Post-Covid: The Birth Of A New Society

[Uncle Gizmo]

The Tucker/Berenson interview was excellent.

I think this is it:-

Ep. 63 When do the architects of the COVID catastrophe go on trial? We asked Alex Berenson.

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1745581351498060019?s=20

 

[Steve R.]

A new headline. Unfortunate that this degree of misinformation and public manipulation was not exposed before the 2020 election.

Fauci admits social distancing not based on science, 'sort of just appeared'

Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that social distancing recommendations were likely not based on scientific data, the lab leak hypothesis was possible and there may be future vaccine hesitancy.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

Where were the doctors who knew better? When COVID hit and everyone went crazy, I did some research on social distancing, masks, and shutdowns. EVERY SINGLE DECISION imposed on an uninformed public was WRONG based on "common scientific knowledge" of the time. Then the old "settled science" articles started to disappear. I'm sure they're still out there but they are so far down your feed that you lose interest before you ever get to them.

What this government did to us will take a generation or more to fix but only if they fess up and clean house.

 

[Steve R.]

When COVID hit and everyone went crazy, ....

The Democrats did not go crazy, they saw the opportunity and exploited it. (The pro-Hamas public rallies visually demonstrates how well and quickly the left can organize a massive number of people in a very short time to march in lockstep based on a false narrative.) One also has to question why the public release of the vaccine was withheld from the public until after the election? Coincidence or planned (to help the Democrats)?

 

[Pat Hartman]

One also has to question why the public release of the vaccine was withheld from the public until after the election?

Trump was telling us what he was hearing from big pharma. But, since big pharma didn't own Trump, they decided to cater to the folks they did own and withhold the release for a month. They knew it didn't prevent COVID so what difference could it make?

The other clue that the vaccine was next to useless for the general public was the changes to the distribution plan from what Trump had specified. The mantra went from protect the vulnerable to prevent the spread virtually overnight. Once it became clear that my 25 year old garbage man who worked outside in the sun and fresh air and came in contact with only two other people during his work day was going to be vaccinated before I could be, it was quite clear to me that the vaccine was more for show than for effect. The point of the rush and the emergency use authorization was to protect the vulnerable - the old and infirm - not the young and healthy. But politics corrupted the distribution and the medical complex didn't even complain. They just nodded their heads and vaccinated themselves. Let the old and infirm die. Who cares.

 

[ColinEssex]

Once it became clear that my 25 year old garbage man who worked outside in the sun and fresh air and came in contact with only two other people during his work day was going to be vaccinated before I could be, it was quite clear to me that the vaccine was more for show than for effect.

So you put yourself way more important than someone who collects the rubbish? What a super snobby attitude. Oh I forgot, you are a 'super'.I'll bet the rubbish collector is black. What makes you more important than him?
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

So you put yourself way more important than someone who collects the rubbish? What a super snobby attitude.

As usual, you assume the worst possible meaning of something I said. Clearly you don't understand English and are not capable of putting one thought together with another.

 

[ColinEssex]

As usual, you assume the worst possible meaning of something I said. Clearly you don't understand English and are not capable of putting one thought together with another.

(Drum roll). . . . . . . And the correct meaning is. . . . . . . .
Col

PS, So my interpretation is valid, but according to you, its just one of several. Here's some advice.
Try to phrase your posts so that there are not multiple options regarding your meaning. That may help foreigners to understand you.

 

[Pat Hartman]

That may help foreigners to understand you.

No one else has a problem Colin, only you.

 

[ColinEssex]

No one else has a problem Colin, only you.

If someone writes something that can be interpreted several ways, that does not indicate that the reader is 'stupid' or 'clearly doesn't understand English' - which is the insulting language you use for me. I suggest after writing a post you re-read it to avoid any misinterpretation. Simple isn't it?
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And, as usual, Col extracts a quote out of context in order to deny that he missed the irony dripping from Pat's post...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Remember, ultimately, science is a process of discovery. The nemesis of further discovery is ironclad conclusions.

Oh... you mean like the Pope's infallible pronouncements?

I am aware that science can find contrary results and that they indicate the need for further research and understanding. When science tells us that apples fall to the ground, swerving to target Isaac's head (Newton, not you, Isaac), we can disagree with the targeting but perhaps should not disagree about the falling. Yet we have environments in which money overrules science.

Take the simple case of Ivermectin. In past articles I posted links to sources that confirmed that Ivermectin would have been a usable palliative for early treatment of COVID. Kill the symptoms, let the person's body fight the virus naturally. My step-daughter and her partner had COVID and said it was like a moderately nasty case of the flu. She verified COVID status by at-home test kits twice so it wasn't JUST the flu. She recovered in 5-6 days, which is about like a case of the flu. However, Big Pharma couldn't let a cheap, useful drug be used when there were BILLIONS of dollars to be made on forcing folks to use their new, more expensive drug instead.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I suggest after writing a post you re-read it to avoid any misinterpretation. Simple isn't it?

I can explain irony for you Colin but I can't understand it for you. You deliberately chose to not understand the irony that everyone else seemed to get.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Oh... you mean like the Pope's infallible pronouncements?

Looks like the clergy is walking away from that now that we have a full on Communist as Pope who is now purging moderates from the ranks of the Cardinals.

However, Big Pharma couldn't let a cheap, useful drug be used when there were BILLIONS of dollars to be made on forcing folks to use their new, more expensive drug instead.

Actually, the fix was in at the FDA and CDC. The emergency use authorization for the "vaccine" could only be approved on three conditions.. I can't remember two of them but the third was that there be NO palliative treatment available. Therefore it was imperative that the government and it's disinformation arm, the media (social, TV, cable, and print), quash every positive reference for every drug that showed even the smallest possible success in mitigating the effects of COVID. Cancel the dissenters. Follow the money, follow the jobs.
I can't find the original guidance but here is a summary from Yale.

Emergency Use Authorization Vs. Full FDA Approval: What’s the Difference?

A primer on the difference between an FDA 'full approval' and 'emergency use authorization.'

www.yalemedicine.org

Put simply, an emergency use authorization (EUA) is a tool the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can use to expedite the availability of medical products, including drugs and vaccines, during a public health emergency. An EUA can only be granted when no adequate, approved, available alternatives exist, and when the known and potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. An EUA also only lasts as long as the public health emergency for which it was declared.

How long, on average, does full FDA approval take compared with EUA?​

According to one study, over the past decade, the FDA approved 21 vaccines, mostly for flu or meningococcus. The median clinical development period (meaning from a Phase I trial to approval) was just over 8 years, including a median FDA review period of about a year.
For comparison, the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech, which was the first to receive an EUA, was under clinical development for six months before it submitted its EUA. An EUA was granted in less than a month; full approval was issued eight months later.

Eight months/eight years. Close enough for government work. They have now successfully pushed this onto your children and grandchildren who do not need the vaccine at all. They are far better off catching the disease and developing natural immunity. There is no data proving that it does not interfere with reproduction and that should be terrifying to anyone with any intention of procreating in the future. For parents who allow their children to be inoculated, they are not protecting the child, children don't need this vaccine (their risk of dying or even getting seriously ill is minimal), but they are risking the future for both boys and girls.

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are dirt cheap and big pharma can't make any money if these drugs had been proven to work to mitigate the severity of the infection. Therefore, any reporting of successful trials was squashed and doctors and researchers were cancelled if they even suggested such a thing.

 

[ColinEssex]

You deliberately chose to not understand the irony that everyone else seemed to get.

Nice you have time to survey all the members of AWF, which is what you must have done in your comment 'everyone else ', otherwise that's another untruth. I'm not sure Doc alone counts as 'everyone else'.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm sorry Colin. I cannot understand irony for you. Therefore, this conversation is senseless and non-productive which is the normal way our conversations go when you choose to read into my words what isn't there.

 

[ColinEssex]

I'm sorry Colin. I cannot understand irony for you. Therefore, this conversation is senseless and non-productive which is the normal way our conversations go when you choose to read into my words what isn't there.

'Words what isn't there'? Jeez, and you say I dont understand English? I can recommend a book on English grammar, you may need it.

No, your wrong, I read into your words what is there, but as usual your statements can have several meanings, and, just because I may interpret the meaning differently to your thoughts, you obviously assume I am in the wrong. Then you lapse into name calling to try to justify your lack of English grammar education.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

Why not just look up Irony in the dictionary?

 

[ColinEssex]

Why not just look up Irony in the dictionary?

I dont need to.
Anyway I was talking about your misuse of English grammar which you conveniently ignored and tried to swing the conversation back to what you think is safer ground.
If you like, I can help you to understand grammar by pointing out your errors, maybe that might help you construct posts without several meanings.
Col

 

[NauticalGent]

No, your wrong, I read into your words...

*you're