Coronavirus Pandemic

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/e...to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death
Dr Mike Yeadon - Former VP at Pfizer

‘Conspiracy’ and not just ‘convergent opportunism’
“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”


“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

People can’t deal with this level of evil, but Soviets, Hitler, Mao show its possibility
“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.

“But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are.

“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.

“And the people going along with it, I think they would probably say, ‘I was only following orders,’ which we have heard before.

“But I know, because I have talked to lots of people, and some of them have said ‘I don’t want to believe that you are right, so I’m going to just put it away because if it is true, I can’t handle it.’ And I think … all you need to do is find a good reason to tell people, ‘Don’t take the vaccine unless you’re a medical risk of dying from the virus!’ That seems to me a pretty good line!”

Towards a solution – ‘We need God’
“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail.

“So, we need philosophers, people who understand logic, religion, something like that, [they have] got to wrestle with this, and start talking in a language people will understand. Because if we leave it with scientists, people like me, even though I’m well-intentioned, I’m a gabbling alien as far as most people in the street are concerned. They won’t believe the government will lie to them, they don’t believe the government would ever do anything that will harm them, but they are [doing such things].”

Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”
I'm quite disturbed that a former VP of Pfizer who knows that industry and the people around the scene, that he's bringing in the depopulation thing being an actual possibility now.

Does anyone else not really worry for the future? Like my god, Silence, Malf, anyone else who support(ed) the official line...this is what you were defending back last summer right? Now that things have moved on, and more data points are connecting something really flippin' sinister going on.......thoughts?
 
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/e...to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death


I'm quite disturbed that a former VP of Pfizer who knows that industry and the people around the scene, that he's bringing in the depopulation thing being an actual possibility now.

Does anyone else not really worry for the future? Like my god, Silence, Malf, anyone else who support(ed) the official line...this is what you were defending back last summer right? Now that things have moved on, and more data points are connecting something really flippin' sinister going on.......thoughts?
Yes, put folks who act "functionally" in ways that support the agendas of psychopaths on ignore.
 
A question. I dont know what the exact figures are but this is a brief summary of what i think it is about. Am not an expert and would like to know if and where i might be wrong. Have used one figure for serious afflictions and deaths. Obviously still living if seriously afflicted is better than death even if it made things a lot harder in many ways
I would put an estimate figure based on what have gathered in my head over time that about 400 people per million will either die or be seriously inflicted from vaccine side effects per vaccine (all types of vaccines for different diseases to some extent or another). Bear in mind that some people even put the figure of adverse reports on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US as low as 1% of what it really is (that would also include longterm side effects though, that very often go unnoticed). When pharma companies say that 'there are no more adverse effects than would be expected in the community' the way they base that reasoning is that in the trial phases the new vaccine is tested on one control group while the other control group is given another vaccine such as the meningitis vaccine that is known to have a high amount of side effects. Logic would dictate that a new vaccine was tested against a placebo such as a saline substance to determine any toxicity.
The, based on my assumed figure of 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people per vaccine, equation, goes from


meningitis vaccine = 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people
+
covid vaccine = 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people


Total 800 deaths and serious afflictions per million people

to.....

The Covid vaccine 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people

becomes 0 because people were dying and being seriously afflicted from the meningitis vaccine anyway

----

This makes no sense as if someone has had two types of vaccines they have undergone two interventions. Also a lot of the serious afflictions and deaths show up shorltly after taking a vaccine (though longterm vaccine side effects are also known but largely go unnoticed to the public due to culpability 'no need to look' legislation).

The other question that begs out of this is say i was in bad health, not really bad but say i put the odds in my head at 1 in 3 chance of going through a serious bout of covid but was quite sure in myself that it wouldn't kill me and i would get better. Am i better taking a 1 in 2500 chance of serious affliction or death or make do with a 1 in 3 chance of spluttering through long covid for a few months?
Bear in mind that billions of people if not everyone has already had covid at least once, most people twice as natural immunity lasts about six months. There have been plenty of antibody and t-cell surveys done to back that up plus also when the news says that there is a 3% covid positivity rate in a certain county, state or country this means 3% of the population currently have covid. The average time for someone to catch covid and be transmitting is about 7 days but lets call it 10 days. 365 days divided by 10 days is about 36. 36 multiplied by a 3% covid positivity annual average, equals 108% of people per year which sounds about right considering natural immunity lasts about six months. Also covid is getting less serious each season since it first appeared.
See the general death rate figure for England and Wales in April 2020 just after the initial covid spread into the Uk compared to same month in previous years.
Also note how since the vaccinations started on Dec 8th the steady decline in the general death rate since April 2020, notably increases in December, January and February 2021 even after taking into consideration that there is an increase in the death rate during those months every year. The covid vaccinations are supposed to be outweighing things by protecting the people that would have died of covid, so why these figures?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...guresondeathsregisteredbyareaofusualresidence


I think the only space for these covid vaccines (if nothing better can be found) is for people with very serious health conditions or particularly elderly and frail and only then after allergy, PEG antibody tests etc and a full assessment from their doctor, for them to continue on to take the vaccine, if they though so chose to. They are saying on the BBC that anyone over 30 is more at risk from covid than the vaccine which i think is nonsense for reasons and figures outlined above (please correct me if am wrong)

At the moment the news is singeling out the Astra Zeneca vaccine for what they are calling 'rare blood clots' and 'thrombosis' that according to the BBC have occurred in about 70 cases, 19 of which have resulted in death from the 40 million or so people who have been vaccinated in the Uk. Even if there are additional side effects with the Astra Zeneca vaccines in the numbers quoted above, considering my derived at estimate figure (again please correct me if i am wrong) of on average 400 people per million seriously afflicted or dead per vaccine for various diseases then the significance of the story is not the extra 70 cases, 19 that have sadly resulted in death per 40 million people but the overall picture and figures of vaccine safety (including for use in risk analysis as to when the covid vaccines are appropriate) which pharma companies data releases dont show because of the fraud (imo) in the way that vaccine safety efficiency is approved after fraudulent (imo) testing methods outlined in the equation previously in this post
 
Last edited:
A question. I dont know what the exact figures are but this is a brief summary of what i think it is about. Am not an expert and would like to know if and where i might be wrong. Have used one figure for serious afflictions and deaths. Obviously still living if seriously afflicted is better than death even if it made things a lot harder in many ways
I would put an estimate figure based on what have gathered in my head over time that about 400 people per million will either die or be seriously inflicted from vaccine side effects per vaccine (all types of vaccines for different diseases to some extent or another). Bear in mind that some people even put the figure of adverse reports on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US as low as 1% of what it really is (that would also include longterm side effects though, that very often go unnoticed). When pharma companies say that 'there are no more adverse effects than would be expected in the community' the way they base that reasoning is that in the trial phases the new vaccine is tested on one control group while the other control group is given another vaccine such as the meningitis vaccine that is known to have a high amount of side effects. Logic would dictate that a new vaccine was tested against a placebo such as a saline substance to determine any toxicity.
The, based on my assumed figure of 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people per vaccine, equation, goes from


meningitis vaccine = 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people
+
covid vaccine = 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people


Total 800 deaths and serious afflictions per million people

to.....

The Covid vaccine 400 deaths and serious afflictions per million people

becomes 0 because people were dying and being seriously afflicted from the meningitis vaccine anyway

----

This makes no sense as if someone has had two types of vaccines they have undergone two interventions. Also a lot of the serious afflictions and deaths show up shorltly after taking a vaccine (though longterm vaccine side effects are also known but largely go unnoticed to the public due to culpability 'no need to look' legislation).

The other question that begs out of this is say i was in bad health, not really bad but say i put the odds in my head at 1 in 3 chance of going through a serious bout of covid but was quite sure in myself that it wouldn't kill me and i would get better. Am i better taking a 1 in 2500 chance of serious affliction or death or make do with a 1 in 3 chance of spluttering through long covid for a few months?
Bear in mind that billions of people if not everyone has already had covid at least once, most people twice as natural immunity lasts about six months. There have been plenty of antibody and t-cell surveys done to back that up plus also when the news says that there is a 3% covid positivity rate in a certain county, state or country this means 3% of the population currently have covid. The average time for someone to catch covid and be transmitting is about 7 days but lets call it 10 days. 365 days divided by 10 days is about 36. 36 multiplied by a 3% covid positivity annual average, equals 108% of people per year which sounds about right considering natural immunity lasts about six months. Also covid is getting less serious each season since it first appeared.
See the general death rate figure for England and Wales in April 2020 just after the initial covid spread into the Uk compared to same month in previous years.
Also note how since the vaccinations started on Dec 8th the steady decline in the general death rate since April 2020, notably increases in December, January and February 2021 even after taking into consideration that there is an increase in the death rate during those months every year. The covid vaccinations are supposed to be outweighing things by protecting the people that would have died of covid, so why these figures?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...guresondeathsregisteredbyareaofusualresidence


I think the only space for these covid vaccines (if nothing better can be found) is for people with very serious health conditions or particularly elderly and frail and only then after allergy, PEG antibody tests etc and a full assessment from their doctor, for them to continue on to take the vaccine, if they though so chose to. They are saying on the BBC that anyone over 30 is more at risk from covid than the vaccine which i think is nonsense for reasons and figures outlined above (please correct me if am wrong)

At the moment the news is singeling out the Astra Zeneca vaccine for what they are calling 'rare blood clots' and 'thrombosis' that according to the BBC have occurred in about 70 cases, 19 of which have resulted in death from the 40 million or so people who have been vaccinated in the Uk. Even if there are additional side effects with the Astra Zeneca vaccines in the numbers quoted above, considering my derived at estimate figure (again please correct me if i am wrong) of on average 400 people per million seriously afflicted or dead per vaccine for various diseases then the significance of the story is not the extra 70 cases, 19 that have sadly resulted in death per 40 million people but the overall picture and figures of vaccine safety (including for use in risk analysis as to when the covid vaccines are appropriate) which pharma companies data releases dont show because of the fraud (imo) in the way that vaccine safety efficiency is approved after fraudulent (imo) testing methods outlined in the equation previously in this post
If as the general death rate figures seem to indicate in the above article maybe people outside of the Uk should see this as a Brexit blessing as if Britain was still in the EU it would be at about 10-15% of the way through its vaccine rollout and the data may have been less apparent. If this is as it seems then people can make a better informed decision as to how to proceed. Imo the EU has delayed its vaccine rollout as they want to blend the increased deaths and hospitalisations caused by the covid vaccines into the figures for the rest of the year. Why would someone do that? Good question.
Also it seems that the increased hospitalisations in the Uk are with people who have had two covid jabs as this screenshot and an article in The Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ng-third-wave-based-flawed-figures-telegraph/ it attributes to, seems to point out. The article quote is based around points made on page 10 paragraph 32 and page 18 paragraphs 55 and 56 of this SAGE report
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ing_of_easing_roadmap_step_2_restrictions.pdf
 

Attachments

Last edited:
I only read about towards the end of writing the post #2164 above what it says on page 18 paragraph 56 of the linked Sage report. Seems quite conclusive as to the risks posed by the covid vaccines because of how anyone over 50 had been put into a high risk category to be vaccinated when it is more like people with very serious health conditions or particularly frail and elderly that should be put forward, if they so choose, for these covid vaccines after allergy tests, PEG antibody tests etc and a full assessment from their doctor
 
Last edited:
Yes, put folks who act "functionally" in ways that support the agendas of psychopaths on ignore.
Fascinating.

A response to a post regarding censorship suggests the best course of action is more censorship?

To DD's post, Yeadon makes some troubling claims. I think its fair to say there isn't anyway to validate the veracity of his claims, nor to assert the mainstream view as fully accurate. There's ambiguity here and certainly a host of unanswered questions.

That said, how would Chester react if it were to be shown that Yeadon's assertions were reckless or, since we're being sensationalist: "psychopathic"? (i.e., if he's wrong and the vaccines are safe/effective; his urgings could cause real harm to people who take his advice) At least some of his former associates seem to call into question Yeadon's takes: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/

So anyone who expresses uncertainty about Yeadon's take is supporting psychopaths? How is that even rational when all anyone has is a smattering (at best) of circumstantial evidence and appeals to their choice of "authorities" (Yeadon, mainstream, other)? It isn't. Its anti-rational; irrational.
 
Fascinating.

A response to a post regarding censorship suggests the best course of action is more censorship?
Wouldn't censorship be blocking other peoples access to a point of view and not one of your own choosing?

I mean one is just personal choice and the other dictates onto others.
 
Wouldn't censorship be blocking other peoples access to a point of view and not one of your own choosing?

I mean one is just personal choice and the other dictates onto others.
Of course. Was trying to make a bit of a broader point regarding the irony of closing oneself to views that differ from your own.
 
Fascinating.

A response to a post regarding censorship suggests the best course of action is more censorship?

To DD's post, Yeadon makes some troubling claims. I think its fair to say there isn't anyway to validate the veracity of his claims, nor to assert the mainstream view as fully accurate. There's ambiguity here and certainly a host of unanswered questions.

At least some of his former associates seem to call into question Yeadon's takes: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
I read that and wasn't impressed. It was just your bog standard bunch of opinions and mainstream views. They didn't even bother to investigate whether what he was claiming had any truth to it. They just basically said "well everyone else in the 'scientific community' disagrees, so he must be wrong, and also here are some of his former colleagues telling you that they didn't like what he had to say".

There is definitely ambiguity when considering what is actually going on, but also there is data coming from the openvaers suggesting to me, that there appears to be something dodgy going on. Apparently, the injuries sustained so far from the vaccines are more than for any other vaccine in the previous decade (or something to that effect...will need to find where I remembered that). I get that this may be due to the sheer amount of people taking the vaccines, but that doesn't make it right. People should not be dying from this, period. Especially with all the social engineering surrounding it, with people who don't even need to get it. There is also a study that was done that suggested that the true amount of reported events via the vaers system is under-reported by something like 10 to 100 times; I can't remember the actual figure right now, but roughly this scale.


For me, everything so far still ties into this being a plandemic and an attempt at installing technocracy, which is nearly there. This is by far obvious and cannot be denied now.
 
I read that and wasn't impressed. It was just your bog standard bunch of opinions and mainstream views. They didn't even bother to investigate whether what he was claiming had any truth to it. They just basically said "well everyone else in the 'scientific community' disagrees, so he must be wrong, and also here are some of his former colleagues telling you that they didn't like what he had to say".

There is definitely ambiguity when considering what is actually going on, but also there is data coming from the openvaers suggesting to me, that there appears to be something dodgy going on. Apparently, the injuries sustained so far from the vaccines are more than for any other vaccine in the previous decade (or something to that effect...will need to find where I remembered that). I get that this may be due to the sheer amount of people taking the vaccines, but that doesn't make it right. People should not be dying from this, period. Especially with all the social engineering surrounding it, with people who don't even need to get it.


For me, everything so far still ties into this being a plandemic and an attempt at installing technocracy, which is nearly there. This is by far obvious and cannot be denied now.
Not sure how to square your last sentence with the rest of your post. It comes off as someone who has convinced themselves of something in spite of less than complete evidence/data.
 
Not sure how to square your last sentence with the rest of your post. It comes off as someone who has convinced themselves of something in spite of less than complete evidence/data.
You aren't going to ever get complete evidence or data with this. Branching out, not for a whole lot of other things too. I don't get why you have consistently come at me with this argument over time, as it's self evident that not much in life can have complete evidence/data!

I have enough that suggests to me that something shady is going on and that I'd rather my loved ones or myself not take them for as long as possible. Wait and see.

Risk/Benefit analysis ain't good on this one.
 
To DD's post, Yeadon makes some troubling claims. I think its fair to say there isn't anyway to validate the veracity of his claims, nor to assert the mainstream view as fully accurate. There's ambiguity here and certainly a host of unanswered questions.
What I think you fail to realise, is that if Yeadon were REALLY putting out bad science, his mistakes could be explained by others with a more orthodox position, however all that happens is that he is shunned.

If these claims were invalid, the proper place to tackle that would be by a debate of some sort. However, sadly, that isn't going to happen because science just shuns its own people who point sharp sticks.

Here on this forum we regularly see this - people from within science get ignored when they say something inconvenient.

Unfortunately, the consequences aren't usually catastrophic, but this time they may well be. I think it may depend whether Big Pharma is happy to take its ill-gotten gains and let go soon and let this scam die, or whether it carries on with this farce.

All they need to in Britain, for example, is to wait till late September, and then do what I think they did last year - adjust the number of PCR cycles up from 30 to 40 say, and lo - the number of cases will rise rapidly, and gradually the death rate will rise too, because more people who enter hospital dying of something else, will get a positive test result and if they die, this will be put down to COVID. I guess they have the sense to do the switch gradually or make sure there is a mixture of old batches of the test and later ones. The new rise in cases will be blamed on a COVID variant that is less responsive to the vaccine! Notice that most of the hard working doctors and nurses will be unaware of what has happened. They don't need to be part of the conspiracy.

I did one basic 'experiment' a few weeks after the start of the pandemic. In those days masks were not compulsory, and shop assistants rarely wore them. I simply asked a few people working at Tesco, whether many of them had come down with COVID. My question was partly in sympathy with their plight - having to meet endless people in the middle of a pandemic didn't sound like fun. Their answer stunned me - nobody had fallen ill, still less died of the disease that was supposedly raging in Britain.

Sometimes the simplest experiments are the most telling.

David
 
You aren't going to ever get complete evidence or data with this. Branching out, not for a whole lot of other things too. I don't get why you have consistently come at me with this argument over time, as it's self evident that not much in life can have complete evidence/data!
Don't shoot the messenger. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your own words: you seemed to want to agree with me that there is a lot we don't know but then closed with an absolute conclusion (This is by far obvious and cannot be denied now.). Again, that's hard to square.

What I think you fail to realise, is that if Yeadon were REALLY putting out bad science, his mistakes could be explained by others with a more orthodox position, however all that happens is that he is shunned.
So the logic to validate Yeadon is to point out that mainstream orthodoxists haven't directly addressed his claims? That's not how science (or logic) works and you know that David. You can't establish a position as correct or true simply because it hasn't been directly refuted. Crazy talk.

Further, I'm sure I could dig up a criticism of two of Yeadon from supposed orthodox positions, but those would be hand waved away as they've been throughout this thread.

He may be right (as I've now had to state repeatedly) but he may also be wrong. To suggest anything else is to simply flaunt one's bias.
 
He may be right (as I've now had to state repeatedly) but he may also be wrong. To suggest anything else is to simply flaunt one's bias.
So in effect, you say he may be right but there is no way of proving it one way or the other! Yes, I suppose that is what science has become - a source of unverifiable statements.

I believe him because of what I have read on Dr Kendrick's blog and other places. Besides, it makes sense of my Tesco 'experiment', and it makes sense of the places the medical authorities won't go - the accuracy of the tests (their specificity to use their technical name), and better still, some blind testing where known sterile samples are tested for COVID-19.

Oh and here is a detailed analysis of the UK statistics, to raise much more doubt:

https://architectsforsocialhousing....lies-and-statistics-manufacturing-the-crisis/

It would seem that the articles on that site are not signed for reasons I will leave you to speculate on, but the detail might suggest he knows what he is talking about.

David
 
Last edited:

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
No, it's not.
This OPENvaers thing is bullshit.
Basically everybody an their aunt can report anything they want
From this Vice article:

VAERS is a passive reporting surveillance system, and the people who submit to it can include doctors and healthcare providers, but also anyone who receives a vaccine, their family members, or even lawyers. (This is different from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is limited to health care professionals, and requires more documentation for submissions.)
Since its inception in 1988, anti-vaccine groups have cherry-picked VAERS data and twisted it out of context to show the supposed dangers of vaccines. Now, with several COVID-19 vaccines being administered, and vaccine hesitancy and misinformation on the rise worldwide, VAERS is being used yet again by those same groups—as well as a crop of new bad actors—as a vehicle for claims that various vaccines cause serious side effects like Bell's palsy, hospitalizations, or death. (A CDC review of safety data to date found this week that Bell’s palsy is no more common in COVID-vaccinated populations than unvaccinated; nor is the rate of death, or other severe health complications.)
It is simple, we have a world wide problem, and we have a solution, please use it.
If you don't vaccinate, you are part of the problem.
It is people like you who are going to make this thing stay for ever.
 
No, it's not.
This OPENvaers thing is bullshit.
Basically everybody an their aunt can report anything they want
From this Vice article:
Ah yeah, vice, that bastion of journalistic integrity.

It's not bullshit. I've read the reports. They are mostly from Doctors due to the language used.


And supposed dangers of vaccines? How about you ask those families of people whom have died as a result of them so far. It's a reality. Vice are liars.


Bart V said:
It is simple, we have a world wide problem, and we have a solution, please use it.
If you don't vaccinate, you are part of the problem.
It is people like you who are going to make this thing stay for ever.

Actually, it's people like you who are the idiots that are going to make this thing stay for ever.

How about you be a man and face your deep down fear of how fucked this thing whole scam is. Be honest with yourself. It was never about a virus. It was always about control.

And get wrecked mate. I ain't taking no vaccine because some plebian on the internet told me to. I'll do it if I decide for myself it is correct.
 
Don't shoot the messenger. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your own words: you seemed to want to agree with me that there is a lot we don't know but then closed with an absolute conclusion (This is by far obvious and cannot be denied now.). Again, that's hard to square.
You know me. I am always open to my view points being changed.

It's hard to square for you Silence, because you don't seem to take a stance on anything. You intellectualise too much IMO. Yes there is a lot we don't know, but in real life, we don't stand in the corner and do nothing just because we don't have the complete picture about something.


Silence said:
Further, I'm sure I could dig up a criticism of two of Yeadon from supposed orthodox positions, but those would be hand waved away as they've been throughout this thread.
I hand waved away something because I didn't agree with the arguments used by the specific criticism. I didn't like it and it didn't make sense.

If you have more to share, then by all means, let's see what else there is. You'd be surprised to hear that I actually do have some doubts about Yeadon because he may be being hyperbolic due to a personality trait. I've seen it sometimes where a person is good enough to get into high positions, yet they really really lack something else and then get found out eventually. It could be that.

It's just that the vaccine thing is this massive elephant in the room that if he is right, could be absolutely devastating.

Silence said:
He may be right (as I've now had to state repeatedly) but he may also be wrong. To suggest anything else is to simply flaunt one's bias.
And? So is it your position that people should never take a firm stance on an issue? To be in a perpetual state of neutrality? No thanks.

We are all biased, always.
 
I love the ignor list. I waste so much less time now by using it vigilantly.
Its "ignore" and your love has turned into an unhealthy obsession. We can't go one page in this thread without you popping off about it. Seemingly those you have on the list are occupying a ton of your headspace. A bit ironic actually. ;)
 
Top