they/them - LABusas Road Captain
- Dec 31, 2001
- In a shack in a 1-horse town
Kirsch gives five reasons why he's confident these widened parameters were necessary due to the widespread heart damage pilots — and the U.S. public — experienced due to COVID-19 shots. According to Kirsch:5"They didn't widen the range by a little. They widened it by a lot. It was done after the vaccine rollout. This is extraordinary. They did it hoping nobody would notice. It worked for a while. Nobody caught it. But you can't hide these things for long. This is a tacit admission from the U.S. government that the COVID vaccine has damaged the hearts of our pilots. Not just a few pilots. A lot of pilots and a lot of damage."
"I believe it is because they knew if they kept the original range, too many pilots would have to be grounded. That would be extremely problematic; commercial aviation in the US would be severely disrupted. And why did they do that quietly without notifying the public or the mainstream media?
Five Clues COVID Shots Are Likely to BlameI'm pretty sure they won't tell me, so I'll speculate: it's because they didn't want anyone to know. In other words, the COVID vaccine has seriously injured a lot of pilots and the FAA knows it and said nothing because that would tip off the country that the vaccines are unsafe. And you aren't allowed to do that."
"Bottom line: The most logical conclusion is that the FAA knows the hearts of our nation's pilots have been injured by the COVID vaccine that they were coerced into taking, the number of pilots affected is huge, the cardiac damage is extensive, and passenger safety is being compromised by the lowering of the standards to enable pilots to fly.
The right thing would be for the FAA to come clean and admit to the American public that the COVID vaccine has injured 20% or more of the pilots (based on their limited EKG screening), but I doubt that they will ever do that."
“Contemporary scientific consensus” lacks an established meaning within the medical community, and defendants do not propose one. The statute provides no clarity on the term’s meaning, leaving open multiple important questions. For instance, who determines whether a consensus exists to begin with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for example practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)? In which geographic area must the consensus exist (California, or the United States, or the world)? What level of agreement constitutes a consensus (perhaps a plurality, or a majority, or a supermajority)? How recently in time must the consensus have been established to be considered “contemporary”? And what source or sources should physicians consult to determine what the consensus is at any given time (perhaps peer-reviewed scientific articles, or clinical guidelines from professional organizations, or public health recommendations)? The statute provides no means of understanding to what “scientific consensus” refers.
These are all fair questions, but we know the basic answer. The law is intended to ban the dissemination of any COVID information the establishment doesn’t like. They’ll know it when they see it; don’t ask for specificity!
The cases must be fully litigated to reach a final decision, but we are hopeful that the truth will prevail, and this terrible law will be stricken.
The California bill, and similar bills that have been considered by other state legislatures, would prevent your doctor from telling you about the wide body of evidence suggesting the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for COVID-19. They are also designed to prevent or scare doctors from advising patients about the dangers of COVID vaccination. Who knows, maybe your doctor telling you about the benefits of vitamin D or other supplements for immune support and COVID prevention would constitute “misinformation.” If government health authorities determine the “scientific consensus,” only FDA-approved treatments could be discussed or administered by doctors for COVID—meaning vaccines and/or drugs. Any discussion of supplements, which are included in many COVID protocols, could be forbidden under these laws, no matter how much evidence there is supporting their use. This will enrich all of those who stand to make money off of the standard of care and the one-size-fits-all paradigm—namely, Big Pharma.
This would be a disaster. Natural medicine is predicated on the idea that each patient has individual needs based on unique biology and genetics. If doctors aren’t allowed to discuss alternatives to the mainstream medical approach not only are the legal requirements of informed consent not being satisfied, but integrative doctors’ ability to treat individual patients will suffer. And it’s not just treatments; this censorship crusade could also be applied to doctors telling you about complementary support modalities like yoga, meditation, acupuncture, massage therapy, and others.
As of right now, New Jersey is considering a similar bill to California’s, except that it isn’t just limited to COVID, making it much, much more dangerous. Want to learn about magnesium’s sleep benefits before your doctor prescribes Ambien? Want to learn about chromium’s effect on blood sugar before you go on a diabetes drug? Your doctor may not be able to discuss any of that with you if this bill passes in NJ.
NJ residents can click here to take action, and we will update you accordingly if similar bills come up in other states.
"Excerpts of emails released today reveal the following:
"Fauci had his phone call with Andersen that night, and what he heard clearly disturbed him. In an email to Farrar after the call, he wrote the following:
'I told [Andersen] that as soon as possible he and Eddie Holmes should get a group of evolutionary biologists together to examine carefully the data to determine if his concerns are validated. He should do this very quickly and if everyone agrees with this concern, they should report it to the appropriate authorities.
I would imagine that in the USA this would be the FBI and in the UK it would be MI5' … What were Andersen's concerns? And why were they so dire they might merit a call to the FBI?
Andersen laid them out plainly in an email to Fauci that same evening. 'The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,' Andersen wrote in the email.
'I should mention,' he added, 'that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.'"
The same way people who own POS vehicles tell us about their cars.How do you know if someone is unvaccinated? They'll tell you.
"You know how the virus keeps mutating? Well, one of the things we're exploring is, like, why don't we just mutate it ourselves so we could focus on — so we could create and preemptively develop new vaccines, right?
So, we have to do that. If we're gonna do that, though, there's a risk of, like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses.
So, we're like, do we want to do this? So, that's like one of the things we're considering, for, like, the future, like maybe we can, like, create new versions of the vaccines and things like that."
"[We've] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC and FDA want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No ReasonSo the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I've been saying for a long time. It's not a coincidence."
Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low."… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed."
- According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021
Polls aren't a peer reviewed study lolIt means they asked people do you know of anyone that died.....the study is peer reviewed
Do you mean to say that someone conducted a telephone survey to 2840 Americans, and each one of those 2840 respondents claimed to be personally aware of somewhere between 76.5 and 117.1 people that died from a covid vaccination? Am I misunderstanding this somehow? This sounds ridiculous.It means they asked people do you know of anyone that died. Kinda like a police investigation. Presumably they followed each lead, because the study is peer reviewed/
You don't ever help your own cause. You know that, right?It means they asked people do you know of anyone that died. Kinda like a police investigation. Presumably they followed each lead, because the study is peer reviewed/
it SUGGESTS that the nmumber of deaths FROM the mrna drug is severl;y underrreoprted
Thats all good night
I didnt read it. IM just the messenger. Its just a piece of the puizzle. Make of it what you willDo you mean to say that someone conducted a telephone survey to 2840 Americans, and each one of those 2840 respondents claimed to be personally aware of somewhere between 76.5 and 117.1 people that died from a covid vaccination? Am I misunderstanding this somehow? This sounds ridiculous.
Should we shoot the messenger if he's a blithering idiot?I didnt read it. IM just the messenger. Its just a piece of the puizzle. Make of it what you will
dont shoot the messenger
im waiting for the bench science. until then not even the govt got better than this
HEY... I resemble that remark |Should we shoot the messenger if he's a blithering idiot?
"Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who served as one of the architects of Covid hysteria and had more of an impact than any other individual on the disastrous global pandemic policies, has finally acknowledged that the mRNA shots he's been promoting for two years are nothing more than expired pharma junk.
Gates' major reversal on the shots comes too late, however, as his prior praises were instrumental in dictating government policy, despite his massive financial conflicts of interest. Soave adds:Translation: Gates admits that the shots are impossible to align with rapidly developing variants, they expire in lighting speed, and they don't stop transmission. And they don't work for the only at-risk portion of the population."
"For there not to be more interrogation of his conflict of interest here by the mainstream is deeply disturbing, and for people who have been skeptical of this aspect of Pfizer and the drug development around COVID and who have been shot down in the media as kooks, anti-vaxxers and the like.
I frankly think that this issue of pharmaceutical corruption and people pushing various interventions, having an investment in profit, should have been an issue that the left was leading on.
We have to be more transparent about the fact that people who are having input in what the government policy is going to be, what's going to be required people, the Biden administration tried to require people to get this, shouldn't it be known at least when there are hundreds of millions of dollars of financial interests at stake for the people advising this? And their tune changes as it follows the money!"
“For 40 years, Danish researchers ... have shown that vaccines against everything from polio and smallpox to malaria and tuberculosis have both beneficial and harmful health effects that are unrelated to the diseases the vaccines protect against.
Now these researchers have put the research into a historical perspective that they hope can help make the world’s health authorities realize that the relationship between vaccines and disease is not always simple.
In fact, their research shows that some vaccines protect against completely different diseases than those for which they are designed. Unfortunately, other vaccines are associated with excess mortality from unrelated diseases ...
‘What do researchers do when they discover that vaccination opponents are justified in being concerned? No vaccines have been studied for their non-specific effects on overall health, and before we have examined these, we cannot actually determine that the vaccines are safe.
So, where are the headlines declaring the scientific conclusion that vaccination opponents are justified in their concern? As expected, the information — published in Clinical Microbiology and Infections2 — has not been well received by health authorities, including the World Health Organization. It’s been largely ignored wholesale.In addition, our research shows that some vaccines actually increase overall mortality, especially among girls, and this is very worrying,’ explains Christine Stabell Benn, Clinical Professor, University of Southern Denmark, Odense.”
“... a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) has uncovered some serious conflicts of interest between the World Health Organization (WHO), who proposed ... heavy vaccinations, and the pharmaceutical companies which created them.
The joint-investigation’s report explains that the WHO profited immensely22 from the scare tactics they utilized to promote the use of a swine flu vaccine.
Creating mass hysteria was the WHO’s emergency advisory committee’s goal ... The WHO told the world that up to 7 million people could die without the vaccines they were pushing ... The advisory panel was choked with individuals highly connected to the pharmaceutical companies with vested interests in both antiviral and influenza vaccines.
Disturbingly, while the WHO was found to have had serious conflicts of interest with the drug industry, nothing has actually changed since then, which makes one wonder whether the WHO’s COVID-19 pandemic response can actually be trusted.An over $4 billion stake was invested in developing these vaccines, and without a pandemic there would be no use for them. Utilizing propaganda and fear, the drugs were pushed on unsuspecting people, and the money was made.”
“I told Judy to take the shot ... I’m mad with my government. They knew the facts but they didn’t release those facts, because if they had released them, people wouldn’t have taken it.
And they can come out tomorrow and tell me there’s going to be an epidemic, and they can drop off like flies next to me, and I will not take another shot that my government tells me to take.”
HEY NATHAN ANDERSON, MD - probably best to stick to being a doctor cos you clearly suck at comprehending anything wider than your specialty.
A new study found that a previous COVID-19 infection offers at least the same level of protection as two doses of high-quality mRNA vaccines, such as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech.
Prior COVID infection provides just as much protection as vaccines, new study findsA new study found that previous COVID-19 infection offers at least the same level of protection as two doses of vaccines, lasting for 40 weeks or longer.www.foxnews.com
A new study found that a previous COVID-19 infection offers at least the same level of protection as two doses of high-quality mRNA vaccines, such as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech.
Additionally, people who are infected with the virus may be protected from reinfection for 40 weeks or longer, the study found.
"high quaility" vaccine ---- rofl
This result is intuitively obvious
Its how natural immunity works
And there's your answer in bold, enlarged font.Following his election as Governor of Illinois in 2014, Bruce Rauner nominated Shah to serve as the director of the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH). His nomination papers listed only two jobs in his career, one as an attorney, the other as an economist. Plus a fellowship with the Soros Foundation. He held no medical license, was not a practicing physician, and his name does not appear as a contributor on any scholarly study. Perhaps most significant, Shah had never managed an organization that rivaled the size and complexity of a government agency. Barely six months into his new role, his lack of qualifications became apparent in deadly ways.
The Truth About Nirav Shah The Maine Media Never Told You - The Maine WireIn her first major public step toward her promise to reform the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Director Rochelle Walensky has chosen Maine CDC Director Nirav Shah to serve as her second-in-command. As her “principal” deputy, he’ll be focusing primarily on communication issues...www.themainewire.com
Fuck You Jim. I will gladly kick in for services for you.Since its just me with zero relatives/family at this point, I don't care. I refuse to pay tens of thousands of dollars to dispose of my carcass, and I don't want anyone else I know to pay for that, either. Let me remain unclaimed and let the hospital/county/state deal with it. [Edit: I am an organ donor, part me out].
If friends want to gather and have a drink or eat sushi or tacos in memorial, that's fine. I'll have left an envelope with the some cash to fund that.
If you think you're gonna croak anytime soon (like before the beginning of the next outdoor grow season), leave instructions to have your remains shipped over here, and I'll use you to nourish a new cannabis strain- I won't even change the name from your labs handle. I can get a large compost bag no problem.I think I want to be planted. Seriously. There's a company that will put your corpse in a biodegradable compost bag, along with a sapling. They "plant" you and your decaying carcass nourishes the tree.
Yep, I want mine to be an almond tree. So people can eat my nutsI think I want to be planted. Seriously. There's a company that will put your corpse in a biodegradable compost bag, along with a sapling. They "plant" you and your decaying carcass nourishes the tree.