the world has been had

 

 

For Covid, this assessment seems to be clearly in favor of masks, social distancing when necessary (especially indoors with unvaccinated people) and vaccination.

 

OK...I'm glad you brought this up....and since you have evidently culled through the data exceedingly well, I have some questions:

 

Are you able to show the actual data that supports that masks "work"? If so, what type, the coverage needed and under what kind of environment???

 

Next: on the subject of social distancing...where is the data that supports that 6 feet is the golden rule? Why not 10 feet? Why not at arms length?

 

Finally, can you provide that actual statistical data that supports that only unvaccinated people are the evil doers? Given that more people have died this year than all of last year after the introduction of the mRNA vaccine at the beginning of the year, and since over 70% of the population is...ummm..."fully vaccinated" (boosters aside), the math just doesn't jive.

 

Please take care on which sources you use in answering these questions as we wouldn't want the stench of monetary government (bureaucratic) grants to get in the way of fair and honest statistics from where such assessments can be provided without reproach. No consensus here. After all, we are dealing with "The Science", and science is: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and then the formulation and testing of hypotheses in a critical effort to gain knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through these same experiments and observations.

 

Fib

 

 

OK. I'll get to it. I would like to answer those questions to the best of my ability backed by, hopefully, good research. I don't know what you would  consider "tainted" by the government. Is the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) ok or The Journal of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA) or the Lancet? or Annals of Internal Medicine? - leading medical journals that are peer reviewed and have their reputations at stake.  If not these, what do you suggest?

 

I've already spent far more time on this thread than I intended, but I think it's important that I do try to address these questions. I'm glad that you're raising them and giving me an opportunity to speak to these concerns.

 

Feel free to use academia (which draws their funds from their alumni) as your sources like Johns Hopkins, Oxford, Cambridge, Karolinska or even the Mayo Clinic if you wish, but do try to stay away from the Ivy League schools as they are solidly politically influenced by their alumni and lobbyists. The more references outside of the United States, the better, as this information rarely sees the light of day.

AMA is a no go...has been for years. Same with the CDC, NIH and the FDA...too much deep state corruption in all three agencies even before COVID. Ditto for the Surgeon General's office. New England Journal would be fine all dependent on the author or study and their past and current funding.

This is not going to be an easy task for much of this has already been admitted as being hyperbole if not down right lying to fit the larger political objective...to throw something against the wall and see if it will stick or not ( the many faces of Fauci, for example, going from no mask, to one, to two, to three, from inside to outside and all around the town...even the White House discussion from last year of going from 10 feet of social distancing to 6 <you know, the arms length away you took in gym class when in high school) because they thought no one would be able to adhere to such a social interaction).

I honestly thought you would have this information at "go", but do take as much time as you wish....you've been active in not only this thread but one other...you must be exhausted.

Fib

 

 

 

For Covid, this assessment seems to be clearly in favor of masks, social distancing when necessary (especially indoors with unvaccinated people) and vaccination.

 

OK...I'm glad you brought this up....and since you have evidently culled through the data exceedingly well, I have some questions:

 

Are you able to show the actual data that supports that masks "work"? If so, what type, the coverage needed and under what kind of environment???

 

Next: on the subject of social distancing...where is the data that supports that 6 feet is the golden rule? Why not 10 feet? Why not at arms length?

 

Finally, can you provide that actual statistical data that supports that only unvaccinated people are the evil doers? Given that more people have died this year than all of last year after the introduction of the mRNA vaccine at the beginning of the year, and since over 70% of the population is...ummm..."fully vaccinated" (boosters aside), the math just doesn't jive.

 

Please take care on which sources you use in answering these questions as we wouldn't want the stench of monetary government (bureaucratic) grants to get in the way of fair and honest statistics from where such assessments can be provided without reproach. No consensus here. After all, we are dealing with "The Science", and science is: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and then the formulation and testing of hypotheses in a critical effort to gain knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through these same experiments and observations.

 

Fib

 

 

OK. I'll get to it. I would like to answer those questions to the best of my ability backed by, hopefully, good research. I don't know what you would  consider "tainted" by the government. Is the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) ok or The Journal of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA) or the Lancet? or Annals of Internal Medicine? - leading medical journals that are peer reviewed and have their reputations at stake.  If not these, what do you suggest?

 

I've already spent far more time on this thread than I intended, but I think it's important that I do try to address these questions. I'm glad that you're raising them and giving me an opportunity to speak to these concerns.

 

 

Feel free to use academia (which draws their funds from their alumni) as your sources like Johns Hopkins, Oxford, Cambridge, Karolinska or even the Mayo Clinic if you wish, but do try to stay away from the Ivy League schools as they are solidly politically influenced by their alumni and lobbyists. The more references outside of the United States, the better, as this information rarely sees the light of day.

 

AMA is a no go...has been for years. Same with the CDC, NIH and the FDA...too much deep state corruption in all three agencies even before COVID. Ditto for the Surgeon General's office. New England Journal would be fine all dependent on the author or study and their past and current funding.

 

This is not going to be an easy task for much of this has already been admitted as being hyperbole if not down right lying to fit the larger political objective...to throw something against the wall and see if it will stick or not ( the many faces of Fauci, for example, going from no mask, to one, to two, to three, from inside to outside and all around the town...even the White House discussion from last year of going from 10 feet of social distancing to 6 <you know, the arms length away you took in gym class when in high school) because they thought no one would be able to adhere to such a social interaction).

 

I honestly thought you would have this information at "go", but do take as much time as you wish....you've been active in not only this thread but one other...you must be exhausted.

 

Fib

 

I know how I'd answer these questions, but I want to find sources that are comprehensive and that you find credible.  I'm not a fan of the CDC or the FDA who have long histories of mismanaging things though they do good work also. One horror was after the 9/11 nightmare, the EPA (a Federal agency) declared the area safe. I knew that proper tests were not done. In fact, thousands of workers have died or suffered lung diseases and cancer from this pollution. Estimates are that 18,000 people have been harmed and many have died, including about 5000 first responders. A young woman I knew volunteered to hand out sandwiches during the clean-up and died 8 years later from Asbestosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling asbestos particles. She had no prior history of such exposure. It was known that asbestos and other toxins were in the wreckage and in the air. I remember being stunned when Christine Whitman announced that the site was safe which was reinforced by then Mayor Giuliani who led the cleanup at Ground Zero and didn't even enforce using respirators or any kind of masks.  Just so you know, I'm skeptical about all information, proferred by the government or elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

For Covid, this assessment seems to be clearly in favor of masks, social distancing when necessary (especially indoors with unvaccinated people) and vaccination.

 

OK...I'm glad you brought this up....and since you have evidently culled through the data exceedingly well, I have some questions:

 

Are you able to show the actual data that supports that masks "work"? If so, what type, the coverage needed and under what kind of environment???

 

Next: on the subject of social distancing...where is the data that supports that 6 feet is the golden rule? Why not 10 feet? Why not at arms length?

 

Finally, can you provide that actual statistical data that supports that only unvaccinated people are the evil doers? Given that more people have died this year than all of last year after the introduction of the mRNA vaccine at the beginning of the year, and since over 70% of the population is...ummm..."fully vaccinated" (boosters aside), the math just doesn't jive.

 

Please take care on which sources you use in answering these questions as we wouldn't want the stench of monetary government (bureaucratic) grants to get in the way of fair and honest statistics from where such assessments can be provided without reproach. No consensus here. After all, we are dealing with "The Science", and science is: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and then the formulation and testing of hypotheses in a critical effort to gain knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through these same experiments and observations.

 

Fib

 

 

OK. I'll get to it. I would like to answer those questions to the best of my ability backed by, hopefully, good research. I don't know what you would  consider "tainted" by the government. Is the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) ok or The Journal of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA) or the Lancet? or Annals of Internal Medicine? - leading medical journals that are peer reviewed and have their reputations at stake.  If not these, what do you suggest?

 

I've already spent far more time on this thread than I intended, but I think it's important that I do try to address these questions. I'm glad that you're raising them and giving me an opportunity to speak to these concerns.

 

 

Feel free to use academia (which draws their funds from their alumni) as your sources like Johns Hopkins, Oxford, Cambridge, Karolinska or even the Mayo Clinic if you wish, but do try to stay away from the Ivy League schools as they are solidly politically influenced by their alumni and lobbyists. The more references outside of the United States, the better, as this information rarely sees the light of day.

 

AMA is a no go...has been for years. Same with the CDC, NIH and the FDA...too much deep state corruption in all three agencies even before COVID. Ditto for the Surgeon General's office. New England Journal would be fine all dependent on the author or study and their past and current funding.

 

This is not going to be an easy task for much of this has already been admitted as being hyperbole if not down right lying to fit the larger political objective...to throw something against the wall and see if it will stick or not ( the many faces of Fauci, for example, going from no mask, to one, to two, to three, from inside to outside and all around the town...even the White House discussion from last year of going from 10 feet of social distancing to 6 <you know, the arms length away you took in gym class when in high school) because they thought no one would be able to adhere to such a social interaction).

 

I honestly thought you would have this information at "go", but do take as much time as you wish....you've been active in not only this thread but one other...you must be exhausted.

 

Fib

 

I know how I'd answer these questions, but I want to find sources that are comprehensive and that you find credible.  I'm not a fan of the CDC or the FDA who have long histories of mismanaging things though they do good work also. One horror was after the 9/11 nightmare, the EPA (a Federal agency) declared the area safe. I knew that proper tests were not done. In fact, thousands of workers have died or suffered lung diseases and cancer from this pollution. Estimates are that 18,000 people have been harmed and many have died, including about 5000 first responders. A young woman I knew volunteered to hand out sandwiches during the clean-up and died 8 years later from Asbestosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling asbestos particles. She had no prior history of such exposure. It was known that asbestos and other toxins were in the wreckage and in the air. I remember being stunned when Christine Whitman announced that the site was safe which was reinforced by then Mayor Giuliani who led the cleanup at Ground Zero and didn't even enforce using respirators or any kind of masks.  Just so you know, I'm skeptical about all information, proferred by the government or elsewhere.

 

You need to listen to this very important interview of

Nick Hudson, chairman of Pandemics Data and Analytics (link below) who says his research contradicts much of what you have written on here.  Like the stat that this virus kills 1 in 10,000 or 0.004% as mentioned by the host in this interview which is hardly comparable to something like the black plague of the dark ages that killed up to half of everyone. Also the study cited in this video that shows government mandated lock downs do not reduce Covid-19 Deaths. Forcing everyone to be injected with a drug that has not had long term studies done on it (2 months was the maximum cited) is wrong as Nick Hudson says and then taking civil rights away from those that refuse is medical fascism that is not even based on science. There is a bigger issue here too, as written about my forecaster Martin Armstrong, several prominent people including Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates mentioned in 2019 that there was a virus coming and they even started selling stocks well before the crash of 2020. Gates has also paid out over 300 million dollars to various media companies to push the agenda. Armstrong says that Gate who was forced out of Microsoft by the government for bullying competitors then bought large amounts of the drug companies making these vaccines and wants to become the wealthiest man in history by making money from everyone that gets the 'vaccine'. Armstrong believes this virus was created in a lab and then someone was bribed to release it for the purpose of defeating Trump who was in the way of Klaus Schwab's Global Reset (you will own nothing and be happy). Armstrong says the fact that Schwab, Gates and others said in 2019 that a virus was coming and they sold large amounts of stock before the 2020 crash is evidence that this pandemic was planned. The main agenda according to Armstrong is to get the public used to lockdowns (climate lockdowns are next even though the Sun has cooled and the ice in Greenland is growing again according to the Danish Meteorological Institute as documented by Electroverse.net ) . Schwab's Global Reset (Communism 3.0 is Armstrong's term for it) has two purposes, destroy the petroleum industry and allow governments to default on the 300 Trillion dollars of Debt incurred since the end of World War II. This will be the end of Socialism according to Armstrong's AI computer model. The good news is that Armstrong says Schwab's plans are going to fail and that the whole system is going to "CRASH and BURN" mostly likely around Armstrong's Pi Cycle date of 2032.95 (which is the convergence of 3 main pi cycles, the 8.6, 51.6 and 309.6, after that civil war will happen and the USA, Canada and Europe will break up. We are headed for a major storm of civilization and it's all cyclical. see Armstrongeconomics.com (blog section)

Edited by Russ, 21 November 2021 - 05:59 PM.

claire, on 21 Nov 2021 - :56 PM, said:

One horror was after the 9/11 nightmare, the EPA (a Federal agency) declared the area safe. I knew that proper tests were not done.

 

Hypocritical? So you think that PROPER testing was done on these so-called vaccines which ARE NOT vaccines at all? Really? How many YEARS of testing does it normally take for vaccine approval? How many well-controlled, well-managed and well-analyzed scientific studies are normally undertaken before these things get approved? Are they normally released for extensive peer review BEFORE government bureaucrats gets their well-compromised eyes on them? So, you have obviously concluded that these so-called vaccines were tested properly? I make that conclusion by inference from your above statement.

It has been made very clear that there have been extensive efforts to combat and even silence any and all voices that publicly question the science and/or the efficacy of the these interventions. It has been made very clear that there have been extensive efforts to combat and even silence all voices that advocate for other well-studied and well-documented-as-safe interventions (like Ivermectin) that are WAY, WAY less expensive than the paths chosen by all-knowing and all-powerful and worthy-to-be-implicitly-trusted governments (at least by some of us).

As it related to 9/11, you didn't trust what the government was saying and over time that, unfortunately, proved to be true ( I had a neighbor who lived just a few doors down the street.....was on the ground as an FBI agent at ground zero......moved to Georgia after being made the state's FBI director......died a couple of years ago from the same kind of lung exposure that you mentioned). You didn't trust them then because they had not done the proper testing. Now you worship at the shrine of everything that the government says about Covid, you staunchly promote and defend what they are saying, AND EVERYBODY who says otherwise....no matter how well-trained and how qualified he or she is......is basically an idiot that is promoting "misinformation" with no scientific basis-in-fact.

In full disclosure, I am fully vaccinated (two shots....no booster). I didn't want it, but my wife is a partially retired part-time banker and felt some pressure to get the shots. She asked me to do it with her and I relented. I hope that some of the things that I have read do NOT prove to be true. I believe in freedom. I do NOT take much of what the government says at face value and NEVER will. You cannot even convince me that the tests for Covid are accurate. Many physicians said they weren't but they were silenced. The common cold is a coronavirus. How do I know that a lot of the reported positives were no more than confirmations of the common cold? I don't, especially when I know that the tests were rushed to market just like the fake vaccines were. Heck, the flu basically disappeared from the face of the earth over the last year. And I bet you would say " that is because everyone was wearing masks". Well duh, if masks were so effective at eliminating the flu, then WHY oh WHY did we continue to have so many Covid positives when people were wearing masks all over the face of the earth? Can't have one without the other.

Edited by Iblayz, 21 November 2021 - 09:50 PM.

Fib,

Re your question about masks and social distancing -- It's complicated. Many confounding variables make it impossible to give precise information about how protective masks are and what's a safe distance.  For masks, the KN95 or N95 is best at filtering out particles and reducing air flow around the mask. Surgical masks are ok, and cloth masks the least protective. Needless to say, the masks need to cover the nose as well as the mouth.  

It's impossible to do controlled studies of masks vs no-mask. Evidence needs to rely on anecdotal evidence or the policies of wherever it is either suggested or mandated, but without knowing how much compliance there may be. There also may be unintended consequences such as people being less cautious when wearing masks and doing less social distancing. But all types of masks offer some protection.

All of this depends on the environment such as a small enclosed room with limited ventilation or outdoors and anywhere between these extremes. It's further complicated by the level of infections in that community. The danger has also been increased by the Delta variant which is 2x as contagious and where people harbor 1000x the level of pathogens in nasal passages as the original version. It makes a difference if people are talking, shouting, or singing.

There have been numerous observational studies in different countries whose estimates of effectivity varies from 40% to 80% protective for contagion by wearing masks depending on the circumstances.  All the studies agree with that masks reduce contagion just as they do for medical people and patients in a hospital for any infection. A study by Goldman Sachs re the economic impact of mask wearing suggests that it could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP if a nationwide mask mandate were implemented to reduce infections and fatalities. (I don't know whether you consider them a "trusted source." They don't manufacture masks, do they?)

Here's a link to a review by the BMJ of a big batch of studies about masks plus other measures to reduce the incidence of infection:

https://www.bmj.com/...bmj-2021-068302

Another link is from the National Academy of Science that presents data from around the world.

https://www.pnas.org...8/4/e2014564118

The question of distancing is similar to masking. It depends. There are no absolutely safe distances. In a small unventilated room, particles can float around for a long time and for as far as 60 feet. It also depends on the time spent in a particular space and how many people occupy that space.  I think 6' was settled on as a reasonable distance where people can communicate or be together. In most circumstances, this distance is good-enough. Not to offer the public a specific guideline would be confusing. In some circumstances, it's very good, in others, not so good. So there is no "golden rule."

I've had 2 vaccines plus the booster. I wear a K95 mask when outside my home and add another layer of surgical mask beneath that one when I enter an enclosed space such as a doctor's office. I avoid all other indoor spaces such as restaurants, movies, etc. and keep 6' distance from people outdoors. It's not 100% protection, but good enough. If I were young and without preexisting conditions, I might be just a bit less cautious, but at age 83, I need maximum protection.

Here's a link from The Lancet with very comprehensive and global information and pretty graphs about distancing, face masks, and eye protection, but it was funded by WHO, which may make you wary. Also, it's a bit dated since it's from June, 2020.

https://www.thelance...1142-9/fulltext

Another link is from MIT NEWS about assessing Covid transmission risks in indoor settings.
https://news.mit.edu...sks-indoor-0415

Your next question was about something neither I nor anyone else I've heard ever spoke of - ie that only the unvaccinated are "the evil doers" While anyone can pass on this infection, the unvaccinated are the reason many hospitals are overwhelmed and need to turn away people with other non-life- threatening conditions or non-essential surgeries and are also responsible for the collosal cost for this healthcare since they represent an overwhelming majority of those hospitalized --80%-90% of those hospitalized and deaths.

You also question why we've seen an increased level of deaths this year though we have the vaccinations. Yes, there have been more deaths this year than last making this the deadliest pandemic in American history. Global deaths have done the same. This is a grim milestone. In the U.S., we hit 793,000 so far. I was wrong in another comment when I stated that it was about 750,000. 

However, we know that asymptomatic people, including those who have been vaccinated, can harbor the virus in their nasal passages and can spread the illness without even knowing they are carrying it. This is far more true for the Delta variant for which people carry 1000x the number of pathogens. So, anyone can be an "evil doer," but it's more likely to be passed on by unvaccinated people who are also known to carry the pathogens longer than those who are vaccinated.

For most people who are vaccinated, their antibodies apparently remove the infection more quickly than for the unvaccinated. Some vaccinated people will have breakthrough infections and clearly can pass it on. Then there are those who are immunocompromised for whom the vaccines may have limited protection. This includes people who have no preexisting conditions and are unaware that due to some genetic quirk, they are more susceptible to Covid or severe illness from Covid. That's the reason we all need to wear masks and to observe adequate social distancing -- to protect ourselves and others.

I think about 60% or 62% of the population in the US has had the two doses of vaccination, not 70%. Bear in mind that the population of the US is 329.5 million, which leaves lots of people unvaccinated. Also, since the Delta variant hit, the contagion rate doubled compared to the original infection, so, of course there will be more people infected and more deaths. This variant may also be more deadly, but we don't have strong evidence for that so far.

It's no surprise to me that there are more deaths this year. I'd be surprised if it were otherwise. I venture to guess that without the vaccines and since Delta arrived, the numbers of deaths would be at least 2x what we've seen this year. I'm fearful of the consequences now of the complacency of so many who are not wearing masks and engaging in risky behavior, especially with increased contact and travel during the holiday season. 

For those who minimize this illness by pointing to the % of deaths, be mindful that most people who have been hospitalized are left with serious medical issues from which they may never recover. Also, 10%-30% of those who have so-called mild symptoms may continue to suffer from post-viral consequences that can affect any part of the body. This is serious and will have other consequences for healthcare and the economy.

I'm open to any questions - but won't respond today. Hope there are no terrible typos in this - no time to edit.

Claire again, the voice of reason. A friend of mine is against wearing masks. I asked him if he had to go for surgery would he do it if the doc refused to wear a mask. Ah ya his tune changed fast 

It's all about fear...those who don' t want to get vaccinated are so full of fear that they prefer risking a deadly infection rather than vaccinating. They won' t listen to any rational argument, because it's not their mouth that is talking, but their fear. If they threw their fear away, they would live a lot better. I' m going to take the third dose, because I have seen far worse situations in the past. When the lovable idiotic communists in Ukraine made their nuclear reactor explode, I didn' t close myself at home and that was a far worse kind of situation because no mask in the world would have helped. Luckily today's maps show that Lake Garda region was very lucky, thanks to  contamination levels almost undetectable. So how would have I spent all these years had I feared the contamination ? I preferred to live normally and not because I was ignorant and not aware of the possible hidden danger around. 

Edited by andr99, 22 November 2021 - 09:54 AM.

A relevant article

https://media.nature...021-02795-x.pdf

It's all about fear PRUDENCE...those who don' t want to get vaccinated are so full of fear JUDICIOUSNESS that they prefer risking a deadly infection rather than "VIRTUALLY" vaccinating. They won' t listen to any rational argument, because it's not their mouth that is talking, but their fear PROVIDENCE. If they threw their fear VIGILANCE  away, they would MAY NOT live a lot better LONGER.

Since English isn't your first language, I thought I would help you out a bit.

The only "fear" here is from those who are afraid to get sick a maybe die from something they can't control or don't understand. Take your booster if you wish, but do remember that before this current "remedy", ALL drugs therapies were researched and had experimented trials that took anywhere from 5 to 10 YEARS before it was approved for public use. One then has to wonder, therefore, why we're being politically mandated to take something that has almost zero response data behind it...and how easily people are being manipulated (convinced) in doing so. One wonders what the next "cure" might be that will also be mandated because it's "the right thing to do".

Please let us know when you believe "enough is enough"...it won't be too long before you do.

Oh...and to think that your little corner of the world has somehow out maneuvered this or any other virus or bacteria is pure folly...nature will always find a way.

Fib
 

 

It's all about fear PRUDENCE...those who don' t want to get vaccinated are so full of fear JUDICIOUSNESS that they prefer risking a deadly infection rather than "VIRTUALLY" vaccinating. They won' t listen to any rational argument, because it's not their mouth that is talking, but their fear PROVIDENCE. If they threw their fear VIGILANCE  away, they would MAY NOT live a lot better LONGER.

 

Since English isn't your first language, I thought I would help you out a bit.

 

The only "fear" here is from those who are afraid to get sick a maybe die from something they can't control or don't understand. Take your booster if you wish, but do remember that before this current "remedy", ALL drugs therapies were researched and had experimented trials that took anywhere from 5 to 10 YEARS before it was approved for public use. One then has to wonder, therefore, why we're being politically mandated to take something that has almost zero response data behind it...and how easily people are being manipulated (convinced) in doing so. One wonders what the next "cure" might be that will also be mandated because it's "the right thing to do".

 

Please let us know when you believe "enough is enough"...it won't be too long before you do.

 

Oh...and to think that your little corner of the world has somehow out maneuvered this or any other virus or bacteria is pure folly...nature will always find a way.

 

Fib
 

 

English is not my first language, but I have improved it......eh ? I still have to avoid some mistakes, but on the whole I think I' m not that bad, ....maybe

Apart that, I must recognize that your post was original and if I cannot convince you or anyone else sharing your same point of view on vaccines that vaccination is the right politics in handling the pandemic, so be it. Any decision in that regard, is personal....mine and of other people as well and I respect everybody.  

Edited by andr99, 22 November 2021 - 02:13 PM.