I share many of the same sentiments. Some seem very eager to put the cart in front of the horse, and I don't know why. Overcorrection and perhaps theorizing just to be the first to theorize?
If you do not solve the problem of blatant coersion of experimental shots or drugs, nonsensical mandates, and censoring of proven, safe successful treatment in the first place, shedding becomes next to a nonissue. This does not only apply to covid variants, but what appears to be a steady stream of experimental shots and drugs for a wide variety of afflictions, including the flu and RSV, and combo shots, thereof.
Yes, determine what can be shed and quantify the effect, but also apply proper scientific method; not just theorize.
I have some thoughts about everything, and a lot of it I would owe to becoming more disagreeable as things go on. I suppose I hesitate when things just happen to line up so perfectly. So not only are people shedding spike, they're shedding mRNA, which then may persist for months, but then can also become incorporated into our cells, which can then replicate and produce more mRNA and then more spike?
I think that collection of suppositions leading to forever spike or forever mRNA is something I hesitate with because it just leads to some of the same arguments that we heard before, and so now do we stop ourselves from interacting with people because we're worried we'll be around shedders? Or maybe we should just order all of our groceries and supplies from Amazon and never leave our house.
I just wonder what the intended end goal can be for some of these ideas. I would prefer if we enact more precaution while also noting that, like you said, these things aren't working as intended and are proving to be harmful so it's more important to break the habit rather than be stuck wondering about uncertainty.
I think given the fact that the hypothesis is proposes as, well, a hypothesis should provide for a bit of caution when looking at it, and instead it's being used as validation which is unfortunate to be honest.
Well I think observation can tell us a lot, but truth, without getting into philosophical topics, would have to be based in evidence and consilience.
I think the best example of the Bellman's fallacy would be the mantra of "safe and effective" for these vaccines. We have no inherent way of knowing how safe and effective these things were at the beginning, but because the phrase was repeated many times and by many "credentialed" people it was assumed to be true. So we know it can't be true because it hasn't been put through the proper rigor. And so its truthfulness only exists on the basis that it was repeated.
I really view that Rumble video as nothing but fear porn. There indeed maybe some concerns about shedding, but this is hardly proof. In vitro tests can only tell you so much. Surely there are many people willing to be tested to see how the vaccine has affected them. I’m in a mixed-vaccine marriage- have I inadvertently vaccinated my husband? Well, either way there’s nothing to do about it except maybe learn for the future. I’m NOT going to live in fear either way!
There's concerns insofar as it is a possibility, but without any evidence extending beyond anecdotes we're kind of left in the dark. I'm just surprised that there is so much certainty to this whole shedding phenomenon, especially since the year and a half prior to vaccine rollouts meant we had plenty of people who were getting infected with SARS-COV2, which would mean plenty of people shedding virus and other components of the virus. We can't see who out there is vaccinated and if we start carding people I would argue it's not different than how people reacted to the unvaccinated and wanted to bar them from society.
So if the intent is to now tell people to not to interact with people them are we really in a good place socially?
Should we mask up if in company of shedders was also the first question that popped up in my mind when I read McCullough’s blog.
Obviously not.
Masks failed because of the size of the virus particle. In this case, the mRNA is probably about the same order of size or even smaller because it contains only the code for the spike protein. The pores in mask are about 3 orders of magnitude larger iirc. What this means is that even if shedding is going on, we have no recourse once they shed in public. The kids who are getting vaccinated will be doing the shedding in schools jeopardizing the next generations. If this is indeed true, then everybody who’s vaccinated needs to be quarantined 😃.
And therein lies the problem, at least for me. If we arrive at the point where we assume wherever we go we will be hit with clouds of spike from shedders, how do we respond? Do we go on about our lives, or do we start hiding ourselves away. Do we ask people the last time they were vaccinated? I can't ask everyone I come across, and at the point I do I'm pretty much just exposing myself anyways right?
So I think it's that aspect of having to think that every single person out there may spread "something" to you that can end up becoming more harmful.
A new study warns of the “most dangerous Covid variant yet”…but a little research shows a very familiar name behind the scare tactics.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
-Upton Sinclair
Bloomberg and various news outlets recently reported that a South African laboratory study warned a new strain of the Covid-19 virus “could” emerge and “could cause worse illness than the current predominant omicron strain.”
This story is not so much a cautionary tale against a pending pathogenic event as it is an illustration of an extensive propaganda apparatus that seeks to keep the public in a constant state of hysteria for the express purpose of enriching powerful entities.
The reader is forewarned that this version of the C19 virus in South Africa “could” – “might” – “may” be worse than the original omicron.
You can never be too certain of the lurking dangers in the ever-shifting landscape of Virus Mania I suppose.
The headline reads, “Next Covid-19 Strain May be More Dangerous, Lab Study Shows”, telling us all once again and always- be afraid- be very afraid.
Omitted from this narrative is the fact that the initial incarnation of omicron was deemed, by the South African Health Minister, to be of little concern.
But that’s not the most revealing story behind the story.
Who produced the study?
What laboratory housed the research?
Where is that lab located?
And who funds all of the above?
With minimal parsing and a routine following of bread crumbs we find that the answer to all of those questions takes us straight to influential, monied interests- namely the Gates Foundation.
The study itself was “led by Alex Sigal at the Africa Health Research Institute in Durban, South Africa.”
In the ‘Acknowledgements’ section it is noted that:
“this study was supported through an award by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) – Award INV-018944 (AS).”
AS being shorthand for Alex Sigal the recipient of the award.
In the very next sentence titled, ‘Competing Interests’, it is noted that
AS received an honorarium for a talk given to Pfizer employees.”
The imagination need not wander too far to see where Mr. Sigal’s allegiances are positioned.
Alex Sigal’s laboratory is located on the grounds of The Africa Health Research Institute (AHRI) in Durban. Recently AHRI has received multiple grants from BMGF including: $4,129,787 in September 2020, $4,993,284 in August 2021, $6,765,215 in August 2021 and $1,026,734 in November 2021.
Knowing that Bill Gates has bragged about his 20-1 return on investments in organizations that ostensibly aim towards “increasing access to vaccines” one might wonder if Mr. Sigal is a researcher or an employee of Mr. Gates and if AHRI is in fact a research institute or part marketing department, part beachhead for the Gates Foundation as it seeks to reap profits from the African vaccine market.
So, I will state that the origins of Omicron were questionable, and a good part of me does suspect something related to lab origin. I didn't find the arguments about the incubation in an immunocompromised individual to be compelling, and in fact the study above if taken to be true would actually refute that claim because the lack of a host immune system means you have removed that barrier and selective pressure. I made the argument during the time of Omicron that an immunocompromised individual would probably lead to a more pathogenic/virulent virus given the lack of the immune system.
So this is a case in which two ideas are being propped up even though they contradict one another, and yet many people may still look at both and believe they can both be true at the same time.
I personally just found the instant remarks of Omicron's origins to be pretty suspicious but those concerns seemed to have come and gone for most people on all sides.
As to the funding, unfortunately we can't really tell much because it's pretty hard not to find a study not funded by the Gates foundation, or Zuckerberg, or really anyone of questionable intent, so I sort of accept it as being the unfortunate state of things.
Yes, I should clarify that it's relative to the examined variants, and in which case eventually it had reached a Ba.1/Wuhan sandwich. So it got better, but not not as good as ancestral virus.
I was more concerned for the fact that this study is trying to hammer this message that we're not out of the woods yet! We actually may see these worse variants! Ask our immunocompromised individual!
Which is sort of funny, because I wonder with how gain-of-function has been hurled around I wonder if this study would be considered a gain of function study...🤷♂️
I share many of the same sentiments. Some seem very eager to put the cart in front of the horse, and I don't know why. Overcorrection and perhaps theorizing just to be the first to theorize?
If you do not solve the problem of blatant coersion of experimental shots or drugs, nonsensical mandates, and censoring of proven, safe successful treatment in the first place, shedding becomes next to a nonissue. This does not only apply to covid variants, but what appears to be a steady stream of experimental shots and drugs for a wide variety of afflictions, including the flu and RSV, and combo shots, thereof.
Yes, determine what can be shed and quantify the effect, but also apply proper scientific method; not just theorize.
Just my two cents.
I have some thoughts about everything, and a lot of it I would owe to becoming more disagreeable as things go on. I suppose I hesitate when things just happen to line up so perfectly. So not only are people shedding spike, they're shedding mRNA, which then may persist for months, but then can also become incorporated into our cells, which can then replicate and produce more mRNA and then more spike?
I think that collection of suppositions leading to forever spike or forever mRNA is something I hesitate with because it just leads to some of the same arguments that we heard before, and so now do we stop ourselves from interacting with people because we're worried we'll be around shedders? Or maybe we should just order all of our groceries and supplies from Amazon and never leave our house.
I just wonder what the intended end goal can be for some of these ideas. I would prefer if we enact more precaution while also noting that, like you said, these things aren't working as intended and are proving to be harmful so it's more important to break the habit rather than be stuck wondering about uncertainty.
A good reminder of why to investigate further, and not accept pronouncements at face value.
Lots of fear porn goin on. It sells advertising clicks and likes.
Thanks
I think given the fact that the hypothesis is proposes as, well, a hypothesis should provide for a bit of caution when looking at it, and instead it's being used as validation which is unfortunate to be honest.
It's another version of: If enough people say it often enough, it must be true! And in fact becomes "truth" in most people's minds.
Is there any truth? Or simply astute observation of what is?
Well I think observation can tell us a lot, but truth, without getting into philosophical topics, would have to be based in evidence and consilience.
I think the best example of the Bellman's fallacy would be the mantra of "safe and effective" for these vaccines. We have no inherent way of knowing how safe and effective these things were at the beginning, but because the phrase was repeated many times and by many "credentialed" people it was assumed to be true. So we know it can't be true because it hasn't been put through the proper rigor. And so its truthfulness only exists on the basis that it was repeated.
Yes. Most people rely on others to tell them what's "true" rather than checking for themselves. Rigor is required.
I really view that Rumble video as nothing but fear porn. There indeed maybe some concerns about shedding, but this is hardly proof. In vitro tests can only tell you so much. Surely there are many people willing to be tested to see how the vaccine has affected them. I’m in a mixed-vaccine marriage- have I inadvertently vaccinated my husband? Well, either way there’s nothing to do about it except maybe learn for the future. I’m NOT going to live in fear either way!
There's concerns insofar as it is a possibility, but without any evidence extending beyond anecdotes we're kind of left in the dark. I'm just surprised that there is so much certainty to this whole shedding phenomenon, especially since the year and a half prior to vaccine rollouts meant we had plenty of people who were getting infected with SARS-COV2, which would mean plenty of people shedding virus and other components of the virus. We can't see who out there is vaccinated and if we start carding people I would argue it's not different than how people reacted to the unvaccinated and wanted to bar them from society.
So if the intent is to now tell people to not to interact with people them are we really in a good place socially?
Should we mask up if in company of shedders was also the first question that popped up in my mind when I read McCullough’s blog.
Obviously not.
Masks failed because of the size of the virus particle. In this case, the mRNA is probably about the same order of size or even smaller because it contains only the code for the spike protein. The pores in mask are about 3 orders of magnitude larger iirc. What this means is that even if shedding is going on, we have no recourse once they shed in public. The kids who are getting vaccinated will be doing the shedding in schools jeopardizing the next generations. If this is indeed true, then everybody who’s vaccinated needs to be quarantined 😃.
And therein lies the problem, at least for me. If we arrive at the point where we assume wherever we go we will be hit with clouds of spike from shedders, how do we respond? Do we go on about our lives, or do we start hiding ourselves away. Do we ask people the last time they were vaccinated? I can't ask everyone I come across, and at the point I do I'm pretty much just exposing myself anyways right?
So I think it's that aspect of having to think that every single person out there may spread "something" to you that can end up becoming more harmful.
Here's an example of how it works:
Covid Propaganda – The South African Variant
A new study warns of the “most dangerous Covid variant yet”…but a little research shows a very familiar name behind the scare tactics.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
-Upton Sinclair
Bloomberg and various news outlets recently reported that a South African laboratory study warned a new strain of the Covid-19 virus “could” emerge and “could cause worse illness than the current predominant omicron strain.”
This story is not so much a cautionary tale against a pending pathogenic event as it is an illustration of an extensive propaganda apparatus that seeks to keep the public in a constant state of hysteria for the express purpose of enriching powerful entities.
The reader is forewarned that this version of the C19 virus in South Africa “could” – “might” – “may” be worse than the original omicron.
You can never be too certain of the lurking dangers in the ever-shifting landscape of Virus Mania I suppose.
The headline reads, “Next Covid-19 Strain May be More Dangerous, Lab Study Shows”, telling us all once again and always- be afraid- be very afraid.
Omitted from this narrative is the fact that the initial incarnation of omicron was deemed, by the South African Health Minister, to be of little concern.
But that’s not the most revealing story behind the story.
Who produced the study?
What laboratory housed the research?
Where is that lab located?
And who funds all of the above?
With minimal parsing and a routine following of bread crumbs we find that the answer to all of those questions takes us straight to influential, monied interests- namely the Gates Foundation.
The study itself was “led by Alex Sigal at the Africa Health Research Institute in Durban, South Africa.”
In the ‘Acknowledgements’ section it is noted that:
“this study was supported through an award by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) – Award INV-018944 (AS).”
AS being shorthand for Alex Sigal the recipient of the award.
In the very next sentence titled, ‘Competing Interests’, it is noted that
AS received an honorarium for a talk given to Pfizer employees.”
The imagination need not wander too far to see where Mr. Sigal’s allegiances are positioned.
Alex Sigal’s laboratory is located on the grounds of The Africa Health Research Institute (AHRI) in Durban. Recently AHRI has received multiple grants from BMGF including: $4,129,787 in September 2020, $4,993,284 in August 2021, $6,765,215 in August 2021 and $1,026,734 in November 2021.
Knowing that Bill Gates has bragged about his 20-1 return on investments in organizations that ostensibly aim towards “increasing access to vaccines” one might wonder if Mr. Sigal is a researcher or an employee of Mr. Gates and if AHRI is in fact a research institute or part marketing department, part beachhead for the Gates Foundation as it seeks to reap profits from the African vaccine market.
https://off-guardian.org/2022/11/29/covid-propaganda-the-south-african-variant/
So, I will state that the origins of Omicron were questionable, and a good part of me does suspect something related to lab origin. I didn't find the arguments about the incubation in an immunocompromised individual to be compelling, and in fact the study above if taken to be true would actually refute that claim because the lack of a host immune system means you have removed that barrier and selective pressure. I made the argument during the time of Omicron that an immunocompromised individual would probably lead to a more pathogenic/virulent virus given the lack of the immune system.
So this is a case in which two ideas are being propped up even though they contradict one another, and yet many people may still look at both and believe they can both be true at the same time.
I personally just found the instant remarks of Omicron's origins to be pretty suspicious but those concerns seemed to have come and gone for most people on all sides.
As to the funding, unfortunately we can't really tell much because it's pretty hard not to find a study not funded by the Gates foundation, or Zuckerberg, or really anyone of questionable intent, so I sort of accept it as being the unfortunate state of things.
On the fuso study, it’s not even “more.” It’s just less less fusogenic than the first sample they took. Both are sub-Wuhan, haha.
Yes, I should clarify that it's relative to the examined variants, and in which case eventually it had reached a Ba.1/Wuhan sandwich. So it got better, but not not as good as ancestral virus.
I was more concerned for the fact that this study is trying to hammer this message that we're not out of the woods yet! We actually may see these worse variants! Ask our immunocompromised individual!
Which is sort of funny, because I wonder with how gain-of-function has been hurled around I wonder if this study would be considered a gain of function study...🤷♂️