Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

Esote said:
XPan would you please tell us why this is 'funny' as your smilie suggests.
It could be about the bioweapon claim being debunked, which is kind of a joke may be.
But what about the analysis of the misrepresented studies from D. Martin ? True or not, partly or totally ?
Propaganda doesn't usually come from only one 'side'...
Click to expand...
The article you cited Financial analyst David Martin misrepresents studies and patent applications to promote the baseless claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon
Has the following as its conclusion

Conclusion​

In summary, Martin’s speech doesn’t provide the smoking gun for COVID-19 origin that he and others claimed to be. The alleged evidence presented is nothing but a list of misrepresented studies on early coronavirus research and old patent applications on animal coronaviruses all unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 or the COVID-19 pandemic.

None of the cited studies and patents suggests that the virus was engineered. In fact, some of Martin’s claims aren’t even new and have already been debunked. While there are still questions about whether the virus SARS-CoV-2 had infected humans through a naturally-occurring spillover event or a lab leak incident, there is simply no evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon.
Click to expand...
The author may be correct in his analysis of Dr Martins claims that the patents bear no relation the SARS-Cov-2 virus, yet is a stretch to claim that there is no evidence that the virus, born in Fort Detrick and further developed in Wuhan, was not engineered. There is the HIV portion, the furon cleavage, and other aspects others have pointed that make it unlikely it was a natural virus. Perhaps he is trying to attack Dr Martin in part in order to, by implication, to also attack the bioweapon source of the virus.
 
7 doctors hanged in 1947 for violating informed consent: Now COVID has broken the Nuremberg code
32 min..
june 5th 2023 ..
DarkHorse Podcast



mp3
www.mediafire.com

7 doctors hanged in 1947 for violating informed consent Now COVID has broken the Nuremberg code

MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
www.mediafire.com

transcript
0:00
foreign although Nuremberg is a feature of
0:07
living memory there are people alive today many of them who were around to see that trial and its aftermath it is
0:15
somehow distant enough it is 76 years ago that the trial of the doctors
0:21
concluded 1947 that people do not have the relationship with Nuremberg that they need to have
0:27
and I wanted to both point out what the Nuremberg code is why it matters why it
0:33
is above law why it has a status in our in our ethics Paradigm that is above law
0:42
and what that therefore means to see a multiple violation of Nuremberg in the
0:49
present right what what reaction should we be having to to that simple fact
0:55
so let's start with some Basics there were two Nuremberg trials and a historian may
1:03
have a better view on this than I do I welcome any refinements or corrections
1:09
but there were two trials there was a general trial um for Nazis who were captured
1:15
and there was a doctor's trial because the medical violations were were a unique and profound fact of the
1:22
Holocaust and there's no gentle way to say this
1:29
we literally hung seven doctors over violations of informed consent which as
1:36
far as I understand it was not formalized in advance of the Holocaust right so the point is this was
1:44
understood to be a principle that any rational doctor should Intuit
1:50
right and in fact the Nuremberg Trial of the doctors was an extension of the
1:56
Hippocratic Oath every doctor swears to the Hippocratic Oath if you have sworn to the Hippocratic oath to First Do no
2:02
harm then that has a direct extrapolation to Medical experiments
2:09
that the doctors who engaged in the behavior that the Nazi doctors engaged in were understood to have violated
2:16
implicitly to the point that they were executed publicly right that is an
2:22
amazing statement that that is not 500 years ago that's 76 years ago we
2:28
literally hung seven doctors because they violated informed consent which was not yet codified it became codified in
2:35
1947 as a result of Nuremberg and it is now something that no doctor can even though
2:42
Nuremberg declared it not an excuse that you didn't know about this you now can be held responsible for violating the
2:48
Nuremberg code because it has been spelled out and enumerated yeah there's there's even less reason to imagine that
2:55
you can escape culpability now post Nuremberg Nuremberg was a specifically predicated on the Hippocratic Oath this
3:02
you know this principle that goes back a couple thousand years in medicine that one should first Do no harm which is of
3:09
course easy to say and then in practice you know obviously a surgeon does harm so it means something like do not net
3:16
harm or do not foreseeable net harm or something like that yeah you can't take an instantaneous measure of like at no
3:22
point uh in inflict something that could be harmful like that's that that can't be what it means and so it does require
3:30
um the ability for doctors to make decisions right and to take risks which
3:37
is also why it is an oath and not a rule yeah right oath means you are going to
3:44
agree to this principle this value and then you are going to figure out how it applies to what you are doing right this
3:52
is above law right that's really important there is Law and then there
3:57
are things that are above law it's a higher authority it is a higher authority and it is putting you in a position of doing the interpretation in
4:04
real time it may be an emergency right you may be trying to figure out you know do I cut this person's leg off even
4:10
though this person might survive if I left the leg intact you know you
4:15
juggling it is is the key thing that a doctor is trained to do
4:20
and the Nuremberg judges there were three in the doctor's trial the Nuremberg
4:27
judges understood the oath to imply informed
4:32
consent they then ruled that these seven doctors were guilty of such egregious violations
4:39
of that principle that they were literally hung which I find barbaric frankly the idea that we hung
4:46
these people but my point is this was an act this was an extraordinary
4:53
um tragedy that was dealt with by civilization with
4:59
extraordinary responses because of the profundity of all of the principles involved
5:05
and to find ourselves in the 2020s
5:11
casually facing violations of those very same principles and the deeper you dig
5:16
the more obvious it becomes how many violations there are I thought it was
5:21
two informed consent we didn't consent because we were mandated and we weren't informed because they shut down the free
5:28
exchange of ideas that's two violations but then I looked at all the sub Provisions in the Nuremberg in the
5:33
Nuremberg code and it's it's stunning yeah you want to put that up and actually I'm going to read the first paragraph and then we can quickly
5:39
just look at some of these and you'll spot immediately how covid maps onto this thing it's it's incredible
5:46
so the Nuremberg code provision one so just um what you're showing here is an
5:52
article a review 50 years after the Nuremberg code published in the New England Journal of Medicine in which a
5:59
piece from the original code is um published yes the original code is republished and then there's historical
6:06
context presented the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential period
6:15
this means that the person involved should have Lee should have legal capacity to give consent should be so
6:21
situated as to be able to exercise free Power of Choice without the intervention of any element of force fraud deceit
6:31
duress overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion so if you
6:38
think the mandates don't violate this because they didn't carry the force of law they were certainly coercive it
6:45
continues and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
6:51
to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision
6:56
this latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject
7:02
there should be made known to him the nature duration and purpose of the
7:07
experiment the method and means by which it is to be conducted all inconveniences and
7:14
Hazards reasonably to be expected and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from this
7:21
participation in the experiment the duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each
7:28
individual who initiates directs or engages in the experiment that is not
7:34
the subjects it is the personal Duty and responsibility which may not be
7:39
delegated to another with impunity and that last phrase is interesting it may
7:45
not be delicated to someone who cannot be punished that's what that means right
7:51
Pfizer was immunized it cannot be punished it cannot be it cannot have
7:57
delegated to it the responsibility for informed consent which it then falls down on and is somehow immune to being
8:03
prosecuted that is not acceptable according to the Nuremberg code which I find amazing this is so clear
8:11
right when mapped onto the mandates for these experimental
8:18
treatments is absolutely Unforgivable and when I say unforgivable I'm talking
8:24
about a code that preceded the hanging of seven doctors so I mean Unforgivable
8:30
all right provision two the experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society
8:35
unprocurable by other methods or means of study and not random and unnecessary
8:41
in nature right the experiment has to be justified on the basis that harm done
8:48
would be in the service of a greater good that's what that means so and and this second item in the Nuremberg code
8:54
that the experiment should be unprocurable by other methods or means of study Maps very neatly on to the conditions
9:04
for which you can get granted an eua absolutely an emergency use authorization which as we discussed in
9:10
gosh it's going to be early 2021 with regard to the suppression of uh the use
9:17
of ivermectin in the treatment of covid it was necessary that there be no other
9:24
treatment for covid that was available else Pfizer and moderna could not have gotten
9:31
euas for these experimental treatments that they cleverly sneakily falsely
9:36
called vaccines uh which means that the suppression of information on hydroxychloroquine on
9:43
Ivermectin and on vitamin D is another violation of Nuremberg right
9:51
um all right three the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a
9:57
knowledge of the natural history of the disease and or and other problem understudy that
10:05
the anticipated results will justify the performance of The Experiment
10:10
so they obscured the natural history of the disease itself and they could not
10:18
possibly have appropriately used animals in the testing well it's interesting actually so this three here is reminds
10:24
me a little bit of our constitution Nuremberg code is obviously much younger than the American Constitution but there
10:29
are places and we've talked about this a lot There Are Places the American Constitution that as amazing and
10:34
forward-thinking and Brilliant as our founding fathers of this country were they could not have foreseen some of the
10:40
technological advances that were to come hundreds of years in the future this
10:46
um this phrase that the experiment should be based on the results it should include a knowledge of the natural
10:52
history of the disease belies the fact that they could not foresee that we might buy at some at
11:00
some point in the future be creating Franken viruses right and so you know fully aside from like oh they're
11:07
obscuring they're still claiming this is zoonotic origin they're still looking for you know stuff in the animal Market all of this
11:14
it's actually not going to be possible three won't be possible in a world that
11:19
has already allowed the kind of gain of function research that almost certainly produced SARS Kobe 2 in the first place
11:25
which means that the research might be understood to be itself in violation of Nuremberg that's a good point and at the
11:33
very least it is an absolute obligation not to obscure the origin because as we
11:39
said here on Dark Horse we're at what I have heard nowhere else that what was
11:44
done the protocols that were deployed that created the virus have implications for how you might expect it to evolve
11:50
Downstream and what you might want to do to treat it and prevent it so we had a right to that information and they
11:56
obscured it violating yet another provision of the Nuremberg code four the experiment should be so
12:03
conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury
12:10
gee the denial of natural immunity and the immunizing of people who were too
12:17
young and healthy to be vulnerable to this disease cannot be justified and some of them were harmed so that was
12:24
unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury for sure it was and I mean there was also a lot of playing
12:31
so much of what was accomplished was done through slights of hand slights of
12:38
language in fact right and so call it a vaccine you're not an anti-vaxxer are
12:43
you well what if I say among other things my objection to that is that that thing that you're calling a vaccine
12:48
isn't a vaccine now it's a vaccine we said it was and so it was also
12:54
experimental in nature it was brand new and the this mRNA technology as we've talked about extensively as many people
13:00
have was was brand new and up until that point there had not been any successful
13:06
this successful research in humans and there hadn't been for this product either but we just kind of like you know
13:12
threw the dice and it wasn't ever called to us those who
13:18
were told we must take this thing and experiment and so the language of Nuremberg is an experiment what it has
13:25
been recognized as is an experimental treatment right and uh we will get later
13:32
at the end of the hour to um to other sort of squidgy words that are used to obscure that fact but you can call it
13:39
everything anything you want it doesn't change the fact that you were experimenting on humans well with this
13:47
treatment that was called a vaccine not only that but because of the way that this was accelerated and then deployed
13:52
globally you were dealing with I think it is phase four right there are three
13:57
three of the uh the safety trials
14:04
right that is to say in release of the uh the stuff into use in the public
14:09
there is then the intense monitoring of signals of Adverse Events right that is
14:15
understood formally as part of an experiment and in this case you know what I've said before is this was an experiment in
14:21
every way but one which is that we did not seek to collect the data that would have made it a valid scientific
14:27
experiment immoral but at least scientifically valid but if you're going to obscure the evidence of a harm then
14:33
you know you're you're deliberately not looking at the results of the experiment you're running
14:39
um and then you know of course unnecessary physical and mental
14:44
suffering and injury what the hell the gaslighting of the injured is
14:51
to me the most jaw-dropping fact of the whole thing right that you would take people especially people you know Maddie
14:57
to Gary who a child who participated in your safety trial because she wanted to
15:03
do her part to address covid is Gravely injured and then you pretend that she's
15:09
not that she's faking like what kind of diabolical monster would you have to be to do that right and yet we saw it
15:15
across the board there's still gaslighting the injured and that is unnecessary physical and mental
15:22
suffering and injury as outlined in provision 4 of the Nuremberg code which
15:28
again we hung seven doctors over so I guess um
15:35
at some level I wonder I do think I was naive as a child to
15:41
think that never again was was important and necessary but it would
15:47
never really happen here because I this was Nuremberg was 1947 you said yeah the
15:53
doctors trial the doctor's child concluded included in 47. so I'm thinking about the Tuskegee syphilis
15:59
experiments yep right they began I just looked it up in the early 30s but they continued well past 1947 and in
16:07
fact apparently it was in 1947 that um uh
16:15
was it um syphilis I think I found this I can't say oh yes
16:20
um penicillin became the recommended treatment for syphilis in 1947. WoW
16:26
same year as the the doctor's trial the Nuremberg code
16:32
became reified so Nuremberg happens and syphilis becomes
16:39
the recommended treatment for syphilis the same year penicillin sorry penicillin becomes the what did I say if
16:45
it doesn't work no it really doesn't Okay so let's start over um
16:51
the normal code becomes reified and penicillin becomes the recommended the
16:56
understood to be an effective treatment against syphilis both in 1947. 15 years
17:01
into the this into the Diabolical Tuskegee experiments in which
17:07
um Southern black men are allowed to get sick and die from syphilis uh and
17:14
deliberately not treated deliberately not treated and not told and you know it is it is a you know it is a
17:20
it is such an obvious example of a lack of informed consent that it is the thing that everyone has some recognition of
17:26
Tuskegee you know brings up that you know these experiments just the way Nuremberg brings up the code even though
17:31
Tuskegee and nurburg are places that don't that presumably other people live in and you know would like to be
17:37
recognized for other things but so the Tuskegee experiments continued for decades into like the 70s yeah right
17:44
decades early 70s I believe um after after both the Nuremberg code
17:49
and there is a known simple powerful antibiotic that does treat the very
17:56
thing so given that
18:01
why are we in fact surprised well that that Nuremberg was violated perhaps
18:08
across every single the tenant right during covet here's why okay
18:15
I have never heard anyone defend Tuskegee
18:21
right okay I've never heard it okay but but so the end it ended and I don't know exactly like early 70s so 50 50 years
18:28
ago right yeah 50 years from now well that's my 50 50 years from now if
18:33
if we haven't managed to disappear ourselves from the planet 50 years from now
18:39
the prediction is no one will be defending what happened that is
18:45
here that is exactly offending it and the vast majority of people who were
18:51
gleefully shaming those of us who were trying to speak up for Science and for truth and for Humanity
18:58
they will have either largely died or pretended they you know they will have
19:05
pretended that that wasn't really their position they will talk about how honorable and upstanding they were in
19:11
fighting the fight when they are absolutely lying like no one will
19:16
acknowledge 50 years from now just as no one acknowledges now 50 years after Tuskegee ends
19:22
that they were kind of involved and that it was okay right um I would just point out in passing Claire Lehman returned to Twitter after
19:29
having stormed off months ago um and said nothing of having been wrong
19:36
or anything like that and so anyway it will be interesting to see if she owns that but I think your point my point
19:42
nobody defends Tuskegee your point which I think is exactly correct in the end nobody's gonna be able to defend this
19:48
either because it's equally obvious how how diabolical it is but in the present
19:53
at the moment people are gleefully still standing by their
19:58
I don't even know what it is I was gonna say some nasty things so people are still
20:04
interested in shaming and destroying the careers of people who said no
20:13
I'm actually going to think about this scientifically and even if that's not who you were if you just said I'm an
20:18
individual with bodily autonomy an agency and informed consent remember that I'm not doing it people lost jobs
20:25
people lost families people lost we were demonized we're literally demonizing we are still we are still being I mean our
20:33
YouTube channel still demonetized right we don't know why we're here we clearly have thumbs on the scale uh in multiple
20:40
platforms so this is still this is the this is taking place in the present it's not even the recent past
20:46
okay I'll just continue these just so we've done them all note five no experiment should be conducted where
20:52
there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling energy uh injury will result except perhaps in those
20:59
experiments where the experimental physician also serve as subjects now
21:05
this one we don't know but I will eat the Hat of your choosing if Anthony
21:10
fauci took the MRNA vaccine and I know he will claim that he did and he will claim that there is proof but my sense
21:16
is we know that he must have known how dangerous that was and how useless it
21:21
was and therefore he would have been a fool to take it but um I think
21:27
I believe that uh sensu lato reading of number five here that is to say a broad
21:32
and generous reading of what the intent is is that uh if you don't know that death or
21:39
disabling injury could occur because you didn't bother to look for that evidence
21:45
that is also a non-starter that is also a uh a breach of the Nuremberg code and
21:52
what we know from a piece of video released from somewhere in the European Union I think uh in late 2022 early 2023
21:59
is a Pfizer exact being asked by um I don't I don't remember the specifics I think maybe a Danish
22:06
um politician yeah uh who you know who asked for what they had found about
22:12
death and injury and the fisberg exec said you know we didn't we didn't look we didn't this is where the phrase uh
22:19
speed of science comes from she in that weird uh we're working at the speed of science what could you do
22:25
right um so you know if if you don't if you don't look to see if the thing
22:31
that you're then going to give to people give to people force on people uh has
22:36
the potential for Adverse Events and that that shouldn't actually cover
22:42
you with regard to saying well we didn't know yes but it was your obligation to know it was your obligation to ask the
22:48
question obviously I mean this is so obvious and it's it is also I will just put it here for the future because who
22:55
knows what we may one day discover but to the extent that anybody who was
23:01
coercing the rest of us either chose to take a different shot chose to take no
23:06
shot and no say it not say it chose to take a special Lot number right any of those things would indicate that this
23:13
was not only a violation of what they should have understood but a knowing violation right so anyway I think it is
23:21
it is a question worth asking in light of the amount of fraud that we have seen all right six
23:27
the degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem
23:34
to be solved by the experiment right all cause mortality
23:40
right it took us a long time to get around to public discussions of all cause mortality as the Arbiter of
23:47
whether or not this was a good idea or wasn't I think I can still man this one okay
23:55
which is that uh as as we understand it SARS Kobe 2 is a very nasty virus and um
24:03
likely has long-term effects on health and well-being that we have not yet begun to understood because how could we
24:11
whereas the um you know the fatality rate is relatively
24:16
low at least if you don't have three or more comorbidities for covid
24:21
uh it likely has long-term effects on health we knew that
24:27
but because they hadn't actually done the the right tests in before launching
24:35
this product these experimental therapy is on to the global market
24:42
we were told that they thought that this would mitigate the effects of coping
24:49
I don't know if they ever thought that at all they certainly didn't have the data on which to base that thought
24:55
and uh but if we understand that you know
25:00
covet is not a nothing Burger as some people particularly on the right would have you
25:07
believe it's not right it's it's a it's a real problem in large part because it is not zoonotic you know because it does
25:14
bring with it just this like Smorgasbord of Frank and viral symptoms
25:19
some of which we probably don't know yet but with regard to this was six um
25:26
covet appeared to be a problem across the world at the point that the
25:33
vaccines were launched now what we know now is that some amount of the uh really
25:40
really immediate uh deaths and and scourges that covid was affected coveted
25:48
was inflicting on various locations was likely I had a heterogeneous theatrogenic that is to say
25:56
putting people on ventilators uh largely hastened their deaths rather
26:02
than helped them so I'm not saying that they weren't actually that the the they did actually
26:08
meet the standards here but is it possible to argue that someone involved
26:15
in this could have thought that they had with the word of six and six only I think maybe maybe but I don't I don't
26:22
really buy it because they cheated right they took if the if it is the case that it is the long-term harms of covid
26:29
against which they were protecting you then informed consent should have allowed you to make the decision whether
26:35
or not you viewed the unknown surrounding the treatments they were recommending how you viewed that against
26:40
the knowns or the emerging notes I agree but as I said I'm talking about six and six only here right but but the point is
26:48
the humanitarian importance of the problem they cheated two ways okay they claimed or they let us believe that we
26:56
were actually having an epidemiological impact they pretended that these things blocked transmission and then they
27:03
pretended that the real concern was the overwhelming of hospitals and that therefore you had no right to choose
27:09
this for yourself because you were going to end up taking up a hospital bed neither so this is perhaps not important but six
27:17
is about the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved not about the treatment right so I don't know I'm just
27:23
responding to this one little line here right but they knew that this didn't
27:28
solve an epidemiological problem but that's I I don't read it that way the degree of risk to be taken should never
27:34
exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment if we understand the humanitarian importance
27:40
of the problem to be solved as massive Global pandemic which is what we had been led to believe
27:46
and what we think that most of the people who were claiming it was believed at the time
27:51
then that is an extraordinarily High bar that needs to be um that that was likely you know not
27:58
passed yeah but then they would need to have tested for transmission yes but again not not contained within the
28:04
um let's move on to number seven proper preparations should be made and adequate
28:12
facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or
28:19
death that would seem to preclude gaslighting these people and running them around with respect to whether or
28:25
not they have a known syndrome that is Downstream of these experimental treatments yeah eight the experiment
28:32
should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons the highest degree of skill and Care should
28:38
be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment remember the
28:44
failure to aspirate uh the shadow failure to aspirate and the offloading
28:49
of this to stadiums full of who knows what and CVS and Walgreens and
28:57
nine during the course of the experiment the human subject should be at Liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he
29:04
has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible you had
29:10
the right not to get another shot if you were injured and lots of people I've heard the story multiple times had some
29:17
terrible impact from one of the inoculations and then we're told that they needed to get more and you
29:24
interviewed a woman in Australia yes who had a pre-existing condition of some
29:30
number of praises one of which included a life-threatening allergy to one of the ingredients in the shot to which she was
29:36
literally told that the right remedy for was to have an EpiPen available so that
29:42
if she had an anaphylactic reaction it could be arrested and finally 10. during the course of the
29:49
experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage if he has probable cause to
29:56
believe in the exercise of good faith Superior skill and careful judgment required of him that the continuation of
30:02
the experiment is likely to result in injury disability or death of the experimental subject we are still
30:08
injecting people with these we are still injecting young healthy people with these yep so
30:13
that is plausibly a violation of every single one of the provisions of the Nuremberg
30:20
code maybe six is an exception arguably maybe it is a violation of the two
30:29
Central components informed consent it was not consent and it couldn't have been informed so
30:36
and then again this is a principle that had not been spelled out in 1947 but
30:41
doctors were held responsible for having violated it because it should have been obvious to them we literally hung seven
30:48
of them okay now my point is Oaths the Hippocratic Oath the Nuremberg code
30:54
these are things that exist at a higher level than law they are more important and when we are violating these things
31:00
and we are violating both of those things the Hippocratic oath and the Nuremberg code are both being violated
31:06
we are doing harm that does not need to be done and we are violating people's right to inform consent
31:11
when that is happening that is the equivalent of hearing a Mayday call right Mayday is not a normal call to say
31:19
into the radio right you say Mayday because there is an emergency that requires a very special mindset right it
31:27
is the equivalent of being in an airplane and hearing pull up pull up right that is something telling you you
31:34
are in an emergency situation this is not a moment for normal calculus con
31:39
cost benefit analysis this is a moment for emergency action to save whatever
31:45
entity it is that's where we are in history and I I'm shocked at how
31:53
remote this has been from our discussion right it is 76 years ago but it's only
31:59
76 years ago right this is something that should have been on our minds
32:06
um front and center for quite some time [Music]
32:12
[Music]
Nuremberg code
Click to expand...
 
Esote said:
XPan would you please tell us why this is 'funny' as your smilie suggests.
It could be about the bioweapon claim being debunked, which is kind of a joke may be.
Click to expand...

I find a lot of things "funny" lately...

See it as a tired yawn, a personal reaction to all the claims that's been made in the past 3 years about a lot of things....Perhaps it was my reaction to certain claims, which after these years just make me feel weary - and in the end I kind of "smile", kind of "laugh". That kind of reaction, you know...

Of course there are plenty of nuances, and we can likely debate endlessly about which part is "right" and which part is "wrong" or exaggerated. I still feel that Dr David Martin contributed to a lot of very important background information pointing towards that the US military, the hidden cabal interests, and with help of more less secret hidden labs, conducted plenty of bioweapon research on corona virus and spike proteins for around at least 20+ years. Add then other important people who also revealed a lot of strange whereabout behind the whole Corona Plandemic, and it's hidden roots in the past. To me, that sounds more plausible - but personally I will never truly be in a position, who can tell the exact details or differences...

Martin was highlighting the research on spike proteins for over 1.5 years if i recall correctly - which we know by know, is the most toxic part of the corona virus family...which also happened to get injected, through the mechanism of making our cells produce that foreign protein... and all the sheer overwhelming amounts evidences around the world, regarding the repercussions this move have had, since the introduction of the genetic altering mRNA injections. One has to wonder, why there has been so much effort, and so much money being poured into ?

Is Dr David Martin right about every detail ? Likely not, I say from a realistic / common sense perspective. Who does get it right, all the time, I ask in addition...

So, yeah again. I find a lot of things "funny" lately... I mean just look around.

Esote said:
But what about the analysis of the misrepresented studies from D. Martin ? True or not, partly or totally ?
Propaganda doesn't usually come from only one 'side'...
Click to expand...
Esote said:
XPan would you please tell us why this is 'funny' as your smilie suggests.
It could be about the bioweapon claim being debunked, which is kind of a joke may be.
But what about the analysis of the misrepresented studies from D. Martin ? True or not, partly or totally ?
Propaganda doesn't usually come from only one 'side'...
Click to expand...

You refer to This online Magazin "Health Feeedback".

I am sorry, but as I look around those articles / publications... It seems more or less revolve around trying to discredit anything who critize the genetic jabs... So you see, I do have a slight problem with such "magazines" who appear to be wired in a certain direction, possibily by design are in existence, to "debunk" any information that could be seen hostile to the Plandemic and mRNA jabs are good for people narrative.

Isn't "Health Feedback" a sort of "medical fact checker" ?

- - - - -

They also wrote (Below the David Martin article)
KEY TAKE AWAY

"At the moment, investigations are still underway to determine where SARS-CoV-2 originated and how it came to infect humans. Both the natural and lab leak hypotheses rely on circumstantial evidence that can’t prove nor disprove either theory. However, no credible evidence indicates that the virus was engineered. Based on prior disease outbreaks, the most likely hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally and that zoonotic infections were the reason for the spread of the virus in humans"
Click to expand...

More than three years, and still know nothing ? Come on. We still don't know really how the virus came to infect viruses. And there is no "evidence" that indicates that the virus was engineered / altered.

I find that "funny". For being a magazine; a medical fact checker of some sort, not knowing really what is what - but they do 'know' that Dr David Martin is lying, his findings are unfounded and not credible... So, they not sure about the important things, but sure about everything else. And rubbing it in for us, once again, "Zoonotic infection were the reasons for the spread of the virus in humans". Great. This means we are back to square one, back to the original narrative, the introduction of the Plandemic: Of bats and wetmarket, people eating bats, and got infected, and the Pandemic became a "fact". No words about, that there has been plenty of "research" on bats and bat viruses - and how to make them highly transmissible to humans - which they normally wouldn't... (that research too, has been going on for... uhm... 20 years). And the test balloons of those projects in the past - where called SARS, MERS, etc.

Yeah. I do find a lot of things "funny", lately.

Especially the, in my opinion rather stupid, endless claims, that whenever serious people come with 'evidence' and plenty of leads revolving the underpinnings and more distant roots behind the Corona Plandemic - surprise - plenty of sources are then giving out "fact checks" - in all shapes and sizes, discrediting. Like everything else that could harm the image of the corona virus, and genetic injections.

So, yeah. I do find it "funny".
Can't help it.
 
Another thing I am seeing: CBS. Conspiracy Burnout Syndrome. My God, on and on it goes; The never ending who-done-it searching for who holds the smoking gun when the real issue is the fact there is a bullet in the skull. Yes we must have justice, but the patient is in the ER bleeding at the moment as the docudrama churns ever onward after a word from our sponsors about the latest deal on mobile phones and pricey Vodka.
 
aragorn said:
Okay, I've now finished watching Mikki Willis' latest documentary called 'Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening'.

Already prior to watching, based on the title, I had a suspcicion that the film makers had chosen a somewhat 'New ageish' approach that would not quite dig deep enough. Sadly, my suspcicions were confirmed. To put it bluntly, compared to the previous two plandemic movies, this time Willis and his team bit off more than they could chew. The good news is that IMO Willis has become an even better director. The editing, scenery and other things that in my layman's view constitute excellent movie making are there.

So, in this film the main message is that the root of our problems is all forms of collectivism, and mainly communism. China is of course presented as the evil example, and there is a lot of footage of various historic displays of communism in the US. The CCP is covertly taking over the US etc. Desmet is there delivering his 'mass formation' thesis, and Edward Griffin (in clips from 50 years ago) occupies a good part of the film explaining the dangers of the 'communist takeover'. However, as we know, these ideologies are only the surface manifestations of ponerological processes, instigated by schizoids and other psychopathological characters, and then later fully utilized by psychopaths. Harrison has explained the problems with Desmet's 'mass formation' and related views much better than I ever could, so I will not attempt to describe it in more detail.

On one hand, I don't hold the film makers ignorance against them...the subject of ponerology and psychopathology is quite complex and still, sadly, 'fringe'. On the other hand, I see it as unwise to try to 'cover all bases' without a clear understanding of the facts and underlying causes.

All in all, I would've been more pleased if the film makers would've focused on a narrower segment/set of problems. I see this attempt to address everything in a 'big swoop' without keeping the motto ignotas nulla curatio morbid in mind as counterproductive by giving people a false perception, and thus, a false kind of hope for the better.

Sorry to deliver such a negative review, knowing that the people behind this film are good, kind and hard working. Yeah, I know, I hear you saying "Well, smartypants, do a better job yourself!" :-):-D

I'm curious to hear what others think of the film once you've watched it.
Click to expand...
I have also watched the video, and maybe it's an American thing as they've been raised on anti-communism and American exceptionalism.
So maybe that was Willis's in, an easy way to place the actors in his story. From my point of view America is a fascist state (government=corporations), but really it is all totalitarianism, psychopaths vying for control, with the 4D masters pulling strings here and there. So it felt a bit like a limited hangout, a little misdirection, but for uninitiated who are open minded, it is at least a start.
 
The pandemic fiasco is not over, at least not at the White House. (And, most probably in the not too distant future the whole U.S. or so I think.)


If you thought Democrats were done pushing the Covid hysteria, think again.

Despite announcing an end to the authoritarian Covid-19 government mandates, the Biden White House requires guests to practice social distancing and wear masks during their visit.

The mandates, however, will only target those who are unvaccinated.

President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden will welcome the NCAA men’s and women’s national championship teams to “College Athlete Day” at the White House on Monday.

In an email from the White House Office of Legislative Affairs addressed to members of Congress, Covid protocols were listed, notifying lawmakers that they would need to show a negative Covid test before being allowed to attend the event. If unvaccinated, the attendees must wear a mask and social distance.

“Masking guidance: Fully vaccinated guests are not required to wear a mask on the White House grounds. Guests who are not fully vaccinated must wear a mask at all times and maintain at least six feet distance from others while on the White House grounds,” the email states.

According to a study conducted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, masks are not practical to prevent the transmission of viruses, and even the N95 masks that everyone has become obsessed with are “non-inferior” to a surgical masks “in terms of influenza transmission rates among health care workers.”

A video posted by parliamentarian Rob Roos showed pharmaceutical giant Pfizer admitting that the Covid vaccine was never tested for stopping the transmission of the virus.

In May, the federal government officially ended the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency while the World Health Organization announced that the China virus is no longer a global emergency.

Last September, Biden himself declared, “The pandemic is over,” signing a bill terminating the national emergency declaration, which allowed the government to respond to Covid with several authorities it wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
Nienna said:
The pandemic fiasco is not over, at least not at the White House. (And, most probably in the not too distant future the whole U.S. or so I think.)
Click to expand...
It's become excruciatingly obvious that the psychopaths in charge can do whatever they want as there's no one to stop them. With complete control of the legacy/social media to back up their evil actions, along with a hamstrung/useless Congress, the outrageous acts of tyranny continue to run rampant. I know the Cs say it will stop when the people decide enough is enough, but I can't imagine what that will look like or how it will play out. They also said that mass constrained frustration will exhibit via earthquakes and such. What will the coming months bring . . .
 
mabar said:
Sure, I can imagine the tons of waste and expense of changing the filter 5 times every hour per room, building..
Click to expand...
They don’t have to change the filters 5 times an hour, it means the air in the room is exchanged 5 times every hour.

The filters themselves would need changed less frequently. Recommendations vary. Some say every 30 days, but merv13 filters don’t come cheap, so most likely it’d be every 6 months or even longer. Yearly.

I worked in a shopping mall, and I asked maintenance when they last changed the filters. He said they were long overdue and it cost 25k to change them.
 
Lilou said:
They don’t have to change the filters 5 times an hour, it means the air in the room is exchanged 5 times every hour.

The filters themselves would need changed less frequently. Recommendations vary. Some say every 30 days, but merv13 filters don’t come cheap, so most likely it’d be every 6 months or even longer. Yearly.

I worked in a shopping mall, and I asked maintenance when they last changed the filters. He said they were long overdue and it cost 25k to change them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom