Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 29

[ecosophia]

The semi-open posts  I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a very high number of comments -- to understate the matter considerably! -- so I'm opening yet another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, as Canadian officials launch a campaign of reprisals against citizens who supported a peaceful protest against government policy, and the words "died suddenly" become the favorite media euphemism of our time, the floor is open for discussion.   

Comments

Re: Hyper lethal varient

[(Anonymous)]

Is it possible the next variant is not in fact a variant, but cover for incoming vax damage?

Re: Hyper lethal varient

[(Anonymous)]

That might be difficult to pull off, if there wasn't actually a variant, since at this point there is a lot of attention being paid to tracking and genomic sequencing of variants.

I could envision them "discovering" some "new" virus that is rather benign and already present in almost all humans, and using *that* as a cover for vax damage. "The deceased tested positive for Sudden Cardiac Death Virus 2022 (SCDV-22). The virus appears to already be widespread in the population, so we could be facing a very large wave of heart attacks and cardiovascular problems in the months ahead."

It probably wouldn't actually work, since anyone could dig up old frozen samples and discover that they test positive too, but that's not to say it couldn't happen...

Mark L

Re: Hyper lethal varient

[(Anonymous)]

Well old frozen samples could test positive but they might not tell us because it might be misinterpreted! And people who do tell us, well, they get canceled. Pretty simple.

Re: Hyper lethal varient

[sinners4diseasecontrol]

This is related to a question that has come up that I thought I ought to run by you. There has been some talk recently that the more booster shots a person gets the more likely they are to turn up HIV positive.
In other material I've read recently, the question of whether HIV causes AIDS as everyone believes or is merely associated with it as a few people hypothesize has come up. (This is similar to the idea that rather than causing heart disease, high cholesterol is a response to other factors causing it.)
Do you think it would be possible that a weakened immune system resulting from other causes, such as side effects of the vaccines, fails to suppress HIV, which is more commonly encountered than we think, or even produces it itself (which is another hypothesis I've encountered).
Thank you for considering this if I manage to catch you.

Re: Hyper lethal varient

[(Anonymous)]

Re: cholesterol and heart disease

This research-based perspective is interesting...
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/11/13/what-causes-heart-disease/

The alternative hypothesis, which I find more plausible, is that arterial thickening/hardening happens in response to vascular damage and the resultant clotting, with the body building new arterial wall tissue over the clots and narrowing the passageway in the process. This also has implications with regard to the microclotting caused by spike protein the bloodstream.


Re: HIV as causative agent of AIDS

I'm aware that this linkage has been controversial. I don't know enough about the different perspectives to say anything intelligent about it.


Re: HIV infection as a result of weakened immunity

This seems plausible to me - not that the weakened immune system would *produce* HIV, but that it would be more susceptible to infection.

Viruses are tiny and ubiquitous, almost on the scale of atoms and molecules. We all have quite a few atoms of uranium, arsenic, radium, and cadmium in our bodies. Below a certain threshold they don't cause a problem. The same is true of viruses except of course that they multiply. While I doubt that all of us have some HIV viruses in us at all times, it's almost certain that all of us encounter little bundles of HIV virions on a regular basis simply by existing in a world in which some people carry the virus in their bodily fluids. For any virus there is an average infectious dose. Exposure below this level will tend to result in rapid extinction as the innate immune defenses destroy viruses before they can infect cells. Exposure above this level will tend to result in replication and infection. The infectious dose is a function both of the virus itself and of the competence of the innate immune system. For HIV, this infectious dose is normally quite high, which makes it rather difficult to transmit.

Think of the innate immune system as a goalie. The number of points scored (the number of infections) depends on both the skill of the offense (the inherent infectiousness of the virus) and the goalie's state of health and mind. An exhausted or substance-addled goalie is going to allow more points, even against weaker teams. So I would not be at all surprised to see increased incidence of HIV infection following a treatment that weakens innate immunity.

Mark L

Re: Hyper lethal varient

[(Anonymous)]

RFK Jr's book, the real Anthony Fausti (or a title something like that...) has considerable material on HIV and the many ways it doesn't seem to fit as the sole cause of AIDS. Interestingly, several people independently discovered another microorganism that, when found in blood samples along with HIV, seemed *much* more predictive of developing AIDS. People can carry low HIV loads for decades, unlike my earlier impression.

The pattern was set by Dr Fausti 30 years ago-- determine the one Answer, and then viciously defame, defund, and ignore anyone brave enough to challenge that party line. Particularly effective when most federal research $ comes under your direct control.

I had never encountered any of these parts of the AIDS story before this book. Luc Montagnier, recently deceased, discovered HIV. He stated back in the 1990s that it could not be the sole cause of AIDS. The book is a well researched polemic, but worth the time to read.

Re: Hyper lethal varient

[sinners4diseasecontrol]

Thank you, Mark! Yes, I think the body producing HIV on its own would be improbable, but one interesting speculation out there.