Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

[Eduardo-]

I found several interesting pieces of the interview in youtube:





And here the full interview, probably to be taken down soon:



(I didn't see -still- the whole one)

[Schmidt]

(I didn't see -still- the whole one)

Well, these 3 hours have brightened a lot of the "still grey areas" in my own understanding of the whole thing...
definitely not a waste of anyones time.

Olaf

[Eduardo-]

Well, these 3 hours have brightened a lot of the "still grey areas" in my own understanding of the whole thing...
definitely not a waste of anyones time.

Olaf

OK, thanks for the info Olaf.
I think I'll watch it later.

[baka]

yeah. very good video. thx for sharing.

everybody should watch it.

edit:
some of what he says I already knew, but never this concentrated and well formulated and described.
he's a very intelligent person, humble and very knowledgeable.
3h is a lot, but I actually could listen the whole thing and it was interesting, even if the last 30 minutes I started to get tired, since theres a lot of information to digest.

he is not like dr david martin, that is a showman as well, and it makes it easy to just put him as a conspiracy theorist.
but Robert W. Malone seems legit, undeniable his long career and his achievements.
I encourage everyone to watch this youtube, even if you believe blindly your government, you should dare to challenge that, at least to feel you are satisfied with your choice and faith in Biden and Co.
its just 3h, and if you feel this was all garbage, at least you will feel good about your choice and you can continue your life.
but if your faith trembled, maybe this can help you find another perspective and belief, and hopefully make you a bit wiser.

[Eduardo-]

OK, thanks for the info Olaf.
I think I'll watch it later.

It worth watching the 3 hours.

everybody should watch it.

Yes!

[TysonLPrice]

This Robert Malone?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...keptic/619734/

Robert Malone—a medical doctor and an infectious-disease researcher—recently suggested that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might actually make COVID-19 infections worse. He chuckled as he imagined Anthony Fauci announcing that the vaccination campaign was all a big mistake (“Oh darn, I was wrong!”) and would need to be abandoned. When he floated that nightmare scenario during a recent podcast interview with Steve Bannon, both men seemed almost delighted at the prospect of public-health officials and pharmaceutical companies getting their comeuppance. “This is a catastrophe,” Bannon declared, beaming at his guest. “You’re hearing it from an individual who invented the mRNA [vaccine] and has dedicated his life to vaccines. He’s the opposite of an anti-vaxxer.”

[baka]

just watch the youtube, it will answer all the questions u have.

at least you get the answer from the man himself instead from other sources.

but: u do exactly what u want. I dont give a crap what u do with your life. its not my responsibility to help you.
I do this to myself, as I wouldn't like to be ignorant and nobody helped me. so I write for anyone out there that is seeking for clarity and understanding. if thats not you. I don't care at all.

[Schmidt]

Robert Malone—a medical doctor and an infectious-disease researcher—recently suggested that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might actually make COVID-19 infections worse.

What he was referring to, was a quite recent study from Danish-Scientists about the Omikron-Variant,
which showed "a negative effectiveness" for vaccinated people (contracting infection from Omikron).

In the longer interview (which you apparently dismissed outright), he even explains -
what might be behind such "negative effectiveness".

It's when your immune-system was trained "too much, too narrow" by the current vaccines -
answering to Omikron with a surge of "wrong, non-matching antibodies"...
(whereas the immune-system in the unvacced or natural-immune was acting "much less confused",
giving a "better matching answer" earlier).

Olaf

[TysonLPrice]

Dismissing these blogs that go against the mainstream scientific community is my first inclination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

Malone received criticism for propagating COVID-19 misinformation, including making unsupported claims about the toxicity of spike proteins generated by some COVID-19 vaccines;[2][17][4][29] using interviews on mass media to popularize medication with ivermectin;[30] and tweeting a study by others questioning vaccine safety that was later retracted.[2] He said that LinkedIn temporarily suspended his account over a post stating that the Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation was also a board member at Pfizer, and other posts questioning the efficacy of some COVID-19 vaccines.[31][32] Malone has also claimed that the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 infections.[1]

With another researcher, Malone successfully proposed to the publishers of Frontiers in Pharmacology a special issue featuring early observational studies on existing medication used in the treatment of COVID-19, for which they recruited other guest editors, contributors, and reviewers. The journal rejected two of the papers selected: one on famotidine co-authored by Malone and another submitted by physician Pierre Kory on the use of ivermectin.[28] The publisher rejected the ivermectin paper due to what it stated were "a series of strong, unsupported claims" which they determined did "not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution."[28] Malone and most other guest editors resigned in protest in April 2021, and the special issue has been pulled from the journal's website.[28]

I feel justified questioning that blog...

[sapator]

Wikipedia?!
OK, I mean reject him but...Wikipedia?!
(I haven't done a pro or con research so this is a neutral post but he invented MR.Nay if I am not mistaken)

[TysonLPrice]

Wikipedia?!
OK, I mean reject him but...Wikipedia?!
(I haven't done a pro or con research so this is a neutral post but he invented MR.Nay if I am not mistaken)

It is a constant work in progress and open to malicious behavior. I believe it has a reliable rating of around 80% though. I'll take it over the majority of the blogs other posters here put up. I definitely trust what was posted about Malone. You can cross check that. Did you try that before you attacked the source I used? Maybe on Twitter? Oh no - he is banned from there

[Shaggy Hiker]

The "wall of noise" defense. Hours of videos of one person stating their opinion.

I've encountered those before. If you make enough points, anybody who tries to refute them all will inevitably miss a few and also lose their audience. That doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them hopeless.

In the end, it appears to be a difference in view. Some of you seem to believe that the world is driven by an awesomely powerful, possibly sinister, possibly malevolent force with a purpose, which is either control, or money, or some such. It seems like you might be expecting that this malevolent force is making your life or your situation worse. To that end, you expect that everything that doesn't say that is therefore either part of the plot or at least an unwitting pawn of the plot. Unfortunately, that leaves you only youtube videos with unreliable sources on which to base your suspicions. If a paper that supports the position isn't published, it's because of the plot, not because it is badly written, logically flawed, or otherwise problematic. Still, it comes back to a certain desperation. If your world was sunny and all was right with your life, would you feel that there is this malevolent force? If so, you'd have to believe that the force is powerful, malevolent...and utterly ineffectual and futile. That seems difficult.

A different interpretation is that every fine cat deserves a fine rat. You don't have the Marvel superheroes attending school board meetings, conducting petitions for some kind of poverty measure, speaking at rallies, or fundraising for the local girl scouts. Perhaps one of the movies did have things like that, such as Spider Man doing some public meet and greet, but those scenes aren't fundamental to the plot. They are just there to show some aspect of the character. In reality, the struggles in life are kind of tawdry. Even the things we see quite clearly, such as operators in a programming language, turn out to be controversial. Other people have different views on the subject...EVERY subject. So, we end up struggling over every little thing. We are the fine cat, but the rat...is mediocre, mundane, and often meaningless. So, a big thing, such as a global pandemic, is the fine rat that we've all been waiting for....it's just that it's SO disappointing. If all you can do is get a vaccine, wear a mask, and trivial things like that....where's the nobility?

The bulk of the information says one thing. It could all be wrong, but it seldom is. A few pieces have been wrong...ish, but they were then changed. If you doubt the bulk of the information, go look for the underlying studies on which it is based. Many of the stories (at least in print) do cite their sources at least well enough to be tracked down, if not directly. However, beware of YouTube experts. They have something to sell, and you are the market. They may be right, they may be wrong, but they all have something to sell. And don't be thinking that COVID is the fine rat. It isn't, it's just another mediocre one.

[sapator]

I don't really use Wiki often. First and foremost on something I know, the Greek etymology research, there are misleading and kid like explanations there. But there was a good article about PacMan I've read.
Shaggy that was a good post, I enjoyed it.

[Eduardo-]

I can't believe that someone like you, Shaggy, say a nonsense like this. I though you were more intelligent.

[sapator]

No the post is very good, it can swing both ways, hope I understand this right....
Else, yes Shaggy, get lost!

[TysonLPrice]

Shaggy that was an a good post, I enjoyed it.

I can't believe that someone like you, Shaggy, say a nonsense like this. I though you were more intelligent.

Personally I liked the post. The last two comments show how we all see things differently. I'm making no other statement but that.

[sapator]

Yep.
I does not mean that if you don't agree you cannot appreciate a good post. That was a good post and his duality in there (at least that's how I can interpret it) and makes you think beyond.So kudos.

[Eduardo-]

[Schmidt]

Dismissing these blogs that go against the mainstream scientific community is my first inclination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

Tssk - please look at the "history-of-wiki-changes", to see at work -
the exact processes Malone describes in the 3h-interview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history
There's hundreds of changes of that article in the last few days.

I feel justified questioning that blog...

What blog?
It's an interview which was published on a wellknown YT-podcast -
and then taken down by YT.

The guy is genuine and the real deal - just voicing his doubts about a few things.
He's also not profiting in any way by "blowing the whistle" on a few inside infos.

What he risks instead is (further) defamation - as well as pollution+disregard of his life-time-accomplishments.

Here's a citation of a former colleague of him, which is quite telling:
Stan Gromkowski, a cellular immunologist who did work on mRNA vaccines in the early 1990s
and views Malone as an underappreciated pioneer, put it this way:
"He’s f...ing up his chances for a Nobel Prize."

I don't know how your brain works, but a citation like that - only makes me respect the guy more
(for speaking out, despite these potential consequences).

Olaf

[wes4dbt]

I can't believe that someone like you, Shaggy, say a nonsense like this. I though you were more intelligent.

Again it seems this view of "I'm highly intelligent" shows up. How else could you make such a statement unless your intelligence is superior enough to judge other peoples intelligence..

Which would be tolerable if it wasn't coupled with "the masses are morons".
Believing only us SMART PEOPLE can see the truth.

[Niya]

I don't see what the problem with Shaggy's post is. It's actually one of the more intelligent posts I've seen in a while.

[baka]

the youtube is removed
but u can still watch it here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1djruZNs6ROZ/

https://thepostmillennial.com/youtub...e-from-youtube

[TysonLPrice]

Tssk - please look at the "history-of-wiki-changes", to see at work -
the exact processes Malone describes in the 3h-interview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history
There's hundreds of changes of that article in the last few days.



What blog?
It's an interview which was published on a wellknown YT-podcast -
and then taken down by YT.

The guy is genuine and the real deal - just voicing his doubts about a few things.
He's also not profiting in any way by "blowing the whistle" on a few inside infos.

What he risks instead is (further) defamation - as well as pollution+disregard of his life-time-accomplishments.

Here's a citation of a former colleague of him, which is quite telling:
Stan Gromkowski, a cellular immunologist who did work on mRNA vaccines in the early 1990s
and views Malone as an underappreciated pioneer, put it this way:
"He’s f...ing up his chances for a Nobel Prize."

I don't know how your brain works, but a citation like that - only makes me respect the guy more
(for speaking out, despite these potential consequences).

Olaf

Instead of focusing on Wikipedia why don't you focus on looking him up and checking out the criticisms. Both pros and cons. And tell me what you came up with.

[baka]

its not his job to convince you.
if you don't want, just skip it and go on with your life.

[Niya]

What Shaggy is speaking of is something akin to confirmation bias, the tendency of people to seek out information that confirms their pre-conceived notions. It's a weakness that inhabits the vast majority of any group of people.

[Eduardo-]

Believing only us SMART PEOPLE can see the truth.

We would have to define "smart" for that case.

I don't believe that people with high IQ, for example able to do complex mental mathematical operations are "smarter" than other "normal" people with common sense that apply it in other things.

I believe that intelligence has many areas, or that there are different kind of intelligences.

So, yes, I think that many "normal" people are more intelligent in key areas (or important areas of life) that some other prominent people in some fields, that are highly intelligent but not for everything.

I'm talking more about being able to make good choices, than being able to solve complex abstract problems.

And related to that and what you stated in the text I'm quoting, I thing that seeing the truth is something intelligent, it is a choice, a smart one.
At the end everything becomes a matter of will. What you want, what you are seeking for.

Of course two years of lockdowns and the media insufflating fear in almost all channels, not being able to see our beloved ones, also seeing the damage to economy and people dying (if you are sensitive) played a role in paying more attention and trying to figure what is happening.

Otherwise we would just stayed "living la vida loca", and the "bad guys" would be there but who cares.

[Eduardo-]

the youtube is removed
but u can still watch it here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1djruZNs6ROZ/

https://thepostmillennial.com/youtub...e-from-youtube

If you need the subtitles, I have them:
DR Malone Joe Rogan deleted interview.zip

If you (anyone) want the video file, I also have it (it is around 400 MB), i can see where to upload it.

[Schmidt]

...the tendency of people to seek out information that confirms their pre-conceived notions.

If we replace "preconceived notions" with the simpler term "opinion",
then it goes without saying, that these personal opinions don't come out thin-air.

Personal opinions (for me) are a process:
- they are (and need to be) initiated and formed in the first place (by some "base-information")
- but that part has to be immediately followed by constant re-evaluation!

It's people who stick with that "singular version of opinion-initiation" (usually the spoon-fed one, from "official channels"),
the people who fail in applying the above mentioned latter part,
who are in parts responsible for all the weird things we've encountered in the last months.

Olaf

[Eduardo-]

[TysonLPrice]

its not his job to convince you.
if you don't want, just skip it and go on with your life.

I think he should back up his claims...

[wes4dbt]

What Shaggy is speaking of is something akin to confirmation bias, the tendency of people to seek out information that confirms their pre-conceived notions. It's a weakness that inhabits the vast majority of any group of people.

It's surprising how easily this happens. What's even more surprising is how we find a way to justify ignoring the other information, no matter how overwhelming

[Schmidt]

I think he should back up his claims...

He does so in the interview, you fear to listen to.

Olaf

[Eduardo-]

I think he should back up his claims...

He is saying that it is your job to do a critical investigation, and I think he already did (for him).

Or are you asking him to go to find any valid or not argument that anybody has risen about Dr. Malone and explain to you why they are wrong (or not)?

Of course these kind of things are not for lazy people.

if you don't want, just skip it and go on with your life.

[TysonLPrice]

What Shaggy is speaking of is something akin to confirmation bias, the tendency of people to seek out information that confirms their pre-conceived notions. It's a weakness that inhabits the vast majority of any group of people.

I didn't get that from the post. I thought it leaned more towards people believing in massive conspiracy plots by "people in power". And preferring those to factual information:

Some of you seem to believe that the world is driven by an awesomely powerful, possibly sinister, possibly malevolent force with a purpose, which is either control, or money, or some such. It seems like you might be expecting that this malevolent force is making your life or your situation worse. To that end, you expect that everything that doesn't say that is therefore either part of the plot or at least an unwitting pawn of the plot.

He wraps up saying:

The bulk of the information says one thing. It could all be wrong, but it seldom is. A few pieces have been wrong...ish, but they were then changed. If you doubt the bulk of the information, go look for the underlying studies on which it is based. Many of the stories (at least in print) do cite their sources at least well enough to be tracked down, if not directly. However, beware of YouTube experts. They have something to sell, and you are the market. They may be right, they may be wrong, but they all have something to sell. And don't be thinking that COVID is the fine rat. It isn't, it's just another mediocre one.

Now maybe I have what he meant completely wrong. I didn't see it as people seeking out bias, but rather, being unduly influenced by it.

[Schmidt]

What's even more surprising is how we find a way to justify ignoring the other information,
no matter how overwhelming

Says someone, who's trusting *only* the official channels -
and doesn't even look at additional informations, which might contradict the official versions.

It's not really wholesome, when you only accept "half the info available to you".

Olaf

[TysonLPrice]

He does so in the interview, you fear to listen to.

Olaf

I'm talking about the OP. I can back up my claims from multiple sources. Your defense is more like me to blindly accept the interview and not question the source.

[baka]

TysonLPrice.
we could have a good discussion "after" you watched the video.
so we have the same material in hand.
if you dismiss the entire video, and instead base your arguments from wiki or some blog or whatever, it means we are not in the same page.
is this about "I want the upper hand" so I'm ahead of you strategy? for what purpose? I don't care.

I thought the most important thing is the search for truth, and to do that we need to listen to all sides.

this person, is not a nobody, he is x1000 above our level of understanding virus, vaccines, immune system etc.
he give a good speech of all kinds of things, how it works, his history in all this, about the vaccines, the virus etc.
he is pro-vaccine, that his life work, he was part of the team that created mRNA vaccine and he is part of many organizations and teams working with this stuff.

so, you could just listen to him for 3 hours just for that knowledge, from a scientist point of view.

if you dismiss it, I would think, why? why is it that hard to listen to that guy? are you scared?
and if so, why? I mean, Im not scared of anything. I can listen to anybody. I mean, I can listen to any person, even Fauci. no problem. and its not that everything he says is BS. a lot of truth, a lot of good, but theres also inconsistency and that we understand if you check facts, what he say in different dates and what kind of projects he has been up to.

but, to dismiss a person without even giving him a chance, that tells theres a paranoia here. you are scared to death.

[wes4dbt]

Says someone, who's trusting *only* the official channels -
and doesn't even look at additional informations, which might contradict the official versions.

It's not really wholesome, when you only accept "half the info available to you".

Olaf

What a crap statement. You have no idea where or how I get my information. All you know is my opinions don't follow your narrative. So you justify your narrative by saying "who's trusting *only* the official channels "

Thanks for proving my point. lol

[TysonLPrice]

Says someone, who's trusting *only* the official channels -
and doesn't even look at additional informations, which might contradict the official versions.

It's not really wholesome, when you only accept "half the info available to you".

Olaf

That is a fine example of gleaning out of a post what you want to prove a point

You did exactly what you are accusing me of.

[sapator]

Regardless, we can all trust Wikipedia

I would advice against a prove of document war. We all know how "well" it ended before.