gearhog

This goes here. (With one exception)

Someone recorded a highly detailed Taiwan Straits war planning meeting in Guangdong province. Fascinating stuff. Troop, ship, and aircraft numbers are discussed, along with fishing boat militias, domestic propaganda campaigns, and use of big data and health systems to aid in rapid recruitment. CCP publishes this across most major Chinese media outlets today: https://www.sohu.com/a/550108041_121094251

That's so ridiculous. Bill Gates is on record as saying the faster we improve health, the faster the birth rate declines. He's wants us all to be healthier, not more sick.

That was hilariously awkward.

True. But it is also worth nothing that the CDC has already advised that although it is effective, people who haven't received the smallpox vaccine in the last 3 years, should get it again to protect against Monkeypox. Enter the pox "booster" programs, mandates, passes, contact tracing, etc, etc, etc... https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/smallpox-vaccine.html#:~:text=pre-event setting.-,Vaccine Effectiveness,85% effective in preventing monkeypox.

Only a handful of cases, and the POTUS is already pitching a new vaccine. "Well, they haven't told me the level of exposure yet, but it is something that everybody should be concerned about. We're working on it hard to figure out what we do and what vaccine, if any, may be available for it.“ - Joe Biden, earlier today at Osan Air Base. There have been 92 cases of monkeypox worldwide as of May 21, Latest World Health Organization (WHO) data. There were only at most five cases in the U.S. at that time.

Pfizer's CEO yesterday: "Google, what is the largest criminal settlement?" https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=largest+criminal+settlement

I would agree with you that overpopulation is likely not the problem some may think it is. However, energy and resource consumption per capita has been an exponential upward curve since at least the 1970s. It's a math problem. I have no idea when we reach the limits of growth, but I think it's distant. Nature tends to revert to the mean and I trust that process. However, you're wrong in thinking there are not groups and organizations who believe the problem is imminent, and must be corrected. Back in the 1970s when "Limits to Growth" was published, it was met with a lot of resistance. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker famously said its predictions failed to account for human ingenuity and perseverance and the laws of economics are an inevitable balancing force. He was right, and the economic boom followed his policies. I digress... Subsequently, it was determined by these groups that democracies and competing nations cannot be relied upon to act in the best interest of the planet. It wouldn't be such a stretch to suggest that the best way to enable an agenda for sustainable growth would be to circumvent democracies and act outside national borders. The best way to accomplish this would not be appealing to the public, (that's a proven failure) but to recruit and form partnerships of wealth and power (decision makers) that can force policy. It doesn't sound like you subscribe to these ideas that the world is ending, and I don't either. But there are people who do, and they've put a lot of thought into how to bring human consumption under control. If you can control the economy, you can decide what and how much people can consume (CBDC). CBDCs need an infrastructure that the general public, at least in free democracies, won't willingly adopt. A global health pass system is effectively that infrastructure, while fear is the perfect motivator. Pandemics can incite enough fear to get people to accept a very different system in a short period of time, but are not nearly as deadly or destructive as the alternatives.

Slow down. I have no idea what your beliefs are, but imagine yourself as someone who believes that humanity is on an unsustainable path (see tragedy of the commons). That you have gone to great lengths to study and predict worst-case scenario outcomes. Maybe you've come up with some crazy ideas on how to fix the future. Some of them make sense, and some are terrible. At the same time, you consider yourself a good person. After all, you think you're going to save humanity, not destroy it. Genocide would be evil. Aside from the moral and ethical downsides, policies of evil typically don't have long term success rates in human history. Again, I know nothing about you. But if you were in this dilemma, how would you reconcile the need to curb human consumption (/reproduction), yet avoid committing evil deeds? Perhaps it would be frustrating that people either can't see or don't care about the future you're convinced we're destined for. You might feel justified in placing someone in a position to make the choice for themselves. Choose life, albeit at the expense of prosperity and freedoms, or choose a great risk to your personal health. Should too many people choose the latter... up the stakes.

The point being: just as before, these events are rehearsed before they are implemented. It's not that they're good guessers. Global non-governmental organizations know the ends they mean to achieve, but the outcomes haven't been nearly as predictable as was thought. Unlimited growth in a finite system has consequences. Those who have the means and ability to look into the future can see what's coming. World economies are now dependent upon the financialization of continued economic growth. When they can no longer grow, they don't decline, they tend to collapse. However, if you want to attempt a managed decline in worldwide prosperity, you need methods by which you can control and manipulate a global population as they become unhappier, and angrier. Happiness is not a position, it's a trajectory.

Remember, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html https://t.co/XFi48NoGPb https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1527574636631928832?s=20&t=AFDelmdbs8x_WLLJEypEGw

The most ironic post I've ever seen on this forum. To be fair, I wholeheartedly agree with you. 1000%!

Got it. And he does admit to doing everything. The "Snowden is a hero/traitor" is subject I can't argue well because I can't first win either side of the debate in my own head. On one hand, he lied, he stole, he gave up state secrets, he knowingly broke the law, and he fully expected to face the consequences. He made that choice. We can't let that go unpunished, lest we have any jerkoff with classified information and a bone to pick with the government going public. On the other, I remember the ideas that the government has the technology and desire to listen to and track any American citizen domestically being the regarded as crazy conspiracy theories prior to Snowden. The problem being, he couldn't reveal the ways in which the intelligence communities were violating the trust of the American public without also revealing our capabilities against foreign adversaries. These programs were apparently created and executed with no distinction between the two. Now that our government is suggesting large swaths of the American public are potential domestic terrorists, and therefore enemies, I think it's important to know how our intelligence communities intend to go after those people. I understand being a superpower is a messy business, but there is significant potential that power to be abused. In the end, I lean toward believing we should remain an accountable democracy and sunlight is the best disinfectant.

There's no way you voted Libertarian. 😄

No trial, no jury, just straight to the death penalty, eh? Hate to pick on you, brother, but I'm going to challenge ideas I don't agree with. Not for fun, not because I like stepping on toes and getting people worked up, but because I see things that are clearly wrong. I can think of three instances here in the last week or so of death being the consequence of a perceived crime. Just straight up advocating for execution. One person said he'd dole out the death penalty himself because the unvaccinated didn't deserve hospital treatment. But it's not just here and actually, I think overall the people who frequent this forum are far more reasonable than the public at large. In Snowden's case, anyone who really wanted to could start with the death of a soldier and create a cause/effect chain of events that would somehow link to Snowden. So offing that a-hole is justified, right? But what would that process look like, and could it be applied elsewhere? Snowden did a, a caused b, b->c, d, e, f, and then people died. =Traitor. =Death. Milley did a. a->z. =Traitor. =Death. Biden =Traitor. =Death. Racist =Nazi =Death. The Unvaccinated =Murderers =Death. Republicans, Democrats, the Rich, etc. More people are wishing death on other individuals and groups due to ideological differences, and the threshold seems to be getting lower. This doesn't end well. This is related to the earlier vid I posted. Great stuff. Today, you likely consider the idea of "Genocide" hyperbole. At some point in your lifetime, you won't. It happens with Tyranny and the seeds are being planted.

The National Science Foundation is funding the University of California, Riverside's research into putting mRNA vaccines in your food. Isn't technology wonderful? https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2021/09/16/grow-and-eat-your-own-vaccines The project’s goals, made possible by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, are threefold: showing that DNA containing the mRNA vaccines can be successfully delivered into the part of plant cells where it will replicate, demonstrating the plants can produce enough mRNA to rival a traditional shot, and finally, determining the right dosage. “Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person,” said Juan Pablo Giraldo, an associate professor in UCR’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences who is leading the research, done in collaboration with scientists from UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University. https://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2134535&HistoricalAwards=false "This project aims to enable rapid manufacturing of oral vaccines against viruses in plants without the need of specialized equipment or skills. Current vaccine manufacturing technologies need expensive laboratory facilities and cold-chain delivery systems that result in slow and unequal access of vaccines to people. This study combines ideas and approaches from the engineering of particles, chloroplast genetics, and plant molecular farming, to turn chloroplasts of edible plant leaves like spinach or lettuce into biomanufacturing devices for vaccine production. "

Correct. I did make a mistake in the way I worded it. I didn't intend to say these kids doubled in weight. That wouldn't make sense. My mistake. But here's the important part: In a longitudinal cohort of 432,302 persons aged 2–19 years with outpatient visits, the monthly rate of increase in BMI nearly doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with a prepandemic period. The estimated proportion of persons aged 2–19 years with obesity in this care-seeking cohort also increased during the pandemic; for example, 19.3% of persons had obesity in August 2019 compared with 22.4% 1 year later. These findings are consistent with a recent study of Kaiser Permanente data that reported significant weight gain and increased obesity prevalence during the pandemic among children and adolescents aged 5–17 years in Southern California (4). The present study is the largest and first geographically diverse analysis to assess the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with BMI and the first to show results by initial BMI category. Dring March–November 2020, persons with moderate or severe obesity gained on average 1.0 and 1.2 pounds per month, respectively. Weight gain at this rate over 6 months is estimated to result in 6.1 and 7.3pounds, respectively, compared with 2.7 pounds in a person with healthy weight. Accelerated weight gain, especially among children with overweight or obesity, can cause long-lasting metabolic changes that put children at risk for serious and costly co-occurring conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and depression (5,6).

Pfizer and BioNTech says vaccines are safe for children and seeking emergency authorization by the end of the month. Really? Remember when Boeing engineers at the FAA said the Boeing 737 Max was completely safe? https://www.wsj.com/articles/pfizer-biontech-say-covid-19-vaccine-is-safe-for-young-children-generates-immune-response-11632134701 Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, circulated this study this morning. If you have kids, it's worth reading this. Why are we vaccinating children? 14 Sept 2021: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X#! First, where is the data justifying inoculation for children, much less most people under forty? It's not found on Fig. 1, where the most vulnerable are almost exclusively the elderly with many comorbidities [83]. Yet, in the USA, Pfizer has been approved to inoculate children 12–17, and the goal is to accomplish this by the start of the school year in the Fall. As stated previously, there are plans to inoculate children as young as six months starting before the end of 2021. What is the rush for a group at essentially zero risks [84]? Given that the inoculations were tested only for a few months, only very short-term adverse effects could be obtained. It is questionable how well even these short-term effects obtained from the clinical trials reflect the short-term effects from the initial mass inoculation results reported in VAERS [84]. The injection goes two steps further than the wild virus because 1) it contains the instructions for making the spike protein, which several experiments are showing can cause vascular and other forms of damage, and 2) it bypasses many front-line defenses of the innate immune system to enter the bloodstream directly in part. Unlike the virus example, the injection ensures there will always be some combustible materials on the floor, even if there are no other toxic exposures or behaviors. In other words, the spike protein and the surrounding LNP are toxins with the potential to cause myriad short-, mid-, and long-term adverse health effects even in the absence of other contributing factors! Where and when these effects occur will depend on the biodistribution of the injected material. Pfizer’s own biodistribution studies have shown the injected material can be found in myriad critical organs throughout the body, leading to the possibility of multi-organ failure. And these studies were from a single injection. Multiple injections and booster shots may have cumulative effects on organ distributions of inoculant! The COVID-19 reported deaths are people who died with COVID-19, not necessarily from COVID-19. Likewise, the VAERS deaths are people who have died following inoculation, not necessarily from inoculation. On the former issue, CDC admits that ˜94 % of the reported deaths could have been attributed to one or more of the comorbidities, thereby reducing the CDC's numbers attributed strictly to COVID-19 to about 35,000 for all age groups. Given the number of high false positives from the high amplification cycle PCR tests, and the willingness of healthcare professionals to attribute death to COVID-19 in the absence of tests or sometimes even with negative PCR tests, this 35,000 number is probably highly inflated as well.

Thank you. I asked multiple times for a references and you finally produced an evolutionary biologist and an infectious disease epidemiologist. Given your distaste for homework, I'm sure it was an unpleasant experience to actually find a supporting hypothesis. The guys you are quoted are probably smart guys. However, they didn't actually do any research in the editorial piece you're quoting. They just linked to the research of others... Reasearch that, by the way, is "couched in caveats, statistical uncertainty, and specificity of their application" 😄 It is also important to note that patterns of within-host evolution may differ in individuals with vaccine or infection-induced immunity. Whether antigenic escape mutations arise and are selected within individuals with prior immune exposure remains an open question. Understanding the degree to which within-host evolution is shaped by vaccine and infection-induced immunity, both within-host and globally, will be critical for evaluating the pace of SARS-CoV-2 evolution in the future. That means that the bottlenecks can occur in both vaccine and natural immunity, and that the science is unclear. Certainly not clear enough to proceed with an experimental vaccine with so many questions surrounding it. There is evidence to support multiple theories. The CDC says we have over 83% of the population with COVID-19 immunity present. What would you like to see? 100%? Given the language you're prone to using when posting on the subject ("The virus is still running rampant and unchecked all over the world!"), I highly encourage you to first watch the video I earlier posted regarding "Mass Hysteria" and "Delusions of Totalitarian Psychosis". Then I'll just ask you this: What is it you're hoping to achieve? I don't want to waste my time down here in the weeds unless I know exactly where you're headed with this. Maybe you're just being contrarian and enjoy the game. Maybe you honestly believe a global forced vaccination plan will make the world a better place. If you wouldn't mind, please describe in a reasonable amount of detail, what your desired end state is, and how we achieve it.

A few here that I’ve quarreled with may ask why I’m going hard on this topic. The answer is in here. See if you can find it.

I'll ask, once again, for you to specify the "experts" to which you a deferring all substantiations for this argument. Who said this is not happening with COVID? So the reason we have an increasing amount of variants is not because viruses mutate and create branches on the genomic tree, but because scientists are just looking for and finding previously existing related genomes? That makes no sense. Again, who is saying this? The answer to your question is in the link I provided. You should read the entire paper because you must not have. Imperfect vaccines that only lesson the symptoms, drive the mutations which benefit from virulence without the cost to the host. It's the same process which drives antibiotic resistant bacteria. You get a imperfect vaccine created for an unknown virus genome, and you may not know you're sick when you get COVID. Viruses mutations that the vaccine wasn't tailor made specifically for are allowed to replicate and spread unbeknownst to you. I get a COVID infection, know I'm sick, take the appropriate therapeutics and measures while my body creates anti-bodies for the exact genome that I am infected with. Here are some "experts" you can refer specifically to in the future:

The cure is worse than the disease. Obesity is the #1 comorbidity - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-020-0640-5 The CDC just released research that says Body Mass Index in kids doubled during pandemic, making them even more susceptible to a wide rage of illnesses. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037a3.htm?s_cid=mm7037a3_w

Found this in less than a minute, but there's an endless supply of similar research. What's the probability of a rushed to market experiemental vaccine being "leaky?". https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198 Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts. There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (“hotter”) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so “hot” that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves. Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease. The future challenge is to identify whether there are other types of vaccines used in animals and humans that might also generate these evolutionary risks.

Just a 2 min video. These comments were on September 1. How is he still the CJCS? All three of the points he made here have turned out to be false. Was he ignorant of the truth, trying to stretch the truth, or knowingly saying things that weren't true?