Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 99

[ecosophia]

As we proceed through the second year of these open posts, it's pretty clear that the official narrative is cracking as the toll of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines rises steadily and the vaccines themselves demonstrate their total uselessness at preventing Covid infection or transmission. It's still important to keep watch over the mis-, mal- and nonfeasance of our self-proclaimed health gruppenfuehrers, and the disastrous results of the Covid mania, but I think it's also time to begin thinking about what might be possible as the existing medical industry reels under the impact of its own self-inflicted injuries. 

So it's time for another open post. 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. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's the result of a deliberate campaign.

If you're old enough, you might remember that as late as the 80s, smoking was still pretty normal in the US. There were still matchbooks and ashtrays on restaurant tables. Then there was an absolutely massive campaign to get people to stop smoking-- I think it may have started in the 90s, but I was a kid then and it wasn't really on my radar. It went into super high gear in the early 2000s, when they were pushing legislation to ban public indoor smoking. Ultimately, I think the legislation was needed, but the campaign around it was completely psychotic-- when educating the public didn't get the desired results, they switched to demonizing, social pressure, early-internet-prototypes of paid media trolling... It was the first time in my adult life I'd really *noticed* propaganda, and AFAICT, it was the first such campaign that was conducted in the internet era, using "social influencer" strategies and troll farms. It's become a template for internet-based propaganda/social campaigns, though they have exciting new tools now-- automated keyword censoring, botnets, that sort of thing.

There's been a similar campaign against "antivaxxers", and it has worked. It has been a bit slower and lower-key, and the pieces of legislation attached to it have mostly failed... but it's there. The paid online social-media trolls/influencers, the spokesdoctors pretending they aren't being paid by drug companies, TV news talking points...

I've seen other smaller, more targeted campaigns around breastfeeding and home/natural childbirth. At that level, there are probably a lot more campaigns going on, and those are just the ones that crossed my radar, because they happened while I was new to motherhood, and still reading in the "mommy sphere". The common thread to all of those things is: if it advocates doing things naturally, and buying fewer commercial products, it's ruthlessly attacked on multiple fronts, with the goal of making anyone advocating such things a guilt-ridden pariah.

To anyone paying attention, the CVAX campaign looked familiar. Same template, same actors, but with more resources backing it, supposedly neutral platforms censoring unapproved info and dissident users, and the volume turned up to deafening.

[(Anonymous)]

I set up a simple little website for small local group of covid heretics skeptics. Someone asked me the other day if I'd thought about increasing the site's visibility on search engines. I replied that basically I didn't think it would be worth the effort-- all relevant keywords would just get us sunk to the bottom of any search results. And likely draw unwelcome attention somehow.

It feels like electronic samizdat. Or a website speakeasy, hidden in plain sight. If you really want to, you'll find us. That resembles my approach to the topic with anybody I don't know well. Ask me, and I have tons of info and suggestions. But my lips are sealed unless you ask.

(It's unfortunately that way with my spouse, as well.)

[(Anonymous)]

I am a newbie to this website but not a newbie when it comes to the anti-tobbacco campaigns.
I did this research as a smoker whose eyes were opened by a surgeon friend who told me that there's no difference between the smoker's lung and the non smoker's lung except for, maybe, a slightly thicker mucus, and that smoker's were much less likely to develop cancer from Asbestos for example.
At that time I knew that smoking helps keeping my genetically messed up blood pressure in check I unwittingly performed an experiment on myself by quitting smoking for 2 years and developing familial insane blood pressure problems, then smoking again then quitting smoking for 6 months...the result was that I simply smoke 10 cigarettes a day since I consider this more healthy than taking a handful of pills that work sometimes.
But to my point and the rabbit hole that I entered.
Unfortunately majority of my research is no longer accessible because the links to it went dark. Nowadays with the search engines finding anything on my research seems impossible. This one survived but I don't know for how long:
https://www.sott.net/article/338885-A-comprehensive-review-of-the-many-health-benefits-of-smoking-Tobacco#
The anti-tobbaco propaganda did not start in the 80's it started in the 50's.
The governments of the West poured money into research that could explain the cancer epidemic (as they called it). This in itself is interesting because no such epidemic existed at the time.
At first both, alcohol and tobacco were targeted but alcohol was dropped pretty fast (I have my theories as to why).
The first big study on tobacco and it's correlation to lung cancer was 1950 Wynder and Graham Study which was just...bad.
But it's accepted as a great first step.
There were some links pointing out that the study was so bad it was ignored by the community and it was understood that the government funding it had more to do with the result than anything else.
But this study paved a way to even more bad studies. To date we don't have 1 experiment showing causation ie. The cigarette smoke or tar actually causing cancer of any type.
It's not for the lack of trying.
Instead we now are dealing with an epidemic of lung cancers in women that were never affected by smoke, not even as children. The epidemic skews the regular ratio of the men/women lung cancer very hard and the Science TM cannot explain it with cigarette smoke although they are trying.
The rabid anti-tobbacco propaganda in my opinion serves a purpose of obscuring something else that's causing the cancers.
It may be a vaccine or one of them. Or it may be a simple fact that at the same time that the government got very interested in the research they also started "mass" nuclear tests. I don't think we will ever know for sure but at this time the propaganda is so ingrained that the tobacco is doomed in my opinion so the possible positive health effects may never be known.
Epidemiological studies show over and over again that rhe smoker cohort has a significantly lower blood pressure than the non-smoker cohort.
But I was told that if I start smoking again my blood pressure that the "modern" medicine cannot and will not help, will go up.