Sonatine,
How does it feel knowing you are aligned with the MAGA, conspiritard, climate change denialist, antivax clown show on the Jewish question? You think antisemitism is the one thing these guys are getting right?
Sonatine,
How does it feel knowing you are aligned with the MAGA, conspiritard, climate change denialist, antivax clown show on the Jewish question? You think antisemitism is the one thing these guys are getting right?
Originally Posted by Kalam
cope harder milhouse.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
https://twitter.com/BrokenTruthTV/status/1652844172020416512
https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1870318477661327548
https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1870269790948077601
You're a stupid faggot
PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/...ers-have-found
Almost since the mRNA Covid jabs were authorized for use in December 2020, a small but vocal group of vaccine skeptics has warned of the possibility that they might contaminate human DNA.
The vaccine mRNA itself is unlikely to somehow integrate into human genes, as that process would require the mRNA to use an enzyme called “reverse transcriptase” to turn itself into DNA before being integrated into human genes.
Instead, the more likely avenue comes because Pfizer and Moderna use what scientists call “DNA plasmids” - a circular DNA molecule - to make bacteria produce the mRNA that is the active ingredient in the vaccine.
The manufacturing process inevitably leads to a small amount of DNA plasmid contamination in the mRNA strands the bacteria make. No one had ever made mRNA at the speed and scale used in the Covid vaccines, requiring the manufacturers essentially to invent processes in a matter of months in 2020.
In 2023, Kevin McKernan, a researcher in Massachusetts, reported finding DNA contamination in vials at the “nanogram” (one billionth of a gram) and “microgram” (one millionth of a gram) levels in a preprint.
While those might seem like tiny amounts, each Pfizer vaccine dose contains only 30 micrograms of mRNA, and federal standards limit allowable DNA contamination of vaccines to 10 nanograms per dose. Researchers and regulators believed that limit was low enough to make DNA integration effectively impossible in the real world, despite the fact it is theoretically possible.
But because the “lipid nanoparticle” in the vaccine that protects the mRNA from immune system attack after it’s injected into the body also protects the DNA contaminant, the 10 nanogram limit may not be as protective as scientists believed.
It is also possible that the rapid scaling of the manufacturing process led to some vaccine batches with more DNA contaminant than the vaccine companies or regulators expected.
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
Reminder
You're most likely more gullible than this guy
An adult Andrew Tate fan
Highly amusing
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
https://metatron.substack.com/p/bein...dRedirect=true
A new, peer-reviewed, study from Japan1 reveals the - by now - expected findings about COVID-19 vaccination patterns and infection - more “vaccinations” results in more infection. The research, conducted through the Yamato Project in late 2023
The research did uncover some other interesting behavioral patterns. Those who maintained regular exercise and bathing routines showed lower infection rates, suggesting that overall health habits played a significant role in COVID-19 susceptibility.
Druff ^ Hit the showers bitch
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
looks like we were right all along
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
With the exception of BartHandsome and RichardBrodiesCumGuzzler i wish everyone the best regarding anything to do with this
I'll stop bumping this unless some of these fuckfaces face some consequences.. then i'll be back for some celebrating of good times
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
https://goodoil.news/the-unmasking-o...cal-sociopath/
Broken promises
On 22 Sept, 2020, Jacinda Ardern was interviewed by Duncan Garner on the AM Show, in which (13:24) she was asked:
Will people who refuse to take the Covid-19 vaccine be banned from travelling internationally or be at the end of tax penalties?
In her reply, Ardern implied that her government would not force people to take the vaccine. It’s possible she thought that she had left herself some wiggle room by not stating unequivocally that Kiwis wouldn’t be forced to have the injection. She might have forgotten that two weeks earlier, Rachel Sadler of NewsHub had reported that at a press conference, Health Minister Chris Hipkins (13:35) had slammed the ‘deliberate misinformation’ that the government was reportedly going to make Covid-19 vaccinations compulsory.
Chris Hipkins said on Thursday that these false reports have been circulating on social media and have caused many concerned members of the public to contact him.
Sadler continued to quote Hipkins:
This morning, I spent some time signing out correspondence, as we do as ministers, and I have to say I was alarmed at the number of letters I’ve received from people concerned that the Government would be making Covid-19 vaccinations compulsory,’ he said during a press conference […] This is a direct result of deliberate misinformation that’s being spread through social media. The Government is not making Covid-19 or any other vaccinations compulsory.
He added while the government will encourage New Zealanders to get vaccinated once one is available, “it won’t make it compulsory”.
In case it’s thought that Hipkins was talking out of turn, a couple of weeks later, Dan Satherley of Newshub reported that:
Conspiracy theorists have claimed a Covid-19 vaccine, when available, will be ‘forced’ on everyone – including Kiwis.
The government rubbished those claims, made most notably by Jami-Lee Ross and Billy Te Kahika’s Advance NZ.
The New Zealand Public Party (NZPP) had issued a video titled “Say no to Labour’s Forced Vaccinations Agenda”. In a Newshub article titled “Dangerous and misleading”, Vita Molyneux reported that the video had stated that:
Labour passed a law change… They gave themselves the power… To force citizens to be vaccinated.
I haven’t been able to see the video, so it’s possible the NZPP had been mistaken in the bit about ‘a law change’. But its take-home message, that New Zealanders would be compelled to be vaccinated, was absolutely correct. So much for the ‘conspiracy theorists’.
These promises to the New Zealand public were broken as, one-by-one, vaccine mandates were introduced. First the border workers, then the armed services and police, then health workers and teachers and finally, all members of the public who want to enter public enclosed spaces such as bars and restaurants. Thus workers had to choose between the injection or loss of livelihood.
Significantly, this ‘choice’ was not portrayed for what it actually was. In a verbal sleight of hand, Michael Neilson of the New Zealand Herald (12 Nov 2021) said [emphasis added]:
Millions of New Zealand workers will soon be covered by mandates to be vaccinated against Covid-19, or potentially be forced to leave their jobs.
A health professional I know chose not to be jabbed, but he assures me that he did not ‘leave’ his job – his employer prevented him from working.
The mandates were a fundamental breach of Section 11 of the 1990 Bill of Rights Act, Section 11:
Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.
This step-by-step breach of fundamental democratic rights brings to mind German Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous poem, written after his release from concentration camp in 1945. He had been arrested by the Gestapo in 1937 for his criticism of Nazi totalitarianism:
First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Small wonder, then, that the vaccine mandates generated considerable anger and for some who had lost their livelihood: real hatred. In clear breach of its promise, the government was forcing people to submit to the injection of an experimental product – or lose their jobs.
And on February 8, a convoy of protesters began to set up camp out in Parliament’s grounds. The camp grew into a mini-village, with portaloos and child care with on-the-hoof schooling.
The protesters demanded that Prime Minister Ardern meet them to discuss concerns, but were met by blanket refusal, though the latter could not have been ignorant of the validity of their case.
Though a deliberately broken promise is not exactly a lie, it doesn’t sit well with her statement in a leaders’ debate in 2017 that she’d “never told a lie in politics”.
When asked by Paddy Gower in one of the leaders’ debates in 2017, “Is it possible to survive in politics without lying?”, she not only said it was but claimed she’d “never told a lie in politics”, as journalist Graham Adams reminds us.
Malfeasance
Myocarditis is a normally rare condition in which the heart muscle (myocardium) becomes inflamed, which in severe cases can result in cardiac arrest and death. In 2021, soon after the worldwide programme of Covid-19 mass injections was initiated, reports of deaths from myocarditis began to surface. Such reports became so numerous that they became difficult for medical authorities to ignore.
Yet at a press conference on 19 August, 2021, Prime Minister Ardern said [at 22:15, emphasis added]:
As you know, it’s imperative that we get as many people as possible vaccinated. When we make a decision on who is eligible, though, our No 1 priority is the medical advice of our experts. You will remember that in June, our regulator, Medsafe, granted provisional approval for the Pfizer vaccine to be given to 12 to 15 year olds in New Zealand. Similar decisions have been made by other regulators in Europe, the US, Canada and Japan. The advice was then considered by an additional group of experts, who also supported an extension of eligibility to young people. On that basis, Cabinet has agreed to make the Pfizer vaccine available for 12 to 15 year olds. This is not a decision we have taken lightly.
Many of us are parents ourselves and take this duty of making decisions about other people’s children extremely seriously, but it is safe, and it’s the right thing to do. So 12 to 15 year olds can become eligible and book, along with everyone else that we are opening up to from the 1st of September.
This was the take-home message for the assembled journalists: based on expert advice, the vaccine was “safe and the right thing to do”.
Except that it wasn’t safe, according to their own expert medical advisers – advice that the government had knowingly and deliberately ignored, following a report by the CV Covid-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group), chaired by the Chief Science Adviser Dr Ian Town.
Had it not been for a certain investigative blogger working under the name ‘Thomas Cranmer’, it’s likely that the public would have continued to be deceived.
On June 24 CV TAG issued a memo headed “Decision to use the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 vaccine for children aged 12–15 years. Among the group’s recommendations were the following:
there is a potential safety signal for myocarditis in people under 30 years who receive mRNA vaccines (e.g., Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna), which requires ongoing consideration
overall, there is not an urgent need to progress with vaccination of this group, but consideration should be given to equity and whānau-based approaches and ensuring that other childhood immunisation programmes are not compromised, e.g., measles and HPV vaccination.”
So, what happened to the ‘safety signal for myocarditis’? The government knew about it, yet ignored the advice from their experts.
And there’s more. The Cabinet paper dated Sept 27, 2021, prepared by Chris Hipkins, the Covid Minister, stated in point 17 of the Executive summary that:
subsequent advice from CV TAG in August, supported the inclusion of all children aged 12 to 15 years in the Immunisation Programme
[emphasis added]
The paper continued:
based on the advice received from the Director-General of Health, I recommend that Cabinet agree to proceed with using the Pfizer vaccine for children aged 12 to 15 years.
And what about the ‘advice from CV TAG in August’? A memo CG TAG to Joanne Gibbs, Director of National Operations, Covid Vaccination Immunisation Programme and Dr Ashley Bloomfield, dated August 4. Among its 13 recommendations, 12d was as follows:
The COVID-19 vaccine should not be routinely administered to children and young people aged 12 to 15 years of age, at this time. Children and young people have a low risk of severe disease or death due to Covid-19 compared to adults, and, given the low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Aotearoa New Zealand, there is currently a low risk of exposure.
Under the ‘traffic light’ policy, in ‘red’ zones, people who are jabbed will be able to move around and use services relatively freely, while those who are unjabbed will not.
In an interview with the New Zealand Herald on October 24, the reporter asked Ardern if her policies are intended to create a two-tier society in New Zealand society where unvaccinated citizens do not enjoy the same rights as those vaccinated against Covid-19.
“That is what it is,” Ardern responded as she smiled. She added that it’s about giving “confidence” to those vaccinated (needless to say, she did not explain how such ‘confidence’ resulted from keeping ‘unvaccinated’ people away from ‘vaccinated’ who, we were led to believe, were purportedly protected anyway).
It’s doubtful if many of the 50,000 New Zealanders who were locked out of their own country would agree. Cameron Carpenter, writing for the Daily Mail Australia, tells how he was prevented from returning from Sydney to visit his seriously concussed mother, a mental health nurse, in Wellington. Like the great majority of ex-pats, he was prevented from returning home for two years. As Carpenter put it:
In a staggering human rights violation, New Zealand citizens overseas had to apply to enter their own country, with a small number of places only available via an online lottery system.
Even worse was the predicament of pregnant New Zealand women who were stranded overseas during lockdowns. Although people with medical conditions overseas were able to return to New Zealand, pregnancy and childbirth were excluded.
This was brought into sharp focus by the case of Charlotte Bellis, an Al Jazeera journalist in Afghanistan, who was prevented from returning to New Zealand where her baby could be born safely. But after submitting 59 documents in attempting to return to New Zealand, her application was rejected. In a speech attacking the government’s Covid-19 response, ACT leader David Seymour said:
that great feminist organisation the Taliban has now been given the outsourcing of New Zealand’s maternity care.
In response to the international publicity, the government finally caved in and allowed her back in her home country.
But for pregnant ex-pat Kiwis forced to give birth overseas, there was another problem – citizenship for the child. Under New Zealand law, babies that are born overseas can’t automatically pass on New Zealand citizenship to their own children.
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
Unconscionable
Sophia Malthus is a 25 year-old woman who became tetraplegic after a riding accident. Her full-time carer is her mother who is unvaccinated for medical reasons. Despite her GP’s letter explaining her situation, the Ministry of Health (MOH) is yet to give her exemption from the mandate.
For people with spinal cord injuries, respiratory infections can be particularly serious, as they may have additional breathing difficulties. Accordingly, Malthus has been particularly careful to minimise her risk by keeping her social contacts during lockdown to the absolute minimum.
But now the MOH has ruled that since her mother is unvaccinated, she cannot be allowed to care for her, and the healthcare agency will have to replace her mother with vaccinated carers, even though she will continue to live with her daughter. And with her mother doing 60-hour weeks, she would have to be replaced by more than one carer.
“This mandate that’s intended to protect me, pretty much doubles my exposure to Covid,” she said. “I’ll have two or three new carers coming into the house and they all have their own families that they live with, and everybody wants to go back to work – so my bubble would be bigger than everybody else’s bubble.”
As a result of the mandate she cannot get ACC funding for her mother to act as her carer because of the alleged risk she poses by being near her daughter, with whom she lives anyway, whether or not she is acting as carer. Sophia’s risk of infection has thus been actually increased by the mandate.
Whether or not you accept that ‘Covid’ exists, this clearly makes no sense even on their own terms.
That was in November 2021. One would have thought that the authorities might have learned something from the debacle, but it seems not.
A not altogether different case was detailed by RNZ on 19 September, 2022. A group who care for family members with whom they are living, is seeking a judicial review of the health workers’ mandate, having lost thousands of dollars in funding. Despite the fact that the workers care for family members with whom they are living, their payments have been cut because they are not Covid-vaccinated. And although the mandates were due to be removed, they believe that the loss of payments was unlawful.
One member of the group cares for her brain-injured son, but is unvaccinated, for personal reasons. Jennie had been receiving over $1000 a week as an in-home carer, but when she became included in the health workers’ vaccine mandate, funding was cut.
“It was quite a huge financial stress, and we’ve had to carry out the care regardless of whether we’re paid to do it or not, so it did seem a little bit silly that we are living in the same house, carrying out the care anyway, but we are having the funding cut,” Jennie said.
After initially leaving family carers out of the mandate, MOH officials then ruled that in-home carers should be treated the same as other workers.
“To me that seems completely ridiculous because we’re not the same as the other employees in the sector,” Jennie said. “It’s not a public health approach, which is what the vaccine order is meant to be all about.”
Wellington lawyer Matthew Hague has been acting for the group of home-based care workers. Via the High Court, he argued that their inclusion lacked reason, given they mostly lived with the person they cared for.
Despite requests, the group had not been given any health reason for the mandate applying to them.
We asked the government exactly that. We said, first of all, ‘Can you please review this? There’s some concerning parts about it. Secondly, if there is a reason can you let us know so we can tell the people it affects’… There was zero response to that.
Hague said one of the people involved in the court action had received an Official Information Act reply from the Covid-19 response minister, which spelled out the officials’ position.
She says (and this is from Ayesha Verrall) ‘The distinction between family and non-family carers was not considered to be relevant to public health and so was removed to ensure that all vulnerable people received the same protection, whether cared for by a family carer or not.’ It’s very clear from that that the purpose of the change is to protect the people being cared for, but it doesn’t because they’re already living with them.
I used the heading ‘unconscionable’ to describe the MOH’s treatment of full-time family carers, because I could not find words that were adequate. Malice, spite and vindictiveness come to mind. I suppose it’s just conceivable that it’s bureaucratic blockheadedness, but to me, there has to be an element of motive. ‘Callous’ might come nearer, but you be the judge.
* * *
So, how does all this stack up with Ardern’s trade mark brand of ‘kindness’?
The first thing to strike one is that genuinely kind people don’t feel the need to advertise their kindness – they just get on with being kind, because that’s the sort of people they are.
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
my first priority would be establishing global response protocols, isolating areas that cannot / will not comply, and then implementing the requisite protocols that isolate hotspots for remediation while protecting areas that are proving resilient.
and to be clear, part of those protocols would be developing the requisite infrastructure and resources to re-home people from hotspots who dont want to die. and if you live in a safe zone and youre hell bend on fucking up because 'you intend to live forever in christs kingdom', cool, great news, you just won a one way ticket to florida or louisiana or whatever glory hole of stupidity has a room for rent in it.
going back and reading this thread is always fun, reading the absolute brain dead retarded fuckin faggot medical experts of PFA takes, knowing then and even more now that we were right about everything lol, Druff included
Imagine asking for and taking advice from an uber obese immobile expert rofl. Sums up the last 4 years of ‘healthcare’.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan
RichardBrodiesCombover has aids
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote
