The vaccine thread (WITH FEEDBACK)

Dustin07

Dustin07

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I'm getting really close to getting snipped because of the discussion here. I think I should for my wife's well being.

however last night she said.... haha... "maybe you should look into it" in regards to selling unvaxxed sperm 😅😅
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Biden's taking some serious losses, between student loans, the 1st Amendment being upheld (just cringe at the fact I just had to say that), etc. The judgement issued yesterday in Missouri vs Biden is overdue, and the judge went hard in his 155 pages. Here are some choice excerpts:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech, such as: (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.
It's ****ing endless, with the first 86 pages laying out in painstaking detail the claims of the plaintiffs. It goes on to discuss all of this:

What is really telling is that virtually all of the free speech suppressed was “conservative” free speech. Using the 2016 election and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government apparently engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored conservative speech. The targeting of conservative speech indicates that Defendants may have engaged in “viewpoint discrimination,” to which strict scrutiny applies. See Simon & Schuster, Inc., 505 U.S. 105 (1991
Explicit threats are an obvious form of coercion, but not all coercion need be explicit. The following illustrative specific actions by Defendants are examples of coercion exercised by the White House Defendants:

(a) “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please
remove this account immediately.”603

(b) Accused Facebook of causing “political violence” by failing to censor false
COVID-19 claims.604

(c) “You are hiding the ball.”605

(d) “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.”606

(e) “I care mostly about what actions and changes you are making to ensure you’re not
making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.”607

(f) “This is exactly why I want to know what “Reduction” actually looks like – if
“reduction” means pumping our most vaccine hesitance audience with Tucker
Carlson saying it does not work… then… I’m not sure it’s reduction.”608

(g) Questioning how the Tucker Carlson video had been “demoted” since there were
40,000 shares.609

(h) Wanting to know why Alex Berenson had not been kicked off Twitter because
Berenson was the epicenter of disinformation that radiated outward to the
persuadable public.610 “We want to make sure YouTube has a handle on vaccine
hesitancy and is working toward making the problem better. Noted that vaccine
hesitancy was a concern. That is shared by the highest (‘and I mean the highest’)
levels of the White House.”’

(i) After sending to Facebook a document entitled “Facebook COVID-19 Vaccine
Misinformation Brief, which recommends much more aggressive censorship by
Facebook. Flaherty told Facebook sending the Brief was not a White House
endorsement of it, but “this is circulating around the building and informing
thinking.”612

(j) Flaherty stated: “Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is being
demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach and how quickly?”613

(k) Flaherty told Facebook: “Are you guys ****ing serious” I want an answer on what
happened here and I want it today.”614

(l) Surgeon General Murthy stated: “We expect more from our technology companies.
We’re asking them to operate with greater transparency and accountability. We’re asking them to monitor information more closely. We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on theirplatforms.”615

(m) White House Press Secretary Psaki stated: “we are in regular touch with these social-media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. Psaki also stated one of the White House’s “asks” of social-media companies was to “create a robust enforcement strategy.”616

(n) When asked about what his message was to social-media platforms when it came
to COVID-19, President Biden stated: “they’re killing people. Look, the only
pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and that – they’re killing people.”617

(o) Psaki stated at the February 1, 2022, White House Press Conference that the White
House wanted every social-media platform to do more to call out misinformation
and disinformation and to uplift accurate information.618

(p) “Hey folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving
on the process of having it removed. ASAP”
619

(q) “How many times can someone show false COVID-19 claims before being
removed?”

(r) “I’ve been asking you guys pretty directly over a series of conversations if the
biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy
and the degree to which borderline content- as you define it, is playing a role.”620

(s) “I am not trying to play ‘gotcha’ with you. We are gravely concerned that your
service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy-period.”621

(t) “You only did this, however after an election that you helped increase skepticism
in and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, on your platform.”
622

(u) “Seems like your ‘dedicated vaccine hesitancy’ policy isn’t stopping the disinfo
dozen.” 623

(v) White House Communications Director, Kate Bedingfield’s announcement that
“the White House is assessing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for
misinformation spread on their platforms, and examining how misinformation fits
into the liability protection process by Section 230 of The Communication Decency
Act.”
624

These actions are just a few examples of the unrelenting pressure the Defendants exerted against social-media companies. This Court finds the above examples demonstrate that Plaintiffs can likely prove that White House Defendants engaged in coercion to induce social-media companies to suppress free speech.


But the CISA Defendants went even further. CISA expanded the word “infrastructure” in its terminology to include “cognitive” infrastructure, so as to create authority to monitor and suppress protected free speech posted on social media. The word “cognitive” is an adjective that means “relating to cognition.” “Cognition” means the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experiences, and the senses.627 The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits on its claim that the CISA Defendants believe they had a mandate to control the process of acquiring knowledge.
According to DiResta, head of EIP, the EIP was designed “to get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions that would arise if CISA or the other government agencies were to monitor and flag information for censorship on social media.”628 Therefore, the CISA Defendants aligned themselves with and partnered with an organization that was designed to avoid Government involvement with free speech in monitoring and flagging content for censorship on social-media platforms.
While not admitting any fault in the suppression of free speech, Defendants blame the Russians, COVID-19, and capitalism for any suppression of free speech by social-media companies
:lol::lol::lol:

Plaintiffs have shown that not only have the Defendants shown willingness to coerce and/or to give significant encouragement to social-media platforms to suppress free speech with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and national elections, they have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues, such as gas prices, 690
parody speech, 691 calling the President a liar, 692 climate change, 693 gender, 694
and abortion.695
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Harry S. Truman

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiffs’ request to certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Article 23(b)(2) is DENIED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA this 4
th day of July 2023.
 
Hyde

Hyde

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Biden's taking some serious losses, between student loans, the 1st Amendment being upheld (just cringe at the fact I just had to say that), etc. The judgement issued yesterday in Missouri vs Biden is overdue, and the judge went hard in his 155 pages. Here are some choice excerpts:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email






It's ****ing endless, with the first 86 pages laying out in painstaking detail the claims of the plaintiffs. It goes on to discuss all of this:











:lol::lol::lol:
Thanks for sharing this.

I had a conversation just 2 days ago with my family about this. I remember driving down the major highway in town here and seeing billboards by the government & big pharma in conjunction both directly marketing the jab on the premise it would help protect others, and to “do your part”.

Now obviously all of that has been thoroughly debunked, that these shots made no difference in the virus getting spread (with significant evidence the social activity they promoted post-jab actually increased transmission rates). But all of this propaganda was getting blasted on the radio, on billboards, on television. And then one day it just started to silently go away, and it seems an awful lot that nobody even wants to talk about it.

But we all saw it, and it really happened - right here on US soil, like something out of 1984.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
It can't just go away, because, as the good judge points out: they WILL do it again. It MUST be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The interesting part is the lawsuit isn't just about coronavirus censorship; it also refers to Hunter Biden's laptop, and other pressing issues.

Bottom line:
I strongly feel that without Musk's purchase of Twitter, this would have been a far harder thing to accomplish. Musk gave free access to Twitter's back end without moderation, and invited people like Bhattacharya, Kuldorff, etc to SF to peruse to their hearts desire, and I think that this was the fuel for this inferno. The .gov abides by no rules, and would have simply not turned over the pertinent info in discovery, but because they had hard copies and references to other events from Musk's twitter, they had lines of inquiry, and things to pursue, which the .gov could not deny or simply shred. Musk single-handedly leveled the playing field enough to give truth a fighting chance, and seeing as the coming year is an election year, this may be the deciding event of that election. If Hunter's laptop story had not been squashed last time, we might have a different president today.

The CV response has really been the biggest issue to me for the last few years; I truly believe it was the most important, influential event in anyone's life since 9/11 (and with more similarities than some might think)....and maybe with far bigger implications than 9/11. Seeing this drop on July 4th was amazing. I hope it's only the start of the Great reReset.....
 
Dustin07

Dustin07

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
me 2 but I am not holding my breath. I'm all but spent in dis dept.
I don't really get angry anymore, it seems as though society has lost the narrative and I don't anticipate a big turn around now that the snowball has built so much momentum in the wrong direction. However we do have a voting season next year and that will likely either confirm to me that things aren't going to improve, or I'll be pleasantly surprised and we'll get back to some of our freedoms and stronger economies without the burden of excessive inflation / taxes / speech suppression until the next mandated lockdown and injection.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Today that appeal was over-ruled!


And it's not even July 4th!

The Defendants allege that they face irreparable harm with each day the injunction remains in effect, because the injunction's broad scope and ambiguous terms may be read to prevent the Defendants from engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct, including speaking on matters of public concern, and working with social-media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and the Country's various democratic processes.

Defendants further argue that they will prevail as to establishing that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. For the reasons set forth previously in the Memorandum Ruling36 this Court found all of the Plaintiffs are likely to establish all elements of Article III standing. Defendants argue the
States of Missouri and Louisiana do not have parens patriae standing to bring a claim against the Federal Government. This Court disagrees. In Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the United States Supreme Court concluded that Massachusetts had standing to sue the E.P.A. to protect its quasi-sovereign interests. The court clarified that because Massachusetts sought to assert its rights under federal law, rather than challenge the federal law's application for its citizens, the State of Massachusetts had standing. Like Massachusetts, the States of Missouri and Louisiana are asserting their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and also asserting rights under each Plaintiff States' own constitution. The Plaintiff States are likely to prevail on their standing argument because they have adequately alleged (and provided evidence supporting) injuries to their quasi-sovereign interest as well as direct censorship injuries on socialmedia.

Defendants argue that the injunction may be read to prevent the Defendants from engaging in a vast range of lawful conduct-including speaking on matters of public concern and working with social-media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes. However, the Preliminary Injunction only prohibits what the Defendants have no right to do-urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech on social-media platforms. The Defendants provide no argument that they are legally allowed to take such action.
The Defendants are asking the Court to grant them relief to a Preliminary Injunction that only bars illegal conduct. In other words, the only effect of staying the Preliminary Injunction would be to free Defendants to urge, encourage, pressure, or induce the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech on social-media platforms.
Have a nice cup of FU!
 
Dustin07

Dustin07

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
so our neighbor "died suddenly" the other day. an otherwise very healthy 50 year old liberal woman. I found it most interesting that the term they used for it was "died suddenly". I was like really? and you guys claim to have no idea why?
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Yeah, it's definitely a thing. Just hard to quantify, because they refuse to investigate it.
 
Dustin07

Dustin07

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Yeah, it's definitely a thing. Just hard to quantify, because they refuse to investigate it.
seems like people dug too deep a fox hole and aren't willing to come out and admit they were wrong in the name of being a SJW.
 
Renew1

Renew1

Legend
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
It was like a child asking to keep doing something wrong that they know is wrong simply because they really wanted to, just throwing a Hail Mary ask, and then getting further shut down. 🤣🤣🤣
I'm almost glad they asked...
It gave the Judge the opportunity to basically say, "So, your asking us to allow you to keep breaking the law"????
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I'm almost glad they asked...
It gave the Judge the opportunity to basically say, "So, your asking us to allow you to keep breaking the law"????
Definitely highlights the idiocy. I was talking to someone about this, and he had the balls to say 'you think they'll actually stop? Lolol'.

Really dude? You think that does anything but MAKE MY FUCKING POINT FOR ME? The gov't is too big, bloated, powerful, and forgot it's role. That's what this is all about, and he's right: I have thought 'well they'll just lie and continue to do this illegal ****', but hey, we have to start somewhere, and this is where we are.

I'm no musk leghumper, but without his purchase of Twitter, this probably would never have happened. People pan him for wasting $44b on it; wrong.... He paid $44B to tip the scales back, level the playing field, and give America a fighting chance. Oh, and btw he got a shitty ap as well....
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
These motherfuckers are desperate:

Biden administration asks appeals court to block order limiting its contacts with social media | AP News

The Biden administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to temporarily block a lower court’s order limiting executive branch officials’ discussions with social media companies about controversial online posts.
The request for an emergency stay was filed at the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals shortly after U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty rejected an administration motion that he put his own July 4 order on hold. The order came in a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, as well as a conservative website owner and four individual critics of government COVID-19 policies.
 
Dustin07

Dustin07

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I'm no musk leghumper, but without his purchase of Twitter, this probably would never have happened. People pan him for wasting $44b on it; wrong.... He paid $44B to tip the scales back, level the playing field, and give America a fighting chance. Oh, and btw he got a shitty ap as well....
I watch him with third eye open. I don't really trust anyone in those positions and there is just as much opportunity for $$ and celebrity to be pandering to the right as there is the left. I've become sorta leery/aware of those who seem to be feeding info just to piss off the right side as much as the left has done it.

people on both sides of the isle succeed if everyone beneath them is constantly arguing... if the middle class is constantly at war, the top dogs don't care what color you think their tie is, they're profiting.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Oh, I believe he definitely is a businessman with the goal of making money.

-----

Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: "FBI Director Chris Wray was just asked repeatedly whether there was one or more FBI agents or informants on the ground at 1/6 as part of the crowd which entered the Capitol. Wray refused to answer over and over. Can't imagine why." / Twitter

And Wray just admitted that FBI receives censorship requests from Ukrainian intelligence (SBU), and the FBI passed on those requests to Big Tech. In other words, Americans are funding Ukraine's war, while Ukraine uses FBI to get Americans censored:.

Beautiful.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
https://journals.aai.org/immunohorizons/article/7/5/307/263692/Evidence-for-Aerosol-Transfer-of-SARS-CoV-2

Evidence for Aerosol Transfer of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Humoral Immunity

Abstract
Infectious particles can be shared through aerosols and droplets formed as the result of normal respiration. Whether Abs within the nasal/oral fluids can similarly be shared between hosts has not been investigated. The circumstances of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic facilitated a unique opportunity to fully examine this provocative idea. The data we show from human nasal swabs provides evidence for the aerosol transfer of Abs between immune and nonimmune hosts.
Peer reviewed. I wonder what else was 'shared' that way?
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Remember when they swore up and down the vax spike remains localized in the injection site, does not go systemic, and is quickly excreted from the system?

They lied.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/prca.202300048?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Detection of recombinant Spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: Possible molecular mechanisms

Abstract
Purpose: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic prompted the development and use of next-generation vaccines. Among these, mRNA-based vaccines consist of injectable solutions of mRNA encoding for a recombinant Spike, which is distinguishable from the wild-type protein due to specific amino acid variations introduced to maintain the protein in a prefused state. This work presents a proteomic approach to reveal the presence of recombinant Spike protein in vaccinated subjects regardless of antibody titer.

Experimental design: Mass spectrometry examination of biological samples was used to detect the presence of specific fragments of recombinant Spike protein in subjects who received mRNA-based vaccines.

Results: The specific PP-Spike fragment was found in 50% of the biological samples analyzed, and its presence was independent of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titer. The minimum and maximum time at which PP-Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.

Conclusions and clinical relevance: The presented method allows to evaluate the half-life of the Spike protein molecule "PP" and to consider the risks or benefits in continuing to administer additional booster doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. This approach is of valuable support to complement antibody level monitoring and represents the first proteomic detection of recombinant Spike in vaccinated subjects.
So 50% of people are turned into what seems to be permanent spike-producing factories; the limitation was simply the study end, not the end of spike production, which continued past the duration of the study.

Here's the best part:

It is possible that the mRNA may be integrated or re-transcribed in some cells.2.
I remember:

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-can-mrna-vaccines-alter-human-dna

No, the vaccines cannot change your DNA.

Two of the COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration use mRNA, or messenger RNA, to instruct your body to build the coronavirus' spike protein. Your body then produces antibodies to combat the coronavirus when it encounters it later. Learn more about how antibodies work.

mRNA is very fragile, and it's very quickly degraded once inside the body. That's one of the reasons why these vaccines must be so carefully preserved at very low temperatures and why you need two doses.

Additionally, DNA is stored in the nucleus of your cells. mRNA vaccines are designed to do their work outside of the nucleus and have not been observed to interact with the nucleus. Learn more about how mRNA vaccines work.
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/will-mrna-vaccine-alter-my-dna

mRNA isn't the same as DNA, and it can't combine with our DNA to change our genetic code
Seems like they're very sure about something that actually isn't for sure at all, and (purposely) misrepresenting it to the public (to increase vax acceptance for $$).

It's not the first time this has been brought up:

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

Abstract
Preclinical studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, showed reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection. Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2, and quantitative PCR was performed on RNA extracted from the cells. We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry using antibody binding to LINE-1 open reading frame-1 RNA-binding protein (ORFp1) on Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1. PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
This means, like HIV, that once the covid vaccine genetic code is reverse-transcribed into your DNA, it never stops producing spike. Spike protein is damaging in any case; endless production of it is terrible.

Science at it's finest here, folks, where the cure may be worse for healthy people than the disease.
 

Similar threads


Top