Enforcement of VAX escalating

[luc]

If the vaxx is truly as innocuous as you say, I don't see a problem with recommending it to everyone. It would certainly save a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth as various people are struggling to square totalitarian overreach with securing their livelihoods and trying to game out possible future scenarios to figure out what they should do.

This is clearly muddled thinking and erecting straw men, I'm sure you can see that yourself. Nobody said the vax was harmless, much less "recommended".

There are probably many reasons for this current hysteria on the side of many anti-vaxers: the crumbling of illusions, the confrontation with evil in their personal lives, facing a world-wide totalitarianism, stress from being name-called in the media and by family and friends, the mutual resonance among them...

I think part of the problem is also to ascribe an almost God-like power to the PTB and almost magical qualities to the mRNA vaccines. Like as if they can destroy your soul, enslave your mind, cause a stroke in 5 years because that's what the PTB want or whatever. We should remember that political power doesn't equal competence. In fact, in a pathocracy, incompetence reigns. When following events and also the vax developments, one gets the impression that they have no idea what they are doing and are dealing with things they don't understand. Terrorizing people into ascribing them God-like powers is exactly what they want.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Thanks for compiling all those sources.

Well I'll quickly reply to this media thing just because I think I did such a bad job of explaining myself. I didn't mean to insinuate that I don't read a wide array of sources. I don't trust any of it, really, though. To aid in this I've created two diagrams.

View attachment 52282
Ok, so in the first diagram I've jotted out a super basic template for the mainstream media delivery system. One of the qualities of the mainstream media is that it often reads like a press release. In those cases, it's probably a press release that a source has dispatched, so on. The mainstream media is a vast consortium that seems to be motivated by ad revenue and subscribers, donations, stuff like that. The mainstream media sensationalized trump and kept the energy at a fever pitch for years. I don't think it had much to do with journalism. This consortium is the mouthpiece of an oligarchy.

Here's another diagram:
View attachment 52281

Ok, so you can see here I've added some steps for reactionary news media. The model here implies they assume you've heard something from mainstream media. A lot of the examples you've provided, SOTTREADER, resemble this model. Lots of refutations of so-called commonly held positions. "Oh, they want you to think mRNA vaccines are safe." "Oh, they tell you you have to wear a mask, but guess what, they aren't even designed to keep out the virus." "Here's the scoop on the CEO of such-and-such that the mainstream media is trying to suppress." So on.

Sometimes, reactionary news media is gunna be holding the mainstream accountable. Sometimes, it's gunna be pure reactionary straw-grasping. They use different sources or they pick experts who have wildly different interpretations. All of that flows through a bias of their own. Reactionary media, generally, isn't the tool of oligarchs, but often they're owned by firms economic agendas, money in oil and gas, what have you. Not all the time.

So there's a part of this I've left out for dramatic effect. In both diagrams we have the media consumer's bias. You know what makes my head spin? All this pageantry and hot air that goes into the production and counter-production of the "news," only so that it can land at the feet of the media consumer who truly has final say. I'm sure you've all noticed this. Media consumers are, in general, not won over by force of argument. They have already selected which slant or narrative they're ready and willing to accept. Where does that leave us?

Consume all media and triangulate the truth. It's a nice idea, and it's the sort of thing you'd really need a whole forum of folk to deconstruct. I'm wondering how many of us remain skeptical as consumers rather than gravitating to the stuff that fulfills our bias. When it comes to what car to buy or what tv show you like, this isn't such a big deal. When it comes to interpreting covid policies and getting factual information about what works, what doesn't, which statistics are accurate, on and on - I'm sorry, I don't believe that's possible.

Accept that this system is designed to manipulate, not empower, and embrace the fact that we mediate and condition which information is welcomed into our minds. In my opinion if you want to empower yourself, you have to back up from this matrix of distortion and see it for what it is - a matrix of distortion. Meanwhile, you can remind yourself that if you run into a virologist in a line-up and ask him if sunlight cures covid, no matter what he says, you're going to judge his answer and weigh it against what you think you know.

Confirmation bias isn't new. Sometimes it can be overcome. I have serious concerns about dedicating myself to uncovering objectivity from media corporations, let alone because I, myself, am biased. Beginning this journey with trusted sources in mind is, in my opinion, starting an extremely dubious journey on the wrong foot.

But there's good "news!" We don't need to be correct to good choices. We don't have to be correct to be safer. You are you. You know what's safe for you. It's a situation you trust and it's a feeling you feel. And thank goodness for that, especially in the case of covid.

@siftingmaterials I have a few things to say as now I can see where we are starting to diverge

Do you think there is such a thing as an objective truth say on a single subject and do you think we as individuals can uncover that truth?

E.g. is the Earth objectively a sort of sphere or is it what an individual decides it is? The answer to this question can have real consequences say to my ability to navigate the planet or to understand how it's positioned in relation to the wider solar system or indeed to decide whether a wider solar system exists or not etc.

From your post I immediately saw an over-complication of matters that perhaps shouldn't be complicated.

Let's take these vaccines, someone somewhere is selling me these vaccines. They are telling me I need it because there's a pandemic. This choice has real consequences to me. I have to make a choice whether to take it or not. I'm interested to know what is in the vaccine, are the people who made it competent, what is the risk profile etc. These are questions with objective answers. The answers exist independently. Can I trust the mainstream media to tell me the truth on this subject? Again, the answer to this is an objective one, it exists independently.

How do I as an individual find out the answers?

Essentially from what you've written I can't see that you think a person can come to know something objectively. I think this is one of the shortfalls of an approach that's too esoteric or too relativistic.

Another thing to mention - just because a human is a limited Being doesn't make them helpless to understanding objective truth or developing an appreciation for it. I'm a consumer of everything starting with my senses so the word itself shouldn't necessarily carry a negative connotation. Each on its own is limited but all working together in an integrated fashion allows me to navigate the world quite safely - at least safely enough to keep me alive for a decent period of time. I avoid the cliff because I can see the drop, I sense there's an animal near-by because I can see a silhouette and hear some movement etc. I'm interested in navigation and making choices that are conducive to my health and safety within that space. Relativistic and esoteric stuff are okay up to a point but if I sense a lion nearby I can't sit around contemplating too long, I have to make a choice. Hope that made sense.

 

[SOTTREADER]

About the vax side effects, I think it is important to keep a rational head about it, also (or especially) when consuming alternative media. "Camp" thinking won't do, because then you start getting emotional.

When looking at the sportsmen for example, the hysterical reaction would be "OMG, if I take the vax I'll drop dead with a heart attack!!!". When looking rationally at it, you will acknowledge that this increase in incidents in athletes most likely has to do with the vax. But you will also see that these young, male, super-healthy people who exhaust their bodies to the max seem to be by far the highest risk group for these vax reactions, and that even so, the percentage of them who die, while clearly statistically relevant, is still extremely small. The same is even more true for the general population.

For that reason, I think it's really bad form to try to scare family and friends with exaggerated claims, especially since everyone knows hundreds of vaccinated people who didn't die, in fact few people know anyone who died, even among the anti-vaxxers who sometimes tend to blame the vax for any death of a vaccinated person. Which BTW is also really bad form.

I see a lot of hysterics in the anti-vax camp and alternative media. Just because someone does good research doesn't mean they have a grip on their emotions. Looking at all this craziness 24/7 really takes its toll. And most of them haven't done any serious self-work and lack the wider spiritual perspective and context that we are discussing here.

How can one explain away that at least in the US, like 80% plus of the recorded side effects on VAERS can be accounted for from less than 15% of the Lots in distribution and that this profile is changing over time as if they are running some kind of experiment?

What about the fact that injuries are underreported? What about the fact that the vaccinees eventually end up being more susceptible to covid? What about that covid rates EXPLODE in highly vaccinated communities?

All these in my view throws doubt. It's enough to run away if I'm walking in a forest, see a silhouette briefly, hear some rustling and I'm aware bears or wolves occupy the forest. Don't need to actually stand around to verify 100%. Yes, maybe it was nothing but if it was something and I stood around, that'll be me.

Same concept, there's enough going on here to tell any rational person not to take it based on what we know. Yes, you can take it and absolutely nothing happens but yes, you can and something happens. Remember you're asking HEALTHY people to take something which may otherwise injure their health when they can decide NOT to take it and continue maintaining their health. The so-called disease affects both groups and can be argued affects the jabbed worse - most hospitals are now occupied by jabbed in the covid wards and ICU.

 

[SOTTREADER]

How can one explain away that at least in the US, like 80% plus of the recorded side effects on VAERS can be accounted for from less than 15% of the Lots in distribution and that this profile is changing over time as if they are running some kind of experiment?

What about the fact that injuries are underreported? What about the fact that the vaccinees eventually end up being more susceptible to covid? What about that covid rates EXPLODE in highly vaccinated communities?

All these in my view throws doubt. It's enough to run away if I'm walking in a forest, see a silhouette briefly, hear some rustling and I'm aware bears or wolves occupy the forest. Don't need to actually stand around to verify 100%. Yes, maybe it was nothing but if it was something and I stood around, that'll be me.

Same concept, there's enough going on here to tell any rational person not to take it based on what we know. Yes, you can take it and absolutely nothing happens but yes, you can and something happens. Remember you're asking HEALTHY people to take something which may otherwise injure their health when they can decide NOT to take it and continue maintaining their health. The so-called disease affects both groups and can be argued affects the jabbed worse - most hospitals are now occupied by jabbed in the covid wards and ICU.

Ps, in my own limited circle. I know the following

- 2 people got short lived injuries but kept it a secret. How many if these secret sufferers are out there?
- 1 person died within 2 weeks of the jab
- 1 elderly independent lady died within 9 months of the jab. To her death bed she was saying the jab messed up her health but was being gaslighted.
- 1 healthy 18 year old boy came down with some exotic illness affecting the colon. All I know is people don't come down with exotic illnesses randomly especially if they are that young, with no family history and are in tip top condition with no previous health conditions.
- 1 lady had a period that lasted 3 weeks straight.

Can't make people turn a blind eye to all these. Oh hell no.

 

[luc]

How can one explain away that at least in the US, like 80% plus of the recorded side effects on VAERS can be accounted for from less than 15% of the Lots in distribution and that this profile is changing over time as if they are running some kind of experiment?

What about the fact that injuries are underreported? What about the fact that the vaccinees eventually end up being more susceptible to covid? What about that covid rates EXPLODE in highly vaccinated communities?

All these in my view throws doubt. It's enough to run away if I'm walking in a forest, see a silhouette briefly, hear some rustling and I'm aware bears or wolves occupy the forest. Don't need to actually stand around to verify 100%. Yes, maybe it was nothing but if it was something and I stood around, that'll be me.

Same concept, there's enough going on here to tell any rational person not to take it based on what we know. Yes, you can take it and absolutely nothing happens but yes, you can and something happens. Remember you're asking HEALTHY people to take something which may otherwise injure their health when they can decide NOT to take it and continue maintaining their health. The so-called disease affects both groups and can be argued affects the jabbed worse - most hospitals are now occupied by jabbed in the covid wards and ICU.

As some wise person once said: I don't think we disagree ;)

The fact is, there are people who die from the vax, there can be serious side effects. It is completely unnecessary and does much more harm than good (if it does any good at all). On a public health level, it is a disaster. Not to mention the principle of autonomy that is grossly violated. So you don't need to convince me to not take the vax if I can avoid it. I thought that much was clear!

What I do want to warn about is hysterical claims and unprecise thinking/risk assessment. You say "Yes, you can take it and absolutely nothing happens but yes, you can and something happens." That could be read as if there was a 50/50 chance that you get severe reactions. There isn't. Severe (as in life-altering) reactions or even death are very, very unlikely for most people.

This is relevant to point out because if people are forced to make a risk assessment between taking the jab vs. not taking it, they better have their facts straight. It also helps tone down the hysteria and fear, which is never good. It is also helpful for staying considerate when dealing with friends and family who decided to get the vax (due to pressure, mostly).

 

[Sybil]

In fact, my parents, in their attempt to get me to do what they think is best for me, have already told me several times: "If you get sick with covid because you are not vaccinated, don't expect us to go see you to hospital"!

That reminds me of something that happened to me some years ago back. A person with whom I was close that time told me: "I will save you from making a stupid decision even if I have to kill you in the process!"

 

[Keyhole]

How can one explain away that at least in the US, like 80% plus of the recorded side effects on VAERS can be accounted for from less than 15% of the Lots in distribution and that this profile is changing over time as if they are running some kind of experiment?

It is not necessary nor advisable to "explain away" any of the above findings. Everyone who carefully examines the data here can agree that people are indeed dying from the vaccine. Likewise, many are also suffering extreme side effects and some permanent disability. This point is not disputed. If the C's transmissions are anything to go by, it is also likely that experiments are being performed through certain batches with potentially novel technology.

However: Just doing the simple math, it is obvious at this point that deaths and side effects are statistically rare. Yes, they are significantly higher than any other vaccine or medication. But even then, the proportion of two billion people still counts as a small minority. If the vaccines were designed as a "tool of depopulation", as many in the alternative space claim, then it has not been very effective thus far!

No one is claiming in black-and-white terms that the vaccines are innocuous. Many of us here, myself included, will be doing our best to avoid taking this vaccine and recommend that others also do the same. But statistically speaking, if one was forced to get the vaccination for whatever reason... the chances of immediate death or injury are low. This is especially true for those who take the necessary precautions both on a physical & psycho-emotional level (think "spiritual hygeine") as the C's alluded to.

Holding two pieces of seemingly conflicting data in one's mind at once can be difficult for many. It actually takes effort and work to resist the temptation to side with one "camp" (1. that vaccines are innocuous, or 2. that vaccines will cause certain death). Both imply lazy thinking. The truth actually sits somewhere in between, but in actual fact, is more heavily weighted towards being somewhat safe (at least in the short-term).

Since we are in the business of trying to remain as close to objective reality as possible, it is important not to allow our emotions to override our analytical capabilities. We need to be prepared to continuously change our position through carefully parsing through the available data as it comes out in real time.

 

[Sybil]

Maybe we need a poll. How many people here, having had a discussion with a family member about the pros and cons of vaccines, and where the family member said they were going to get the vaccine regardless, would respond to them with: "well, don't expect me to come to your funeral"? Which, I should note, is basically saying to them that "you are doing to die from taking that vaccine and when you do, I won't be sorry for you".

Here is my contribution: My daughter took two vaccines and her fiance too. My daughter is a teacher and her fiance is a doctor. They are young people who believe in the system and their job. They are good kids. We have opposite views and I cannot make them understand my view just as they cannot make me understand their view. BUT. I love them with all my heart. There is no them and I. They didn't change into mindless cyborgs bc of the vaccines. I'm not advocating vaccines. But I stand for not dehumanizing those who took one. Some people took it bc of fear of death, others bc they believe it's good for everyone, while others took it because they feel they have been cornered into it. What if the real danger in this vaccine situation is that it is divide us? What if I going to be cornered to take the vaccine otherwise my child could be taken away? I'm going to assign to the "other camp"? Or I will be left behind when the wave comes? I don't know. I will do my best to be a decent human being and not to give in to fear.

 

[Joe]

What if the real danger in this vaccine situation is that it is divide us?

That sure seems to be the goal of govts. in some countries with their attempted discrimination against the unvaxed, and the increasing media coverage of the validity of that idea.

 

[Don Cesar]

That sure seems to be the goal of govts. in some countries with their attempted discrimination against the unvaxed, and the increasing media coverage of the validity of that idea.

Hello Joe, The C's had partially answered this question concerning France in the July 2021 session ...

Q: (Joe) What are the chances of this segregation of society between vaccinated and unvaccinated people being successful in France?

A: Not high. Other events may intervene.

 

[Don Cesar]

Hello Joe, the C's had partially answered this question concerning France in the 2021 jully session...

Q: (Joe) What are the chances of this segregation of society between vaccinated and unvaccinated people being successful in France?

A: Not high. Other events may intervene.

 

[Joe]

The last time I mentioned this Joe said something to the effect that learning does occur, in a somewhat rote manner after many repetitions of the process, which is true I guess. I guess I expected more out of 3D than the slow cyclical way that plants and minerals learn, but it seems that I expect too much.

Well don't count your chickens. While most of human life is on that reincarnation-based slow learning cycle (although a lot faster it seems than the average plant or rock), it's possible that there are some rather shocking revelations coming down the pipe that might provide the opportunity for many people to get a clue real quick.

We also have an outstanding prediction that the vaccine is going to precipitate a real pandemic soon, if one believes anything coming out of the Cassiopaeans these days. There is enough skullduggery surrounding the vaccination drive that I view it with great suspicion and aversion.

As do we all here. The point(s) under discussion is how that great suspicion and aversion should manifest in our word and actions.

If the vaxx is truly as innocuous as you say, I don't see a problem with recommending it to everyone. It would certainly save a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth as various people are struggling to square totalitarian overreach with securing their livelihoods and trying to game out possible future scenarios to figure out what they should do. If it is as innocuous as you say, I don't want to be reading a bunch of SOTT articles about heart attacks and autoimmune conditions and potentials for wild mutations, because if it's as innocuous as you say, these stories are just statistical noise which are used sensationalize something that is harmless.

Obviously the vaccine, and the entire covid issue around it, are not innocuous and have not been since the beginning. That is true on both a psychological/social level and on an individual/physical level. What has disturbed me most about all of this, and where I see the greatest danger (at least for now) is in the psycho/spiritual effect it has had on individuals and societies at large. Billions of people's minds have effectively been captured and forcibly and repeatedly redirected towards a generalized fear and anxiety-based outlook on life.

Other than for people who just want to have an idea what other people are thinking, beyond a certain point it is silly for me to argue my reasons why someone else should or should not get vaccinated. I don't intend to get into a protracted debate about this. Ultimately, you will do what you will do and I will do what I consider to be in my best interest.

All of us will do what is in our best interest and in the best interests of others, as long as we can keep our thinking straight and network about major decisions. It's pretty clear that all of us agree that it is in our best interests to avoid the vaccine and the mind programming around it. For some, avoiding it is not feasible, and in that case, keeping our thinking straight and networking is still the best approach.

 

[KJS]

Consume all media and triangulate the truth. It's a nice idea, and it's the sort of thing you'd really need a whole forum of folk to deconstruct. I'm wondering how many of us remain skeptical as consumers rather than gravitating to the stuff that fulfills our bias. When it comes to what car to buy or what tv show you like, this isn't such a big deal. When it comes to interpreting covid policies and getting factual information about what works, what doesn't, which statistics are accurate, on and on - I'm sorry, I don't believe that's possible.

I think that skin in the game is a simple and useful heuristic for information pre-filtering. Let's take for example Peter McCullough. Is he risking his career for taking a non-mainstream stance? Yes. Has he been stripped from his titles because of that? Sure. Was he crazy before the mass inoculation campaign? There was no indication of that. It could be, that he's politically motivated or he's preparing some astroturfing campaign for another pharma giant. But he's risking much. How about Sucharit Bhakdi? Martin Kuldorf (he's not a proponent for inoculating children)? Norman Pieniążek (one of the professors that taught members of the Polish Medical Council and expert in PCR testing)? Alexandra Henrion-Caude?

Are Pfizer and other pharma giants trying to avoid skin in the game like hell? Yes, and that's for me.

 

[Joe]

Hello Joe, The C's had partially answered this question concerning France in the July 2021 session ...

Yeah, and those 'other events', at this point, are unknown, although there seems to be increasing background noise pointing to the US and global economy teetering on the brink. If a major crisis in that area occurs, then yeah, they can forget about segregation on vax status being a 'thing' that people care about.

 

[Tauriel]

After feeling irritated at first I now came to really love this thread.
Somehow over night I feel more at ease with my conflicting voices.
What you all said got in and was processed into a more peaceful state. It didn't change my plan to go step-by-step but networking really helped extrapolate the real danger. So many insecurities were laid bare by many here (including myself) that it made way for a more objective stance.
Thank you all for contributing.