serrac

Also, since "vaccine passports" are currently only under discussion and the vaccine is not yet proven to prevent infection or transmission it seems anyone wanting to holiday abroad will still be required to demonstrate evidence of a negative PCR test within 3 days of travel. So at least in the short term nothing much will have changed for those who have opted for the vaccine.

McDominion Voting Machines?

Yeah I can recall some amazing spring weather here in Fife - invariably followed by a complete wash-out for the rest of the year...

480p.mp4

OK, it could be nothing to do the the vaccine, and people can and do have bad outcome with most medications. So how many deaths would have to occur close to the time of vaccination before it becomes a valid talking point?

So the Norwegian Medicines Agency are anti-vaccine?

Meanwhile: “If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated,” Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists on Thursday. https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/ Canny win...

Ah yes Vicks "First Defence" - feels like squirting Airfix glue up your nose. Not that I've ever tried that - honest officer 😀

Sure. Your entire position appears to rest on an “appeal to authority” – i.e. x number of courts threw out the cases alleging fraud, therefore there is no valid evidence of fraud. This is a non-sequitur since the courts did not allow the evidence to be heard so logically could not have made a judgement regarding its validity. It also assumes complete impartiality on the part of the judges in these courts. However it stands to reason that the organisers of fraud on the alleged scale would take steps to ensure that any legal challenges were stonewalled at least until it is too late for them to impact the outcome of the election. This would be facilitated by the fact that these challenges would be coming before judiciaries in the very states where the constitutional authority of the state legislatures was usurped, sometimes by the courts themselves, to change election laws with the effect of creating the environment which facilitated the fraud in the first place. Therefore the likelihood of partiality in this situation is much too high to concede your appeal to authority (a generally recognised logical fallacy by the way) as far as I’m concerned. The actual validity of the evidence can only be established once each of the hundreds of citizen witnesses who signed affidavits under threat of perjury have been called before a truly impartial court or tribunal to give their evidence and be cross-examined. Not that I expect that to ever happen. ~~~ "All of us exhibit cognitive bias all the time, however critical thinking allows us to move beyond our conditioned biases and try to evaluate things in the round." As an advocate of critical thinking you hopefully won't mind sharing your answers to a few questions that have been bothering me about the election and its aftermath. 1. In a free and fair election the number of votes accredited to a candidate can only increase as the votes are counted. The CNN clip below shows Trumps total in the Pennsylvania race decreasing from 1,690,589 to 1,670,631 with a corresponding increase in Biden’s total resulting in a ~40,000 vote swing to Joe Biden. https://streamable.com/31zhlj How did this happen? 2. Impeachment proceedings were brought against Donald Trump predicated on the testimony of a single unnamed Whitehouse staffer who claimed to have heard Trump make certain comments during a telephone conversation. Is a higher standard of evidence required to gain a hearing in a lower court than is required to bring an impeachment against a sitting POTUS? 3. Barak Obama was probably the most charismatic presidential candidate of recent times. A naturally gifted orator and as the first black candidate with a genuine shot at taking the White House captured the imagination of the black voter base (and the woke crowd for good measure). Yet Biden, a thoroughly corrupt, racist, sex-pest career politician who is so befuddled by senility that he can barely follow a Teleprompter to string a coherent sentence together was accredited in the 2020 election with up to 15 million more votes than Obama received when he won re-election in 2012. What did Biden do, say or offer during his campaign to inspire 15 million voters who stayed home for Obama to turn out for him? 4. What demographic could those 15 million additional votes have come from? It would be convenient to say that he took them from Trump because the incumbent was such a terrible president that his voter base switched en-mass to Biden. However Trump also increased his vote count by 10 million votes. He also increased his share of the black/hispanic vote in this election so it seems unlikely Biden found 15M votes there. What does that leave us with – the deplorables? 5. Biden allegedly received more votes than any presidential candidate in history, yet the average attendance at his campaign rallies was 0.14% of Trump’s. Why was the alleged enthusiasm for Biden at the ballot box not reflected in the attendance at his rallies? https://thespectator.info/2020/10/22/rally-tally-update-former-vp-biden-is-so-far-behind-president-trump-in-attendance-and-enthusiasm-even-crooked-hillary-far-outpaced-him/ 6. The the number of registered voters in each State is a matter of record. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/number-of-registered-voters-by-state I tallied the second column in the above page to get a figure for the whole of the USA for 2020 of 213,799,467 We are told that the voter turn out was the highest in 120 years at 66.9% https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/what-voter-turnout-2020-election-22974125 This puts the total turn out at 213,799,467x66.9% = 143,031,843 Biden received 81,281,502 votes Trump received 74,222,593 votes Total: 155,504,095 How do we reconcile the fact that Trump and Biden between them accrued 12,472,252 more votes than the official figure for eligible voters who turned out to vote?

That's a bit harsh labeling CNN a "partisan online media" just because they inadvertently published data that demolishes your narrative. I guess that's one way of dealing with your cognitive dissonance. "An uninformed reader might say that the courts have examined the evidence and have rejected the evidence of electoral fraud as insubstantial. And, indeed, the reader would have to be uninformed or misled by the lies of the presstitute media. The fact is this: No court has examined the evidence. No state court and not the US Supreme Court. The reason that the courts have not accepted the cases is that they do not want to have to examine the evidence, because the evidence clearly establishes that the election was stolen and that the theft was carefully planned in advance. The state courts in the swing states where the election was stolen are protecting the Democrats. The US Supreme Court refused to accept the case on the grounds that Texas did not have standing to bring a case. Clearly, there has been no judicial ruling on the evidence that the election was legitimate. The US Supreme Court will protect the Establishment and the Establishment’s reputation before it will protect electoral integrity. The evidence has been refused examination by the state and federal judiciary. So much for “American democracy.” So much for the “American Rule of Law.” No such rule exists. Law exists only for the purposes of the ruling Establishment. Power, not law, rules in America. The US Supreme Court is an Establishment institution. It makes controversial rulings only when it has the media on its side." https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/12/14/free-inquiry-r-i-p/ Yes another "partisan online media" Perhaps you'd like to direct us to some media outlets that are guaranteed free of partisanship in either direction?

Somehow I think if Trump had won the election and vote-switching from Biden to Trump had been caught live on air there would be a Judge somewhere agreeing to take on the case rather than hiding behind "standing". https://www.sgtreport.com/2020/11/five-videos-five-states-where-votes-were-switched-live-on-tv-away-from-president-trump-to-biden-updated/

Lockdown started mid March and it seems to me the infection rates did not begin to significantly decline until May, which could just as readily be explained by warmer weather allowing people to spend more time outdoors and greater exposure to sunlight boosting vitamin-d levels. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Not even sure they tried that very hard. My wife's uncle, 96 years old and suffering dementia but still living at home with carer support had a fall and was taken into hospital in Glasgow. According to his daughter he was in a ward with a Covid patient. My daughter-in-law is a nurse in a large Dundee hospital and says they do not segregate suspected Covid patients until confirmed diagnosis as it would be too resource costly to do otherwise.

Plus what the general public seem to believe the vaccine will do for them might be a tad optimistic. The "95% effective" claim sounds very impressive but that's referring to relative risk. If we only consider the 162 cases in the placebo group vs the 8 in the vaccine group then the maths work something like this: (162-8)/162x100 = 95% (voila 95% effective!) i.e. we assume that if the 162 in the placebo group had been in the vaccine group only 8 would have been infected, saving 154 from having Covid symptoms. But in fact there were also 21838 in the placebo group who did not get sick and if this is expressed in terms of absolute risk (Assuming an equal split between vaccine and placebo groups) we get: Placebo: Those in the placebo group had a (22000−162)÷22000×100=99.26% chance of not getting sick with Covid Vaccine: Those in the vaccine group had a (22000-8)÷22000×100=99.96% chance of not getting sick with Covid Therefore the vaccine reduces your chances of developing mild to moderate Covid symptoms by a grand total of 0.7% ~~~ There are slight variations on these figures floating around the interweb i.e. https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/95-vaccine-efficacy-not-so-fast/

Not anytime soon. But as I said in an earlier post I think it's going to be pretty well impossible for anyone to resist the level of coercion that will be applied long term. No jab = no work, no travel, no medical services etc etc

If only it were that simple: “The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination.” – The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as it may otherwise result in infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women. – The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance. This means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination. – The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow.” Dr. Mike Yeadon PhD, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory Disease

Personally I think a major factor for most will be the amount of coercion applied. Take away my right to travel, shop, work, access medical services and a multitude of other public scenarios and I will have no life anyway so I might as well take my chances with the vaccine, regardless of my own assessment of the risks vs benefits. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/09/medethics-2020-106821 "Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms."

Fair enough - time will tell.

Actually, thanks for the biology lesson, noted. I notice you did not respond to the issue concerning Transverse Myelitis apparently occurring at the rate of 1 in 4,500 in AstraZeneca vaccine test subjects (2 in 9000 assuming the 18,000 total cohort was spit evenly between vaccine and placebo) as opposed to 1 in 250,000 in the general population. And I'd still like an answer to my question whether the generation of spike proteins can be turned off if it turns out to be harmful in some individuals.

Well considering that "Every medication comes with a huge list of possible side effects" isn't it interesting that the government determined the existing ADR reporting mechanism, presumably used for all current drugs and medical procedures, was not fit for purpose to deal with the volume of ADRs expected to be generated by this particular type of vaccine?

Is there a way to stop the cells making the Covid Spike proteins in the event they cause a catastrophic immune reaction in a susceptible individual? Would repeating what the FDA consider the possible range of adverse events be spreading misinformation? https://youtu.be/wVspnL_3Gko 13:27

I very much doubt there will be proactive public reporting of ADRs as that would not play well with the "all vaccines are safe and effective" manta. Mild flu like symptoms would be classed as side-effects rather than Adverse Drug Reactions since it is expected most recipients of the vaccine (~80%) would experience them to some degree. Given the huge workload involved in rolling out the vaccine the chances of someone who experiences these expected symptoms successfully navigating receptionist triage to get an appointment with a GP or other medical professional in order to submit an ADR must be close to zero. ADRs are much more likely to be submitted when a reaction to the vaccine requires an actual medical intervention. Mild flu symptoms would not represent "a direct threat to patient life and public health" so that is not what is in view here. AstraZenica's trial was twice halted due to 2 vaccine recipients demonstrating neurological symptoms. It was determined the first had a previously undiagnosed case of Transverse Myelitis and the vaccine was not implicated. The details on the second are less clear but a "source" told the New York Times it was also transverse myelitis. Bearing in mind the normal incidence of TM is ~4 per million it stretches credulity that two previously un-diagnosed cases should spontaneously begin to exhibit symptoms shortly after vaccination in a cohort of only ~18,000 trial subjects. Transverse Myelitis has been recorded in some patients as a complication of Covid-19 infection. Given that the mode of operation of the mRNA vaccines is to (irreversibly) alter the recipient's genetic code to make the cells generate coronavirus-like fragments of DNA to prompt an enhanced immune response, is it too implausible that the vaccine has the capacity to trigger the same effect on the spinal cord as the infection itself?

Then hopefully we'll get daily updates on the number and severity of adverse reactions to the vaccine along with the Covid infections and deaths so we can all make informed decisions about the relative risks.

Still got warm and fuzzies about the vaccine? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML Short description: The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed Explanation: For reasons of extreme urgency under Regulation 32(2)(c) related to the release of a Covid-19 vaccine MHRA have accelerated the sourcing and implementation of a vaccine specific AI tool. Strictly necessary — it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health. Reasons of extreme urgency — the MHRA recognises that its planned procurement process for the SafetyConnect programme, including the AI tool, would not have concluded by vaccine launch. Leading to a inability to effectively monitor adverse reactions to a Covid-19 vaccine. Events unforeseeable — the Covid-19 crisis is novel and developments in the search of a Covid-19 vaccine have not followed any predictable pattern so far.

Looks like a good application for a few of these new fangled trail cameras...