canoebuilder

No need for goofy phd words like “robust inferences”

Much more than 70% of the at risk population were injected, they are the ones that are dying. That shots were sold as stopping the virus entirely, “If you get this shot you won’t get the virus” let alone die from it!

So why have there been more deaths since the shots than before?!

The shots don’t work. Not only do they not work, they are killing people. In mRNA injected countries, excess deaths are running well above historical norms.

Not only are they killing people, they are preventing people from being born. In mRNA injected countries birth rates are way down.

Even if they did work, the profile of who was at risk was clear, it wasn’t healthy young people. So why was it pushed on healthy young people?

From the outset the risk reward ratio was not clear for those without high comorbidites, the minute the myocarditis signal showed up it should have been pulled for most people.

Bearing in mind we now know myocarditis is just one of a multitude of negative side effects.

So why did it go on being pushed and coerced to healthy people, actively harming them?

actual facts

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/covid-deaths-in-israel-h...

look at that chart and then recall the absolutely mad state so many people went into Summer 2021

"time to blame the 'unvaccinated'"

"time to inject them against their will"

"time to violate their basic human rights"

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/i-know-what-you-did-last...

maybe, just maybe, the "unvaccinated" were able to see something you weren't and chose the better path

more people have died since the shots, than before, come on bro! It's staring you in the face

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/all-you-need-to-know-abo...

What would you consider a worthy citation source, the same people who have lied or been wrong about everything to date?

Common internet debate confirmation bias to grab the first thing you think supports your point after a quick scan, link to it like it is a slam dunk, and read no further.

You sounded like you were genuinely interested in learning more, saying you hadn’t seen most of the data so I posted some links to get you started. There is a lot more there than the link you posted.

I don’t think Chudov would say “unfounded,” even if it is temporary that is still a scandal almost beyond words.

“Take this shot you don’t need, that we’ve either terrorized or coerced you into taking and it may permanently or temporarily impinge on your ability to reproduce or cause a host of other maladies “

No part of that is acceptable. And even if it is temporary after one shot, how temporary is it going to be if the shots continue to be pushed and mandated, and each additional shot increases the effect?

The University of California system has just announced they are mandating yet another shot! It is madness and criminal.

https://igorchudov.substack.com/archive?sort=search&search=f...

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-birth-rate-data-w...

https://alexberenson.substack.com/?sort=search&search=fertil...

Not that it wasn't braindead nonsense for anyone who cared to look at things with clear eyes even when it first came out.

We’re not talking about speculation, we’re talking about clear thinking and rigorous deduction of potential causal pathways. The drop in fertility is, horribly so, blindingly obvious. In country after country, 9 months after mRNA injections rollout for young people we are seeing a striking drop in births. We know there is an effect on women’s reproductive system and men’s. Men’s sperm counts drop a study from Israel has shown. Many, many reports from women of their periods having been effected.

Unfortunately, there is nothing speculative about this. Nobody wants this to be the case. That this was pushed the way it was on young people is criminal and insane.

In terms of death or injury there are definitely cases where it is entirely clear cut just hours or days after an injection somebody is dead or severely debilitated in a way clearly linked to the shot.

Those are deaths or injuries that had no business occurring and yet they did, why?

In the aggregate/macro overview we’re seeing it in data where it can’t be hidden and in the day to day. Just do a search for something like “unexpectedly died”

Again, who wants this thing so many went fanatical about a year ago to have caused this?

Something did cause it though, and at this point the most likely and parsimonious explanation is the shots. And not for lack of trying alternative explanations. Why stick your head in the sand if that leads to more death and destruction. We’ve found ourselves in a hole in terms of societal health, let’s stop digging.

This is the first I’ve heard of the invisible space alien theory. What is the evidence for it?

One would think after a pandemic with an outsized effect on those already in a moribund state that overall deaths would be down, but they aren’t, they are up. Why is that?

Why are excess deaths higher after rollout of the mRNA injections than before?

Nothing about it adds up, other than one sacred cow elephant in the room.

If people are dying more, there is a cause for that, people have tried everything they can that doesn’t involve going down sacred cow avenue, and they’ve come up empty.

https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1569648795373166593#m

We are seeing high levels of excess mortality that we shouldn’t be seeing, if the “safe and effective” propaganda was remotely true.

If by “immunized” you mean those who had one or many mRNA injections, then we are seeing high correlation between excess deaths and that population.

And there are many papers detailing likely causal mechanisms between those deaths and those injections.

Sorry people, we were lied to. Was it malice, incompetence, both? Don’t know…

But I see no reason to go on Stockholm syndroming ourselves.

Relevant: https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1568951911084072960#m

I know about the CFC thing I’m not well versed on the mechanisms of what was actually going on, but if it is as commonly understood, I’m for that stuff. Clearly identified problems and clearly identified solutions.

With the climate doomerism, what exactly is the problem? What are the alternatives?

I just hear people repeating these things they’ve been conditioned to fear and no sense of the extent to which the thing they attribute all the problems of the world, fossil fuels, has in fact created nearly the entirety of the world around them.

If you think the sky gods are going to get really angry if the “greenhouse effect“ is a real thing, then what do you propose to do? “Cut emissions”? Then what aspects of modern civilization undergirded by those emissions do you propose to do without? Heating, cooling, food production, weather forecasting?

And yet, things have never been better.

What is it we are trending towards? That we will make the sky gods really angry and the earth will go up in a blazing inferno? I don’t think that will happen anytime soon.

I don’t think it is “being careful” to promulgate relentless doomerism with no self reflection as to whether or not your predictions panned out in the past.

I do think we should be mindful of earth ecosystems. I think it would be better to do that in ways that are concretely addressable and quantifiable. Not the climate doom religion fear mongering , buy my carbon offset, or pat me on the back for my corporate green washing.

There is no path forward for human civilization as we know it without fossil fuels any time soon.

I don’t understand this drive people have to induce this sense of anxiety and foreboding in themselves and others.

Well in order for your grandma to log into Facebook her user account must have a primary key associated with it so she sees her info when she logs in and not someone else’s.

We are talking about computers and databases. When did using a computer to search a database become a difficult, nigh impossible thing to do?

Even if design documents and flow charts or whatever don’t exist could they not fairly straightforwardly be reverse engineered by taking a sample of users and searching all databases for associated information?

This seems like a transparent ploy on the part of Facebook to avoid regulation by casting the perfectly doable, searching a database, into some sort of incomprehensible impossible task. The credulous author of the article and many comments here seem to be strangely buying into it.

FB investors don’t seem to have lost faith in the company’s ability to search databases. When it comes to making the company money from those searches, no problem at all. But regarding lawsuits or potential regulation, we can only throw our hands into the air and simply wonder and gasp at this incomprehensible mess we have made.

Any favorite examples?

It’s interesting that I don’t really see that at all.

Maybe you’re a more frequent listener, I’ve just listened to a few where he is a guest and a few more than that of his solo episodes on his podcast which I particularly like because they just come across as a professor giving an extended lecture.

I don’t get any hype man, wannabe guru, snake oil vibes at all. He does use some of the Tim Ferriss type verbiage of like, optimize, and what not. (Not saying Ferriss is snake oil, btw) But I’d say that’s just par for the course in that genre of podcasting, it never seems to impede on valid information. He speaks like a scientist.

I’d imagine he’d be the first to say we know very little about the brain, but what do we mean by that? Things like qualia and consciousness, sure. But that doesn’t mean we can’t begin to parse out some things, like the things in his wheelhouse that he talks about, the effects of light exposure, positioning of the eyes, different types of breathing, etc.

It’s often easier to tear down than put up. Do you or anybody else you know do better at avoiding the criticisms you have here about the communication of research?

To some points- I’ve heard him talk about chemicals affecting the brain, which is a given right? Chemicals effect the brain in various ways. I’ve also heard him emphasize extreme caution and prudence in experimenting with chemicals at levels outside those one typically encounters day to day and often outright discourage it.

Light alcohol consumption is detrimental I’m no expert here but it is easy to imagine wishful thinking leading to the pro column.

I do notice marked difference in quality of sleep with even light consumption.

Do the pros outweigh the cons? Best left to a personal calculus I suppose.

You can "hack your brain chemicals" with supplements to achieve some desired effect on your mind

Is this a controversial statement? Have you conversed with anyone who has had a cup of coffee smoked a joint, ingested psilocybin or LSD?

The way he talks about the dopamine system and how too much redlining can throw the system out of whack seems well in line with what one observed in many other systems, biological and otherwise.

My life has been changed as everything changes your life to some degree however big or small. I’ve gained knowledge condensed from someone else’s life’s work in the same that occurs in reading a book.

This is a “force multiplier”(genre term) I should remind myself of more often.

I should spend more time reading books.

But in this case, does it really need extensive scientific study? Just think about it and look around.

The thing our entire biological systems are largely oriented around, reproduction, and human connection/contact.

And then we have this super stimuli version of that always on tap at a moments notice, but it is a trap, a mirage.

It might be best to minimize exposure to that since in the end it doesn’t/cannot produce the same results.

I’ve not even listened to that link yet, I just caught glimpse of it the other day. I think it’s just starting to seem obvious to more and more people. The evidence seems to accrue daily as to the social detriment it causes.

Are there any specific examples of cherry picking you have?

This is not something Spotify woke up one day and decided to do of their own volition, with their own free market defined property. There was much more to it than that.

The White House(!) was calling for this type of censorship! Do you think that might be relevant to the discussion?

“Okay y’all, weve profited at your expense quite enough, let’s dial it back a little before causing too much societal damage writ large” -“Pfizer board member

We also have data and prudence and we are long past the point where framing this in that manner is highly morally questionable to put it mildly.

Your idea of responsibility to society is mandating that young healthy people take an injection(s) ostensibly to protect them from a disease they are at no great risk from, negative side effects of the injection be damned?

Do it for grandma? It actually does nothing for grandma, that’s always been a lie, the original study could make no claims about transmission. And now, just look around.

Even if it did something for grandma and grandpa, mandating young healthy people undertake a medical intervention having value trade-off for their own health which is murky, for the supposed benefit of the superannuated or people who have eaten into a state of morbid obesity and premature aging is a horrendous inversion of social order and what is good.

The young sacrificing for the old? What??

Ok, so there is a massive amount of effort to be put forth to get something out of this, and even then it is still kind of up in the air what that "something" actually is.

Would it not be prudent to have at least some sort of roughly sketched map of what all this effort is supposed to bring about? other than Lambos...

Or maybe ask if we would be better served if all that effort was put forth in some other direction? Man hours are not a limitless resource.

And worst of all, all-cause non-Covid mortality is running well above normal in country after country.

And the whole paragraph:

Something is wrong. The promises that the health authorities have made over the last 12 months about the vaccines are not coming true. Despite near-complete levels of adult vaccination in Europe, many countries are seeing skyrocketing Covid cases and deaths. And worst of all, all-cause non-Covid mortality is running well above normal in country after country.

It's now clear that these injections do not have the efficacy of what has traditionally been termed a "vaccination," but they're definitely being marketed as a preventative, or therapeutic medical intervention.

Weird comment this one...

Am I missing something? It seems to be clear for well over a year that "this thing" is not some existential threat that threatens our very survival. Why are people talking as if it is, and seeking to craft policy as if it is?