum pic.twitter.com/hPvLfEtW3O

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 12, 2023

Nothing is going to get fixed until we hold these kinds of people accountable for what they did and the lies they told.

Big C said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

Covid Retrospective Series, Vol. 1

Media: The Unvaccinated Are Scum pic.twitter.com/hPvLfEtW3O

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 12, 2023

To all the vaccine Nazis, it's time to get another booster. Vax up and go to class.

---

Many of us are about to go blind, I understand, so you will know who we are... going to class with those white canes in front of us.

---

Bancel was CEO of the company that designed the Wuhan Level 4 Lab. Moderna, with Bancel as CEO, and the NAIAD transferred their jointly owned coronavirus mRNA vaccine tech in 2015 to Dr. Baric for research (paper below). In 2019, Covid 19 Coronavirus leaked from Wuhan Lab. 2020 Moderna/NIH is first vaccine to start P3.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

Premeditated pogroms. pic.twitter.com/aNcIaouEzl

— Secret Diary (@SecretDiary) May 14, 2023

It is a crying shame that Covita was such a p@ussie and got vaxed and took monoclonal antibodies. Had he not just talked the talk but walked the walk, that 5'11 300 pound piece of orange human garbage would be as dead as a door nail.

Line up, sheeple, for the mRNA flu vaxx! It's cheaper to make which pretty much makes it a no-brainer. The fact that it will undoutedly cause a plethora of maladies that will require pharmaceuticals is just a bonus. We might as well bypass the theater of clinical trials. We all know the outcome. "Safe and effective." It may even be a cure for TDS!

As predicted all new vaccines will be produced based on mRNA platform. No discussion on safety concerns seen with Moderna and Pfizer vaccine that this one is based on. pic.twitter.com/grWPa4xu1a

— Dr. Kat Lindley (@KLVeritas) May 16, 2023

bearister said:

---

It is a crying shame that Covita was such a p@ussie and got vaxed and took monoclonal antibodies. Had he not just talked the talk but walked the walk, that 5'11 300 pound piece of orange human garbage would be as dead as a door nail.

---

Just curious, Bearister. Have you read the Durham report?
Here's a nice summary with quotes.
https://open.substack.com/pub/technofog/p/the-durham-report?r=aiop6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

A thread about how we could get to a place where a journalist like @AlexBerenson could be cancelled and censored merely for accurately presenting politically inconvenient medical data.

— Chris Bateman (@SpiralChris) May 16, 2023

I spend quite a lot of time thinking about moral horror i.e. cognitive dissonance in an ethical or political context. I learned a great about the political war over abortion, for instance, by talking to people about declawing cats - a different but oddly parallel scenario.

The moral horror that has occupied me the most in recent years is triggered by vaccination. For instance, how did we get to a place where by journalists like Alex Bereson could be flat out cancelled and censored for accurately discussing the status of a medical treatment...?

The answer? This drug was presented as a vaccine, and there is moral horror evoked among a surprisingly large number of people whenever there is resistance to vaccines. The pre-packaged insult 'anti-vaxxer' is wheeled out at the drop of a hat whenever someone tries to think here.

The 'anti-vax' label now groups together a very diverse set. The 'vaccine choice' crowd (the original 'anti-vaxxers') are not very similar to those who, like Berenson, argue that we ought to have adequate safety systems for medical treatments - especially those being mandated.

We've reached a fascinating point in the history of technology whereby those in favour of deploying scientific process in medicine - i.e. gathering data, debating evidence, pulling treatments with poor safety signals - are dismissed as 'anti-science' via the 'anti-vax' label.

You now have a choice: you can take the side of technology, or you can take the side of the sciences. But you can't take both at once without tying yourself up in knots. A servant cannot have two masters.

Whatever disagreements I might have with certain groups collected under the 'anti-vaxxer' banner of dismissal, I think it is now clear that the 'pro' crowd have managed to become the most overtly 'anti-science'.
They simply have no interest in evidence any more. Why not...?

Recently, a journalist in the UK who I thought had his head screwed on, vomited out a bizarre diatribe amounting to conceding to 'anti-vaxxers' that vaccines kill people, but that we should just accept that because 'progress'. This is the weirdest way to defend vaccination!

My suspicion is that fear of disease is so great in certain quarters (and not without good reason) that vaccination becomes idolised as an apparent panacea - we must accept everything named 'vaccine' or else we are siding with disease! How horrifying!

A great deal of this is the mythology of vaccination as permanently eradicating disease - which I note is baked into the game mechanics of Matt Leacock's boardgame Pandemic, Ndemic's Plague Inc., and indeed every disease-spreading game you'd care to mention.

We have come to accept, as a matter of faith, that vaccines eradicate diseases.
Yet this isn't an accurate description of what vaccines do.
A vaccine is simply an alternate way to prime your immune system.

You can prime your immune system against a disease with a vaccine or by becoming infected. The relevant medical issue, therefore, is whether the vaccine is safer than 'wild infection'... and this is always a research question, and a slow one at that.

Alas, the fact that there is so much money in vaccination has become part of the problem, as there are billions of bankable 'reasons' to maintain the illusion that 'vaccines eradicate diseases', even though this isn't the primary purpose or function of a vaccine.


Chris Bateman
@SpiralChris

5h
Yet as long as you believe 'vaccines eradicate disease', your moral horror can be set off by anyone who questions anything called a vaccine.
"How could anyone not believe in eradicating disease?!"
(Compare: "How could anyone want to kill babies/declaw cats?!")

Eradicating disease, while possible (we achieved it with smallpox) is no small endeavour, and is categorically not as simple as injecting everyone with a certain chemical.

Thus recent rushed and shoddy attempts to eradicate polio ended in disastrously spreading polio in Africa. Certain colonial philanthropists were willing to throw money at the mirage of eradication, and shamefully didn't care about the health of Africans at all.

Medicines are not magic spells, and eradicating diseases is not achieved just by throwing money at the problem. Eradicating diseases requires global co-operation, open scientific discourse, and a clear head. On vaccines, we've lost even the possibility of all three of these now.

More than anything, advocates for vaccination need to take control of their moral horror and come back to the possibility of scientific discourse. If they don't, you can forget any recovery of vaccine programmes - this entire edifice is now at risk of collapsing.

I have repeatedly argued for truth and reconciliation over the events of the last few years. This, or something like it, is necessary to rebuilt trust in public health.

Truth and reconciliation may also be the only way that vaccination could possibly recover from the 'vaccine hesitancy' brought about by incompetent and/or corrupt health agencies. Shoddy public health officials have shot themselves in the foot with a giant needle.

We ought to be able to talk about medicine, and when we can't - when journalists can be thrown under the bus for accurately commenting on the evidence - we all have much bigger public health problems than we care to admit.

Zippergate said:

---

bearister said:

---

It is a crying shame that Covita was such a p@ussie and got vaxed and took monoclonal antibodies. Had he not just talked the talk but walked the walk, that 5'11 300 pound piece of orange human garbage would be as dead as a door nail.

---

Just curious, Bearister. Have you read the Durham report?
Here's a nice summary with quotes.
https://open.substack.com/pub/technofog/p/the-durham-report?r=aiop6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

---

Have not. Please copy and paste Durham's findings with regard to the 140 meetings with Russians in the run up to the 2016 Election.

If Durham's report didn't address the issue, why?

Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians - The New York Times


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

bearister said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

bearister said:

---

It is a crying shame that Covita was such a p@ussie and got vaxed and took monoclonal antibodies. Had he not just talked the talk but walked the walk, that 5'11 300 pound piece of orange human garbage would be as dead as a door nail.

---

Just curious, Bearister. Have you read the Durham report?
Here's a nice summary with quotes.
https://open.substack.com/pub/technofog/p/the-durham-report?r=aiop6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

---

Have not. Please copy and paste Durham's findings with regard to the 140 meetings with Russians in the run up to the 2016 Election.

If Durham's report didn't address the issue, why?

Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians - The New York Times


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

---

If you haven't read the report or at least a nice, tidy summary with quotes, how could you possibly know that, especially given how non-incriminating the Mueller report was? Even CNN is talking about how the whole thing was a hoax. Trump can be an unpresidential buffoon and the victim of a widely orchestrated partisan witch hunt all at the same time. If all we are is Team Red or Team Blue regardless of the facts, it's never going to get better.

Even Barr never contested the number of Russian contacts detailed in the Mueller report. No one did. I think Don, Jr. said subject matter of a meeting at tRump Tower was adoptions.

I was just wondering if Durham addressed a non contested issue and gave an explanation for the meetings. I consider the number of meetings significant.

Although I have posed the question here many times, no one has ever given me an answer. Someone here said the meetings didn't occur but that isn't true…and no one has ever suggested non occurrence as an explanation.

If the meetings did not take place, certainly the Durham report would so state.

It is really not a difficult question to answer. What were the meetings about? Russians aren't saying. tRump people aren't saying.

1 Durham Report is in. After four years, review of 1 million documents, 490 interviews, his conclusion is that FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation (PI) instead of a full investigation (FI) in 2016. THREAD

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) May 16, 2023

bearister said:

---

Even Barr never contested the number of Russian contacts detailed in the Mueller report. No one did. I think Don, Jr. said subject matter of a meeting at tRump Tower was adoptions.

I was just wondering if Durham addressed a non contested issue and gave an explanation for the meetings. I consider the number of meetings significant.

Although I have posed the question here many times, no one has ever given me an answer. Someone here said the meetings didn't occur but that isn't true…and no one has ever suggested non occurrence as an explanation.

If the meetings did not take place, certainly the Durham report would so state.

It is really not a difficult question to answer. What were the meetings about? Russians aren't saying. tRump people aren't saying.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5572821/donald-trump-russia-contacts/%3famp=true

bearister said:

---

Even Barr never contested the number of Russian contacts detailed in the Mueller report. No one did. I think Don, Jr. said subject matter of a meeting at tRump Tower was adoptions.

I was just wondering if Durham addressed a non contested issue and gave an explanation for the meetings. I consider the number of meetings significant.

Although I have posed the question here many times, no one has ever given me an answer. Someone here said the meetings didn't occur but that isn't true…and no one has ever suggested non occurrence as an explanation.

If the meetings did not take place, certainly the Durham report would so state.

It is really not a difficult question to answer. What were the meetings about? Russians aren't saying. tRump people aren't saying.

---

Well I guess we live in different universes then. I don't see how anyone who is aware of all the facts could dwell on these alleged meetings and think that that is the key takeaway from this whole mess. You'd think after years of investigations which included spying on the Trump team that they would have been able to come up with something more concrete.

What we do know is this. The Russia hysteria was, from the very beginning, a scheme manufactured by HRC and co to deflect attention from her illegal activities as Secretary of State where she use misused her influence to enrich the Clinton Foundation slush fund. It was her representatives, Fusion GPS, who hired Steele to write the bogus Trump dossier and pass it off as legit intelligence to the FBI. Even the Trump-hating, partisan FBI operatives who first investigated it said it was a nothingburger, but the politically weaponized DOJ pushed the investigation forward for years and leaked all kinds of outright fabrications to a friendly press. FBI lawyer, Clinesmith, plead guilty to doctoring a report in order to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, a Trump advisor. This is Watergate level stuff. You're okay with all of this?

I'll grant you, Trump is unpresidential and obnoxious. He lacks a moral compass and is wildly overrated as a businessman. However, there is zero evidence that I'm aware of that Trump received payments from foreign agents. Can you say the same about the Big Guy, Sleepy Joe, and HRC, operator of the most notorious charitable foundation in history? Whatever collusion you think there may have been between Trump and Russia did not result in any discernible benefit for the Russians. Russia's two military campaigns into Ukraine happened on Obama/Biden's watch, not Trump's.

This Trump discussion is waaay OT, but then I didn't bring it up.

" …these alleged meetings…"

Even you understand the significance of the 140 meetings by using the term "alleged" when it was never contested that they took place.

How about saying "There were a 140 meetings, so what? What does that prove?" Calling them "alleged" is what a criminal defendant calls them.

Look at the Ukraine invasion thread. The Right are now Putin fanboys….so why even lie about the meetings? Own them. Be proud of them.

bearister said:

---

" …these alleged meetings…"

Even you understand the significance of the 140 meetings by using the term "alleged" when it was never contested that they took place.

How about saying "There were a 140 meetings, so what? What does that prove?" Calling them "alleged" is what a criminal defendant calls them.

---

Fine, have it your way. What does it prove? Do you have any evidence that Trump or his associates misused his position in these meetings to obtain personal benefit a la Biden? Do you have evidence that Trump was colluding with the Russians or other foreign agents to sway an election? Do you have any evidence that the Russians were influencing Trump's policies in any way? What are we talking about here? Trump is a businessman with interests all over the place and meetings happen. Maybe there was something nefarious going on, but at this point, given the rabidly partisan investigations conducted by the FBI and DOJ, I need a little more than "lots of meetings happened."

Speaking of meetings, I'm more concerned about the well-documented meetings Hunter had with high profile Russians which resulted in payments of tens of millions to Hunter-controlled entities. Or the meetings Biden held with Hunter's business partners in the White House which, IIRC, were not recorded in the WH visitor logs. Oh so many meetings we could discuss, and email and telephone calls too, but I'm sure these insinuations have all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.

oski003 said:

---

I have repeatedly argued for truth and reconciliation over the events of the last few years. This, or something like it, is necessary to rebuilt trust in public health.

---

Trust is earned, I cannot in good faith give them something they destroyed on a whim. I will allow the pro-covid vaxxers the ability to show they learned from their mistakes, but I suspect it's going to be a long wait on that one.

I agree on everything else you wrote.

Zippergate said:

---

bearister said:

---

Even Barr never contested the number of Russian contacts detailed in the Mueller report. No one did. I think Don, Jr. said subject matter of a meeting at tRump Tower was adoptions.

I was just wondering if Durham addressed a non contested issue and gave an explanation for the meetings. I consider the number of meetings significant.

Although I have posed the question here many times, no one has ever given me an answer. Someone here said the meetings didn't occur but that isn't true…and no one has ever suggested non occurrence as an explanation.

If the meetings did not take place, certainly the Durham report would so state.

It is really not a difficult question to answer. What were the meetings about? Russians aren't saying. tRump people aren't saying.

---

Well I guess we live in different universes then. I don't see how anyone who is aware of all the facts could dwell on these alleged meetings and think that that is the key takeaway from this whole mess. You'd think after years of investigations which included spying on the Trump team that they would have been able to come up with something more concrete.

What we do know is this. The Russia hysteria was, from the very beginning, a scheme manufactured by HRC and co to deflect attention from her illegal activities as Secretary of State where she use misused her influence to enrich the Clinton Foundation slush fund. It was her representatives, Fusion GPS, who hired Steele to write the bogus Trump dossier and pass it off as legit intelligence to the FBI. Even the Trump-hating, partisan FBI operatives who first investigated it said it was a nothingburger, but the politically weaponized DOJ pushed the investigation forward for years and leaked all kinds of outright fabrications to a friendly press. FBI lawyer, Clinesmith, plead guilty to doctoring a report in order to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, a Trump advisor. This is Watergate level stuff. You're okay with all of this?

I'll grant you, Trump is unpresidential and obnoxious. He lacks a moral compass and is wildly overrated as a businessman. However, there is zero evidence that I'm aware of that Trump received payments from foreign agents. Can you say the same about the Big Guy, Sleepy Joe, and HRC, operator of the most notorious charitable foundation in history? Whatever collusion you think there may have been between Trump and Russia did not result in any discernible benefit for the Russians. Russia's two military campaigns into Ukraine happened on Obama/Biden's watch, not Trump's.

This Trump discussion is waaay OT, but then I didn't bring it up.

---

Don't forget Nellie Ohr, wife of Bruce Ohr, alleged CIA functionary, who shuffled garbage info over to Steele. Bruce Ohr, senior DOJ official, in the middle of all of it. The secret server connected in Trump Tower was a Hoax; Danchenko, the drunk Russia pawn, came from the Democrat Brookings Institute, and was later paid over $300,000 in another crooked act by our FIB to keep him hidden as a Confidential Human Source (CHS) because he could expose so much. Durham stayed away from this, protecting the FIB and Team Obama, pinning much on the Clinton's. Durham was limp. Internet sleuths and online investigators have put more together, and the Swamp protects its own, partly by purposefully putting information in 'silos'.

Where are the complete Lisa Page (hussy) / Peter Strzok (Communist dim tramp) texts?

How about Weismann's (Muellers) crooked 27 DOJ attorneys who all illegally erased their Federal government-supplied smartphones? Defacto Conspiracy.

Meanwhile, our MSM wrte either too dim or idealigically bent to acknowledge any of these facts.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I have repeatedly argued for truth and reconciliation over the events of the last few years. This, or something like it, is necessary to rebuilt trust in public health.

---

Trust is earned, I cannot in good faith give them something they destroyed on a whim. I will allow the pro-covid vaxxers the ability to show they learned from their mistakes, but I suspect it's going to be a long wait on that one.

I agree on everything else you wrote.

---

How about Lancet? At the beginning of this travesty, they printed a bogus research story. Virtually impossible if they followed their previous protocols.

Lots of anger there.