Fed Up With Your Country? Where Is Left to Go?

[MJ DeMarco]

Jesus f*ck. I give up. You are so brainwashed this has gone beyond humor now. Wow. Just f*cking wow.

Yes, he's the forum's poster-child that helps us get a pulse on what the zombified mob is thinking.

In other words, his brain is owned by CNN, FOX, NPR, and the NY Times -- he keeps us updated into the latest mainstream brainwashing, without having us to visit any of the aforementioned propaganda outlets.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

he keeps us updated into the latest mainstream brainwashing, without having us to visit any of the aforementioned propaganda outlets.

Well, the brainwashing is working it seems.

Seems he read the booked "Scripted".

 

[YanC]

When I moved abroad with my kids many years ago I considered 2 viewpoints:

1- This will be difficult with kids and maybe I should wait until they are out of school

2- It is selfish of me to intentionally deprive my kids of the life experience of living abroad when I know I can make it happen.

I chose #2.

I'm not disparaging anyone for their choices, just sharing my own internal thought process there.

Today my daughter travels the world for her work and has dual citizenship and has lived in half a dozen countries.

My middle son has taken a more conservative approach but this living and traveling abroad opened his mind up and made him a more confident person.

My youngest is a teen and has been to 25-30 countries and has friends all over the world.

I would never trade these life experiences for my kids in exchange for the white picket fence comfort.

Thanks for writing this. I'm at a point in my life where I'm starting to think about these family things, but more afraid than ever that it will not be in my country. I don't mind moving, I've been doing so for 10 years but the idea of involving family makes me anxious. Glad to hear how well it can go.

 

[Deleted85763]

We need something, but what we have now I don't think is even close to what we need. The fact that there is abuse all over the world from respective police forces as a matter of course kind of highlights this.

We also need the ability to defend ourselves. I know in Canada you are expected to lay down and take it. Fighting back gets you in more trouble than the criminals. I want to live somewhere that if need be, I can defend my family in the moment and not hope for some fantasy force to come save us.

Well, the brainwashing is working it seems.

Seems he read the booked "Scripted".

It is absolutely true that the Los Angeles County sheriff has stated recently they will not enforce the recent reintroduction of the mask mandate. This is exactly my point - the police are the backbone of the pursuit of happiness and that it is becoming more and more widely accepted by the police themselves that they exist to protect people's rights and property and are not beholden to those who order them to do otherwise.

I'm brainwashed? No, I'm actually correctly observing what's going on and doing my small part to make the world the best place it can be for everyone, including you.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

Thanks for writing this. I'm at a point in my life where I'm starting to think about these family things, but more afraid than ever that it will not be in my country. I don't mind moving, I've been doing so for 10 years but the idea of involving family makes me anxious. Glad to hear how well it can go.

It'll go as well as you make it. For sure traveling with kids is not for everyone. It takes a certain personality type that is very open to change and able to rapidly adjust.

Not everyone can do that.

If you think you can make it work, then I'm certain you can.

 

[GlobalWealth]

the police are the backbone of the pursuit of happiness

That is some nazi level brainwashing. Now I'm thinking you may just be a troll.

doing my small part to make the world the best place it can be for everyone, including you.

Just out of curiosity (and selfish amusement at this point), how exactly are you making the world a better place for me?

 

[GPM]

Robertwills probably has a day job to post propaganda on forums. It would be interesting to see what time he posts and if it lines up with some desk job.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

Robertwills probably has a day job to post propaganda on forums. It would be interesting to see what time he posts and if it lines up with some desk job.

At this point I'd guess he has a government job. Nothing says "providing value" like taking a job as a parasite.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

No, I'm actually correctly observing

 

[Deleted85763]

At this point I'd guess he has a government job. Nothing says "providing value" like taking a job as a parasite.

We agree on something!

How am I making the world a better place for you? First of all I said I'm doing my "small part". I believe in the profound idea of "Be the person you want the world to be.". I know culture and I know that it is created by all the small things that people pass on to one another. It's literally like a contagious virus. That's why when you step over the border from say France into Germany the culture is radically different.

So to answer your question, I do my small part in ways that are always aligned for the good - I am tolerant to everyone and everything, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of anyone else. I believe in helping my neighbors. Sharing good information with my neighbors and the world. Taking care of the environment by not littering, riding my bicycle and walking everywhere. I don't belittle people. I don't play games. I give people a break when they're down. I do what I say. I obey traffic laws. That may not seem like "I'm making the world a better place." but if everyone did exactly what I do it would be a great place to be in - Peace, prosperity, health and happiness.

Don't think I'm a pushover or some hippy, flower child. I also have an intense fighting spirit when people violate my or other people's rights, and I've never lost where I took them on. I know how to use time efficiently and dig really deep to get the winning results.

So yes, if there were not people in the world that do what I do you may not have had the "luxury" of being able to communicate with people all over the world like you do today.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WillHurtDontCare]

This post is about mindset rather than a specific, practical action plan. It's about pointing out that you will run into problems everywhere, which doesn't matter because you can solve them. It's kind of a rant, because as Nietzsche said: "a thought comes when it will, not when I will."

A big mistake that people make is thinking that having problems is a bad thing. Solving problems is what makes life worthwhile. Do you think that Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar were remembered because they had easy lives? No! They were remembered because they led very, very difficult lives and they constantly overcame their problems.

One of the worst parts of American propaganda is that instills a total sense of helplessness in people. They do this by deluging you with awful problems via the news and social media and by focusing on problems that are too big for most people to do anything about.

Human existence has always been difficult and will always be difficult, so the real issue isn't that any particular is a shit show, the real issues are 1) that most people don't think that they can actually influence their political environment 2) that no one has a clear alternative to the world that we're living in.

Problem 1 is the direct result of propaganda and a life of soul-sucking comfort than can be remedied by deliberately imposing meaningful hardship on oneself and overcoming it. Problem 2 is more complicated - it's easy to bitch about how bad things are, it's difficult to tell thousands or millions of people a vision that would actually be better.

I think that finding robust solutions to Ca$hvertising's Lifeforce 8 is a good place to start (see below, though I'd change "freedom from" fear, pain, & danger to "a proper relation with" because those things are necessary under the right conditions).

Most people would be happy enough with 1) control over their time 2) good friends 3) attractive & loving spouses 4) being physically fit 5) some meaningful group project to work on (business, social, religious, etc)

I'm not going to tell you to ignore the increasing tyranny of most governments around the globe, but merely to tell you that you can carve out your own little enclaves where you don't need a supportive government because you know how to build things yourselves.

"The healthy man asks not for so much for happiness as for an opportunity to exercise his capacities. And if he must pay the penalty of pain for this freedom and this power, he makes it cheerfully - it is not too great a price. We need resistance to raise us, as it raises the airplane or the bird. We need obstacles against which to sharpen our strength and stimulate our growth. Life without tragedy would be unworthy of a man."

Ca$hvertising's lifeforce 8

1. Survival, enjoyment of life, life extension
2. Enjoyment of food and beverages
3. Freedom from fear, pain, and danger
4. Sexual companionship
5. Comfortable living conditions
6. To be superior, winning, keeping up with the Joneses
7. Care and protection of loved ones
8. Social approval

I'll try to update this later. I have to get back to work.

 

[Deleted85763]

This post is about mindset rather than a specific, practical action plan. It's about pointing out that you will run into problems everywhere, which doesn't matter because you can solve them. It's kind of a rant, because as Nietzsche said: "a thought comes when it will, not when I will."

A big mistake that people make is thinking that having problems is a bad thing. Solving problems is what makes life worthwhile. Do you think that Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar were remembered because they had easy lives? No! They were remembered because they led very, very difficult lives and they constantly overcame their problems.

One of the worst parts of American propaganda is that instills a total sense of helplessness in people. They do this by deluging you with awful problems via the news and social media and by focusing on problems that are too big for most people to do anything about.

Human existence has always been difficult and will always be difficult, so the real issue isn't that any particular is a shit show, the real issues are 1) that most people don't think that they can actually influence their political environment 2) that no one has a clear alternative to the world that we're living in.

Problem 1 is the direct result of propaganda and a life of soul-sucking comfort than can be remedied by deliberately imposing meaningful hardship on oneself and overcoming it. Problem 2 is more complicated - it's easy to bitch about how bad things are, it's difficult to tell thousands or millions of people a vision that would actually be better.

I think that finding robust solutions to Ca$hvertising's Lifeforce 8 is a good place to start (see below, though I'd change "freedom from" fear, pain, & danger to "a proper relation with" because those things are necessary under the right conditions).

Most people would be happy enough with 1) control over their time 2) good friends 3) attractive & loving spouses 4) being physically fit 5) some meaningful group project to work on (business, social, religious, etc)

I'm not going to tell you to ignore the increasing tyranny of most governments around the globe, but merely to tell you that you can carve out your own little enclaves where you don't need a supportive government because you know how to build things yourselves.

"The healthy man asks not for so much for happiness as for an opportunity to exercise his capacities. And if he must pay the penalty of pain for this freedom and this power, he makes it cheerfully - it is not too great a price. We need resistance to raise us, as it raises the airplane or the bird. We need obstacles against which to sharpen our strength and stimulate our growth. Life without tragedy would be unworthy of a man."

Ca$hvertising's lifeforce 8

1. Survival, enjoyment of life, life extension
2. Enjoyment of food and beverages
3. Freedom from fear, pain, and danger
4. Sexual companionship
5. Comfortable living conditions
6. To be superior, winning, keeping up with the Joneses
7. Care and protection of loved ones
8. Social approval

I'll try to update this later. I have to get back to work.

You have some really good insights but you haven't touched upon the fact that place does matter. There are different realities created and some of these realities greatly affect happiness. For example, I currently live in the US. When I go in public I see at least half the people are very overweight to obese. Most are overweight. I would also say there are very few people over 80 out and about.

Now contrast that with northern and southern western Europe. The majority of people are trim and lean,there are very few obese people, and you have many 80+ year old's actively engaged in society, walking, running, riding bicycles and living like they were 40! That's a quality of life that comes from actually being there for long periods of time.

The reverse is true, too. Move to Alabama USA and in time most people get fat and don't make it to 80. Quality of life is no where near that of Europe.

So while you can carve out a great life it's far better to carve when out in an environment where you are most happy. The unfortunate thing is many people do not even know there are better environments for them.

 

[GIlman]

​

​

Dr. Pierre Kory testified to lawmakers in December about promising COVID treatment ivermectin​

Physician slams YouTube's 'extremely misguided' decision to pull Senate testimony about COVID treatment

Dr. Pierre Kory is speaking out after YouTube took drastic action by removing his recent Senate testimony that discussed a promising coronavirus treatment.

www.foxnews.com

This doctor spoke at a Senate hearing and got censored/removed from Youtube​

"The drug, which is used to treat tropical diseases caused by parasites, showed promising results in a study performed in Argentina last year. In the study, 788 healthcare workers received ivermectin, while another 407 did not. Not a single person who received ivermectin contracted C0VlD-19, while more than half of the group who did not receive ivermectin did contract the virus."



Ivermectin is very cheap and could be widely available, it could end the pandemic.

Yes, ivermectin is one of the therapeutics I was referring to in my last post. Here is the situation with ivermectin.

there have been several studies such as the one you referenced with the health care workers, that have shown high effectiveness to a very high statistical probability. There are many different studies that have also shown effectiveness.

There are also some studies where ivermectin was not effective, but like all things you have to look at the details. These studies that did not show therapeutic effect were in very sick like ICU patients. Here’s the thing though, with viruses, once the cat is completely out of the bag antivirals typically are not effective. We know this from past experience with drugs like tamiflu for flu.

The CDC and people that push against ivermectin say we need a large randomized controlled trial as if that is the only acceptable evidence in medicine.

There has been a large meta-analysis of the existing studies which is the next step typically above a randomized controlled study. If your not familiar, a meta analysis looks at a large number of studies and basically takes all the data to see what the effect is across all the studies.

This meta analysis showed ivermectin to be highly effective for prevention (prophylaxis) as well as early treatment.

But here is the problem with the medical authorities insisting on large scale randomized controlled trials as the only standard they will accept, they are extremely expensive. Think like $20 million, but is the CDC putting up funding to look into this drug….nope. Is private industry ponying up to pay for such a study…nope.

Historically ivermectin has been an very safe drug, used in Africa long term as prevention of river blindness. In fact many of you are probably familiar with Ivermectin if you are dog owners (don’t take your dogs medication, that’s not what I’m saying). You know that heart worm drug you give your dog, it’s typically Ivermectin.

So we have a drug that has been widely used, safe as far as drugs are safe, that shows a high degree of effectiveness in the meta analysis and other studies out there. But we can’t give it for Covid because it’s unproven and therefore risky.

Lets shift gears for a second, what about the other therapeutics like Remdesivir? It was rushed into the war against Covid, with no long term safety data, and limited studies on the effectiveness of Covid. But it’s something like $1000 a dose (I don’t know the exact amount I just know it’s expensive). Yet this was recommended by the CDC in their treatment protocols.

What about the vaccine, we skipped animal studies, for instance there was no study of reproductive toxicity. There were then limited trials of use in humans, which has caused a huge number of short term side effects, and we have zero long term data. On top of this we are not even rigorously tracking the side effects and deaths.

In a typical emergency use authorization there is rigorous data collection. They follow and follow up patients to see what happens. Ask anyone around you who has gotten the vaccine, how many times after the shot have the received follow up calls or contact about their problems. There are two systems vsafe and Vaers which are voluntary reporting databases. There is a lot of noise and any side effect signal you see is a massive under estimation because they are voluntary reporting.

Yet we are told that this vaccine is the safest most studied vaccine in history. That is an obvious lie, we don’t know what the long term safety is because there is no data since it’s so new, and it’s not being as rigorously studied like it should be.

Now what about general safety of vaccines? Vaccines can be some of the more dangerous therapies we give. Think about a typical drug, it may damage an organ or do something bad while it’s in your system, but when you stop giving it the damage typically stops (although you may have to live your life with the consequences of that damage for life).

A vaccine in comparison actually changes your biology, it causes your immune system to respond in a different way than it did before, typically forever. So once vaxinated there is no way to remove and revert to the unvaxinated state.

So compare if you will the standard required for Ivermectin and other cheaper drugs compared to new drugs and vaccines. They are light years different. The “safety”, ivermectin is about as safe as any drug and we have massive experience in billions of doses and decades of experience. Vaccines, new fancy therapeutics, long term safety unknowable because long term safety is determined by time which you can’t speed up.

To me what I believe is happening is we are entering into a world of the Medical Industrial Complex. This is a world where there is coordination and protection by the very agencies that are suppose to regulate the pharmaceutical companies to help accelerate and push their drugs. I have heard, but have not verified, that Fauci has a financial interest in the mRNA technology…take that as a rumor unless you dig out the actual details.

There is one other change I am seeing, that scares the hell out of me. I’ve been referring to it as medical communism. In the past we believed in individualized care. The doctor and the patient discuss that patient and what is right or appropriate for them, all the context of what is right for the patient.


Now we are talking about every human on earth being vaxinated, the rational is that you could in theory harm someone else if they get sick, so your health and well being should be secondary. If you don’t take it you will be punished and unable to participate in society.

I am not anti vaccine, in fact I recommended my parents get it because they are older and therefore at significant risk. For my children in their early twenties I have encouraged them to wait, because their risk is minimal from Covid and risk especially long term from the vaccine unknown. That is how medicine is suppose to be practiced, individual by individual.

That is a truly horrifying change of perspective, in that view we are just cogs as long as the machine is better we are disposable.

In general I dig a lot. I don’t trust the words of experts, I dig into the studies and data and use that to decide if I agree or disagree with the opinion and recommendations of any one person.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Deleted85763]

Yes, ivermectin is one of the therapeutics I was referring to in my last post. Here is the situation with ivermectin.

there have been several studies such as the one you referenced with the health care workers, that have shown high effectiveness to a very high statistical probability. There are many different studies that have also shown effectiveness.

There are also some studies where ivermectin was not effective, but like all things you have to look at the details. These studies that did not show therapeutic effect were in very sick like ICU patients. Here’s the thing though, with viruses, once the cat is completely out of the bag antivirals typically are not effective. We know this from past experience with drugs like tamiflu for flu.

The CDC and people that push against ivermectin say we need a large randomized controlled trial as if that is the only acceptable evidence in medicine.

There has been a large meta-analysis of the existing studies which is the next step typically above a randomized controlled study. If your not familiar, a meta analysis looks at a large number of studies and basically takes all the data to see what the effect is across all the studies.

This meta analysis showed ivermectin to be highly effective for prevention (prophylaxis) as well as early treatment.

But here is the problem with the medical authorities insisting on large scale randomized controlled trials as the only standard they will accept, they are extremely expensive. Think like $20 million, but is the CDC putting up funding to look into this drug….nope. Is private industry ponying up to pay for such a study…nope.

Historically ivermectin has been an very safe drug, used in Africa long term as prevention of river blindness. In fact many of you are probably familiar with Ivermectin if you are dog owners (don’t take your dogs medication, that’s not what I’m saying). You know that heart worm drug you give your dog, it’s typically Ivermectin.

So we have a drug that has been widely used, safe as far as drugs are safe, that shows a high degree of effectiveness in the meta analysis and other studies out there. But we can’t give it for Covid because it’s unproven and therefore risky.

Lets shift gears for a second, what about the other therapeutics like Remdesivir? It was rushed into the war against Covid, with no long term safety data, and limited studies on the effectiveness of Covid. But it’s something like $1000 a dose (I don’t know the exact amount I just know it’s expensive). Yet this was recommended by the CDC in their treatment protocols.

What about the vaccine, we skipped animal studies, for instance there was no study of reproductive toxicity. There were then limited trials of use in humans, which has caused a huge number of short term side effects, and we have zero long term data. On top of this we are not even rigorously tracking the side effects and deaths.

In a typical emergency use authorization there is rigorous data collection. They follow and follow up patients to see what happens. Ask anyone around you who has gotten the vaccine, how many times after the shot have the received follow up calls or contact about their problems. There are two systems vsafe and Vaers which are voluntary reporting databases. There is a lot of noise and any side effect signal you see is a massive under estimation because they are voluntary reporting.

Yet we are told that this vaccine is the safest most studied vaccine in history. That is an obvious lie, we don’t know what the long term safety is because there is no data since it’s so new, and it’s not being as rigorously studied like it should be.

Now what about general safety of vaccines? Vaccines can be some of the more dangerous therapies we give. Think about a typical drug, it may damage an organ or do something bad while it’s in your system, but when you stop giving it the damage typically stops (although you may have to live your life with the consequences of that damage for life).

A vaccine in comparison actually changes your biology, it causes your immune system to respond in a different way than it did before, typically forever. So once vaxinated there is no way to remove and revert to the unvaxinated state.

So compare if you will the standard required for Ivermectin and other cheaper drugs compared to new drugs and vaccines. They are light years different. The “safety”, ivermectin is about as safe as any drug and we have massive experience in billions of doses and decades of experience. Vaccines, new fancy therapeutics, long term safety unknowable because long term safety is determined by time which you can’t speed up.

To me what I believe is happening is we are entering into a world of the Medical Industrial Complex. This is a world where there is coordination and protection by the very agencies that are suppose to regulate the pharmaceutical companies to help accelerate and push their drugs. I have heard, but have not verified, that Fauci has a financial interest in the mRNA technology…take that as a rumor unless you dig out the actual details.

There is one other change I am seeing, that scares the hell out of me. I’ve been referring to it as medical communism. In the past we believed in individualized care. The doctor and the patient discuss that patient and what is right or appropriate for them, all the context of what is right for the patient.


Now we are talking about every human on earth being vaxinated, the rational is that you could in theory harm someone else if they get sick, so your health and well being should be secondary. If you don’t take it you will be punished and unable to participate in society.

I am not anti vaccine, in fact I recommended my parents get it because they are older and therefore at significant risk. For my children in their early twenties I have encouraged them to wait, because their risk is minimal from Covid and risk especially long term from the vaccine unknown. That is how medicine is suppose to be practiced, individual by individual.

That is a truly horrifying change of perspective, in that view we are just cogs as long as the machine is better we are disposable.

In general I dig a lot. I don’t trust the words of experts, I dig into the studies and data and use that to decide if I agree or disagree with the opinion and recommendations of any one person.

Medicine, like other subjects, can be highly complex so even though you do your own research you may not be able understand certain information which if acted on, or not, could be a very bad mistake. It's better to get a consensus of experts and go on that.

I had to make a decision on the vaccine and I came to the conclusion that the risk of not taking it was far more than not taking it. I based this on the consensus of experts, including my doctor. There is a risk I made the wrong decision but in life you sometimes have to make the tough decisions.

 

[SharpeningBlade]

 

[MTEE1985]

Medicine, like other subjects, can be highly complex so even though you do your own research you may not be able understand certain information which if acted on, or not, could be a very bad mistake. It's better to get a consensus of experts and go on that.

He’s a doctor, I can assure you that he understands risk/benefit analysis much better than the “consensus of experts.”

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Deleted85763]

He’s a doctor, I can assure you that he understands much better than the “consensus of experts.”

Well then he's certainly in the minority among doctors when it comes to the covid vaccines. But so were the creators of the rna vaccine so who knows. I'm just glad I got the vaccine and I know there was a risk. So far so good.

 

[Raoul Duke]

 

[GIlman]

You say there is a consensus, please define what you mean by that, because I see no consensus at all. Consensus implies universal acceptance and that is certainly not true.

There are certainly many many highly qualified people with grave concerns about both the vaccine itself, how it is being administered, and the general approach to Covid.

Robert Malone, the very creator of mRNA technology has been voicing his grave concerns about trends in what data we have regarding the vaccine administration. What happened, Wikipedia removed mention of him as the mRNA vaccine founder, and google, you tube, and Facebook removed discussions with him taking about his concerns.

Frontline critical care physicians and other giving testimony in front of congress have had video of their testimony scrubbed from but tech platforms.

Facebook labels anything that deviates from the official information as disinformation. Even though the CDC itself continues to reverse its positions on many things, so lots of stuff that one day is considered misinformation the next day is plausible or likely. Laboratory origin of Covid anyone - that now appears by far the most likely explanation.

What I see is not a consensus at all, I see that one side of the argument is elevated and one side oppressed or outright banned.

Equally bad, many people who would offer opinions and insights are self sensoring because they worry about being punished such as losing their social media accounts or worse. This only exacerbates the problem and creates the illusion of a consensus where there is none.

As I said before, I am not anti vaccine at all. In my view people at high risk of Covid should get the vaccine because Covid poses a high risk to those people. The risk of Covid however to young people is nearly non-existent, and that is the data. In fact In the under 19 crowd there are more annual deaths from influenza on average than Covid. Complications in this age group from Covid are also incredibly small. In the young adult crowd the risk is also very low compared to people over age 60 when it starts to rise nearly exponentially.

Both the risk of Covid and benefit of the vaccine are therefore very dependent on the age and health of the person. In the end it is and should be a personal decision. @robertwills You did the right thing for you, spoke with your doctor, weighed your personal situation, personal risks of Covid, and your risk tolerance to try experimental treatment. Then you came to the conclusion that the vaccine was right for you. Bravo, that’s exactly how medicine should work.

We call it Informed Consent, and it is considered a requirement in medical care. There are two parts to that, one that the person is made aware of treatment benefits, risk, and also alternatives. And that the person gives their consent without pressure, threat, or coercion. Informed consent is even more emphasized in research situations such as this vaccine operating under and emergency use authorization, which by definition is experimental.

When it comes to Covid vaccines we are violating the principles of informed consent. People are being told the benefits, but they are not being told the risks many of which are known, and they are certainly not being advised on alternatives. Furthermore there is massive pressure, implied threats, and coercion for people to get the vaccine. In fact there are down right bribes on TV in the form of lotteries, free food and other stuff.

One of my grave concerns about this vaccine or any rushed vaccine is a late complication called Vaccine-Induced Enhancement. Here is one of many papers on the subject.

Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections - PubMed

Examples of vaccine-induced enhancement of susceptibility to virus infection or of aberrant viral pathogenesis have been documented for infections by members of different virus families. Several mechanisms, many of which still are poorly understood, are at the basis of this phenomenon. Vaccine...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vaccine induced enhancement is the phenomenon where future viral infections are made much worse in people who have been previously vaxinated. The reason is because the immune system contributes in responding to the illness in a way that is detrimental or lethal in someone who has specific antibodies from some vaccine. Here is one paper talking about the very risks of this with the Covid 19 vaccine.

Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies - PubMed

Antibody-based drugs and vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being expedited through preclinical and clinical development. Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate C0VlD-19...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Does this mean that the vaccine will cause this, no!! It means that there are some pretty dangerous and often catastrophic risks long term from vaccines because they forever change your bodies physiology. And we simply do not know the long term effects at this time.

That is why I said that who chooses to get the vaccine should be done just like we do all of medicine, based on the needs and risks of the individual….and only after uncoerced informed consent.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Deleted85763]

You say there is a consensus, please define what you mean by that, because I see no consensus at all. Consensus implies universal acceptance and that is certainly not true.

There are certainly many many highly qualified people with grave concerns about both the vaccine itself, how it is being administered, and the general approach to Covid.

Robert Malone, the very creator of mRNA technology has been voicing his grave concerns about trends in what data we have regarding the vaccine administration. What happened, Wikipedia removed mention of him as the mRNA vaccine founder, and google, you tube, and Facebook removed discussions with him taking about his concerns.

Frontline critical care physicians and other giving testimony in front of congress have had video of their testimony scrubbed from but tech platforms.

Facebook labels anything that deviates from the official information as disinformation. Even though the CDC itself continues to reverse its positions on many things, so lots of stuff that one day is considered misinformation the next day is plausible or likely. Laboratory origin of Covid anyone - that now appears by far the most likely explanation.

What I see is not a consensus at all, I see that one side of the argument is elevated and one side oppressed or outright banned.

Equally bad, many people who would offer opinions and insights are self sensoring because they worry about being punished such as losing their social media accounts or worse. This only exacerbates the problem and creates the illusion of a consensus where there is none.

As I said before, I am not anti vaccine at all. In my view people at high risk of Covid should get the vaccine because Covid poses a high risk to those people. The risk of Covid however to young people is nearly non-existent, and that is the data. In fact In the under 19 crowd there are more annual deaths from influenza on average than Covid. Complications in this age group from Covid are also incredibly small. In the young adult crowd the risk is also very low compared to people over age 60 when it starts to rise nearly exponentially.

Both the risk of Covid and benefit of the vaccine are therefore very dependent on the age and health of the person. In the end it is and should be a personal decision. @robertwills You did the right thing for you, spoke with your doctor, weighed your personal situation, personal risks of Covid, and your risk tolerance to try experimental treatment. Then you came to the conclusion that the vaccine was right for you. Bravo, that’s exactly how medicine should work.

We call it Informed Consent, and it is considered a requirement in medical care. There are two parts to that, one that the person is made aware of treatment benefits, risk, and also alternatives. And that the person gives their consent without pressure, threat, or coercion. Informed consent is even more emphasized in research situations such as this vaccine operating under and emergency use authorization, which by definition is experimental.

When it comes to Covid vaccines we are violating the principles of informed consent. People are being told the benefits, but they are not being told the risks many of which are known, and they are certainly not being advised on alternatives. Furthermore there is massive pressure, implied threats, and coercion for people to get the vaccine. In fact there are down right bribes on TV in the form of lotteries, free food and other stuff.

One of my grave concerns about this vaccine or any rushed vaccine is a late complication called Vaccine-Induced Enhancement. Here is one of many papers on the subject.

Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections - PubMed

Examples of vaccine-induced enhancement of susceptibility to virus infection or of aberrant viral pathogenesis have been documented for infections by members of different virus families. Several mechanisms, many of which still are poorly understood, are at the basis of this phenomenon. Vaccine...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vaccine induced enhancement is the phenomenon where future viral infections are made much worse in people who have been previously vaxinated. The reason is because the immune system contributes in responding to the illness in a way that is detrimental or lethal in someone who has specific antibodies from some vaccine. Here is one paper talking about the very risks of this with the Covid 19 vaccine.

Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies - PubMed

Antibody-based drugs and vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being expedited through preclinical and clinical development. Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate C0VlD-19...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Does this mean that the vaccine will cause this, no!! It means that there are some pretty dangerous and often catastrophic risks long term from vaccines because they forever change your bodies physiology. And we simply do not know the long term effects at this time.

That is why I said that who chooses to get the vaccine should be done just like we do all of medicine, based on the needs and risks of the individual….and only after uncoerced informed consent.

You make some very good points. There are very good reasons why freedom of speech is the number 1 amendment to the US Constitution.

As the world we should be creating our future, not wondering how it will work out. We have control over the virus (and most other issues) and everyone should be doing their part and having fun doing it.

 

[Timmy C]

You say there is a consensus, please define what you mean by that, because I see no consensus at all. Consensus implies universal acceptance and that is certainly not true.

There are certainly many many highly qualified people with grave concerns about both the vaccine itself, how it is being administered, and the general approach to Covid.

The only consensus I see is the consensus amongst the easily brainwashed who believe what the fact-checkers tell them blindly.

 

[Timmy C]

This will go on for years. We get over covid then in 2-3 years down the track there is some bullshit sars outbreak in China bang we will go into lockdown to "protect" everyone, we have set a terrible precedent.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[peddletothemetal]

the police are the backbone of the pursuit of happiness

People don't repeat history because they forget it, they do so because they don't care to read it out of laziness.

Cursory reading of history will quickly show that dedicated publicly funded police forces were not ubiquitous. The idea of call 911 and uniformed peacekeepers come rushing to save the day, is very recent. Common law originally relied on a wide variety of primarily citizen based mechanisms for enforcement of the law. The hue and cry, citizen led arrests, sheriffs ad hoc deputies, the fleeing felon rule, misprision, etc. Back then, society as a whole enforced the law.

This may have been less sophisticated than the system we have now. But it had benefits. Limited resources that required the common man to agree to, acted as a natural limiter to abuse of power, such as the police effectively becoming criminals under common law by inflicting wrongful acts on others under victimless crime statutes.

There's little chance that we wouldn't hear the same not thought out ideas if the police in question were the gestapo or stasi. Did the media in those societies claim other than the police were the backbone of happiness? Saving society from the evils of disorder?

When you don't think for yourself, you think for others, who don't know or care about you, and thereby expose yourself to victimization and defencelessness.

The police are as good as the state they are apart of, what they choose to see or not see, and the specific situation they are present in. Calling them a universal good isn't borne out by any historical evidence.

 

[Timmy C]

People don't repeat history because they forget it, they do so because they don't care to read it out of laziness.

Cursory reading of history will quickly show that dedicated publicly funded police forces were not ubiquitous. The idea of call 911 and uniformed peacekeepers come rushing to save the day, is very recent. Common law originally relied on a wide variety of primarily citizen based mechanisms for enforcement of the law. The hue and cry, citizen led arrests, sheriffs ad hoc deputies, the fleeing felon rule, misprision, etc. Back then, society as a whole enforced the law.

This may have been less sophisticated than the system we have now. But it had benefits. Limited resources that required the common man to agree to, acted as a natural limiter to abuse of power, such as the police effectively becoming criminals under common law by inflicting wrongful acts on others under victimless crime statutes.

There's little chance that we wouldn't hear the same not thought out ideas if the police in question were the gestapo or stasi. Did the media in those societies claim other than the police were the backbone of happiness? Saving society from the evils of disorder?

When you don't think for yourself, you think for others, who don't know or care about you, and thereby expose yourself to victimization and defencelessness.

The police are as good as the state they are apart of, what they choose to see or not see, and the specific situation they are present in. Calling them a universal good isn't borne out by any historical evidence.

There are good and bad police just as there are good and bad employees.
Calling the police the backbone of the pursuit of happiness is just straight idiocy.

 

[Deleted85763]

People don't repeat history because they forget it, they do so because they don't care to read it out of laziness.

Cursory reading of history will quickly show that dedicated publicly funded police forces were not ubiquitous. The idea of call 911 and uniformed peacekeepers come rushing to save the day, is very recent. Common law originally relied on a wide variety of primarily citizen based mechanisms for enforcement of the law. The hue and cry, citizen led arrests, sheriffs ad hoc deputies, the fleeing felon rule, misprision, etc. Back then, society as a whole enforced the law.

This may have been less sophisticated than the system we have now. But it had benefits. Limited resources that required the common man to agree to, acted as a natural limiter to abuse of power, such as the police effectively becoming criminals under common law by inflicting wrongful acts on others under victimless crime statutes.

There's little chance that we wouldn't hear the same not thought out ideas if the police in question were the gestapo or stasi. Did the media in those societies claim other than the police were the backbone of happiness? Saving society from the evils of disorder?

When you don't think for yourself, you think for others, who don't know or care about you, and thereby expose yourself to victimization and defencelessness.

The police are as good as the state they are apart of, what they choose to see or not see, and the specific situation they are present in. Calling them a universal good isn't borne out by any historical evidence.

I wasn't saying at all the police as we know them today existed in any similar form for hundreds of years. "Pursuit of happiness" comes from the English philosopher John Locke in the 17th century. The founders of the US were greatly influenced by the English philosophers at that time and clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence that this pursuit should be protected and this is why governments are established. They also stated that when governments get in the way of this pursuit the people have the right to change to another form of government that does protect the pursuit. I encourage everyone to read The Declaration of Independence. They don't teach students in school the part about the right to "alter" and "abolish". Well, at least in my school.

I propose the new form being: The police, let's call them now something like "At your service", is totally separate and exists with one mission - to protect the rights, property and safety of people. The only rights people have are the rights to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of anyone else. So in this form of "government" the police are the backbone of the social world. The really good thing about this form is that it in a world of the unfettered pursuit of happiness there is far less crime, i.e., people are much happier.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Timmy C]

I wasn't saying at all the police as we know them today existed in any similar form for hundreds of years. "Pursuit of happiness" comes from the English philosopher John Locke in the 17th century. The founders of the US were greatly influenced by the English philosophers at that time and clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence that this pursuit should be protected and this is why governments are established. They also stated that when governments get in the way of this pursuit the people have the right to change to another form of government that does protect the pursuit. I encourage everyone to read The Declaration of Independence. They don't teach students in school the part about the right to "alter" and "abolish". Well, at least in my school.

I propose the new form being: The police, let's call them now something like "At your service", is totally separate and exists with one mission - to protect the rights, property and safety of people. The only rights people have are the rights to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of anyone else. So in this form of "government" the police are the backbone of the social world. The really good thing about this form is that it in a world of the unfettered pursuit of happiness there is far less crime, i.e., people are much happier.

At this point, I am convinced you are hired by the CCP to spread propaganda.
Can someone look into his IP and see where he is from?

 

[Deleted85763]

At this point, I am convinced you are hired by the CCP to spread propaganda.
Can someone look into his IP and see where he is from?

I think the people of China should read the US Declaration of Independence and get inspired just like the French did.

 

[Timmy C]

How do I leave my country?

They are starting to talk about ''restrictions on the ''unvaxinated'' here.
Apparently, I can't even leave unless I have been vaxinated!
Enough is enough, this is only getting worse. I am not a lab rat, and NO ONE should force anyone to put anything in their body. They are talking about restricting where you can go now if you haven't had a jab!

If the people wanting to be vaxinated are happy to be, then why does it matter who else has taken it?
Why force it on others?

I am looking at Mexico citizenship now, it might not even matter if I can't even leave without getting injected.
Ontop of that, it looks like other countries don't even let you enter without having the jab.
Looks like I am F*cked?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

How do I leave my country?

They are starting to talk about ''restrictions on the ''unvaxinated'' here.
Apparently, I can't even leave unless I have been vaxinated!
Enough is enough, this is only getting worse. I am not a lab rat, and NO ONE should force anyone to put anything in their body. They are talking about restricting where you can go now if you haven't had a jab!

If the people wanting to be vaxinated are happy to be, then why does it matter who else has taken it?
Why force it on others?

I am looking at Mexico citizenship now, it might not even matter if I can't even leave without getting injected.
Ontop of that, it looks like other countries don't even let you enter without having the jab.
Looks like I am f*cked?

Which country are you in?

 

[Timmy C]

Which country are you in?

Australia.