democritus
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One solution would be to remove the phrase “of concern” from the phrase “variant of concern”.
Another solution would be to have a General Election and remove all the MPs of concern from Parliament.
Compare what the vaccine does to what sars-cov2, which is RNA, does to your cells. If you want to make an informed decision you don’t want misinformation everywhere. Also immunity doesn’t mean not getting infected, it means not getting ill.
”
Q: How long does the spike protein made by the body (via encoding through the mRNA vaccine) last in the body?A: The protein lasts the same amount of time as other proteins made by the body. Exact time is not known, but it is estimated to be a few weeks. ”
https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-network/vaccines/vaccines-information–faq/
Furthermore, the virus sars-cov2 is RNA and it plays havoc with your cells. Jim Rickards should stick to his usual subject matter.
This statement is false: ” The spike protein remains with you indefinitely. In effect, you have modified your own genetic make-up to fight COVID “.
RNA isn’t DNA, and the RNA doesn’t remain.
SARS-COV2 is RNA too, and it reprograms your cells without any concern at all for your well-being, because it can.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-do-mrna-vaccines-work#Addressing-stability-and-safety
“mRNA does not linger in our cells for long. Once it has passed its instructions to the protein-making machinery in our cells, enzymes called ribonucleases (RNases) degrade the mRNA.
It is not possible for mRNA to move into the nucleus of a cell as it lacks the signals that would allow it to enter this compartment. This means that RNA cannot integrate into the DNA of the vaccinated cell.
There is no risk of long-term genetic changes with mRNA vaccines.
“
RNA is not our own genetic material, so I am not sure that mRNA vaccine plays with it. But even if it does, viruses can also change DNA.
What’s really sad about the Express article is that it isn’t hindsight. It was known at the time it was insane. What else could they have done? They could have done what Sweden did. Or they could have stopped the plane loads of virus coming into the country in the first place. And parliament was useless. Parliament still is useless. Where is parliament? Parliament has gone on ****ing holiday with ****ing face masks on. Not only was lock down a massive mistake, it was highly likely to be illegal. Everything that’s going on now is still illegal and the excuses for doing it are becoming ever more flimsy. Oh it’s to save the NHS, oh no wait, it’s to make the letter R=0, oh no wait, it’s to stop a second wave, oh no wait, it’s time to go to a restaurant with no mask on to try to fix the mess, here’s some free money.
Our country and our economy is all but destroyed by a whole parliament full of useless incompetent idiots. What’s the point in voting?
Not very obviously, the article about masks links to this research: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931142-9/fulltext where it says reusable 12–16-layer cotton with low certainty. Is that what people are wearing? 12-16 layers? (No).
The mask poster is nonsense. Maybe it is there as an example of nonsense.
100% transmission? What were they doing??
The Independent article about Sweden is absurd. They must have spent ages coming up with “seven day rolling average of new deaths”. If you want to see disaster, look at the UK. Not only have we destroyed our economy, but we have more deaths per million than Spain, Italy, Sweden .and France, Netherlands, Ireland, USA. What can the motive be for articles like this ridiculous article? Maybe people buy more newspapers in a lockdown?
I’m not convinced. There isn’t much evidence offered about what would happen if there were not a lockdown. The number of deaths in the UK peaked on 8th of April, which means infections had peaked before the lockdown began. People were taking precautions anyway, it wasn’t necessary to introduce a totalitarian police state in violation of human rights.
I think whatever we are doing at the moment as a cure is probably much worse than the problem. Looking at the world death statistics for covid19 258,509, this is less than half the number of people who die normally every year in the UK. We don’t have lockdowns for flu, it is a virus, it does spread, it does kill.
So much is still unknown about this virus, we don’t know how many people have it, and therefore we don’t know what the death rate is.
Locking everyone in a padded cell would work. It couldn’t not work as you put it. What is the price?
What is the correct address for COVID2019Info.live ? I cannot find it anywhere. Maybe it has invalid certificate.
Dear Raúl Ilargi Meijer,
What is the correct url for covid2019info.live? Is it this one?
https://covid2019.azurewebsites.net/
Which spreadsheet are you reproducing?
What happens when the testing starts, will we have two classes of citizen, those who are free, those who are not free? will the free become the majority? so the unfree can be forgotten? how long will it take?
Since when are estimates either real or actual?
Why isn’t it always true that we should avoid unnecessary car journeys to save lives?
Perhaps death on the road is acceptable because it is not exponential.
“already suffocating under a yoke of extreme austerity”
The suffering of the poor is government policy. Many people say they object to Brexit because it will be bad for the poor. But in this country it is already bad for the poor, and if it gets worse, that will be government policy too. There is really no need for the poor to be so poor, but there is always an excuse. Last time it was the debt, which never got paid off, this time it will be Brexit.
I will not read Cameron’s memoirs until 70 years after his death, to be sure he doesn’t get paid for it, and even then he won’t because I will be dead too.
When Boris says the UK Parliament has no control over BREXIT it is a simple statement of fact.
I think in theory parliament could pass a law requiring Johnson to revoke or postpone article 50. But it might take them too long to do that.
If we had no food the army would take over the port and let the lorries through. If the French army tried to stop that it would be an act of war.
Why can’t we see the leaked document? Which way are the unready lorries travelling? Why can’t the customs just let them through even though they are not ready? People think the law is like a physical object which pins you to a wall or something. It’s not. If it is a silly law you can change it or ignore it. One of the EU Kings could just issue a decree in a press statement. People don’t even bother with the speed limit in this country, why would they cause starvation by stopping lorries?
Backed by the People’s Vote campaign and written by Dr Séan Rickard, former chief economist of the National Farmers’ Union, the report warns that 50% of farms could go under as the government would prioritise keeping down food prices for consumers ahead of protecting agricultural producers.
It’s only necessary to read this paragraph which shows it is pro-remain nonsense. How does removing 50% of farms keep food prices down? It doesn’t. It’s nonsense. Why is there pro-remain speculation in a newspaper anyway? Because the Guardian is a pro-remain campaign.
If they are worried about the value of the pound they could raise interest rates. No doubt they will say this would be bad for the economy. But devaluing the pound ought to be good for the economy. Does anyone understand it? How about printing some money and paying the poor to vote remain?
Our future is in the hands of unelecting Cummings? I thought it was in the hands of unelected EU commissioners? Well I don’t suppose it matters whose unelected hands it is in, the point is, they are unelected.
It isn’t normal to quote the exchange rate at an airport. But this is the
Independent, a pro-remain campaign newsletter for the gullible and fearful.“Brussels must stand up for its member state, Ireland.”. Actually the UK is a
member state too. And article 50 is EU law. Who does the EU represent? Well
bankers, corporations, commissioners. I can’t think of anyone else.• Mess With Good Friday And We’ll Block UK Trade Deal, US Politicians Warn (G.)
We no longer have a country. We’re like Germany after the war, with others tearing of pieces and saying “that’s ours”. Ireland, the EU, USA, they all are making grabs. I suggest Scotland and Northern Ireland form a seperate country inside the EU, while England and Wales form one outside.
Trapped in proverty? Poverty is government policy at the moment. It always is when the tories are in. They like poverty, for other people. “If it isn’t hurting [them] it isn’t working [for us]” Margaret Thatcher. [Brackets mine].
How can we distinguish between project fear and objective predictions about the future? We don’t see probabilities on anything. We often see the word ‘could’ followed by apolcolyptic predictions. We cannot trust the Independent or the Guardian, they are pro-remain. The Independent is the worse though. We cannot trust the CBI I think. Corporate interests are not the interests of EU citizens, bankers interests are not the interests of EU citizens. The ultimate utopia for corporations would be one world government with no democracy.
Now that the Tories have demonstrated that they cannot pay off the debt that they said they would pay off in 5 years, no one cares about it. It used to be an existential threat to the UK. It used to be frenzied hysterical apolalypse stuff. But we have a new apocalypse now, so no one cares about the debt. Why does the debt matter? says the establishment. We need to get rid of democracy first. That’s our priority. Then we can get rid of debt by introducing slavery.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49043101
Don’t vote. It only encourages them.According to https://www.theccc.org.uk/publications/ we don’t need to change our driving habits. We just need to have electric cars. And then we need to have time of day tariffs, to stop the grid collapsing. This is madness. How much will electricity cost when it is used by all the cars?
As for Facebook, don’t worry, I am not on there either. I think it is a good place for the masses to congregate and leave the rest of the internet smart people like me.
Yesterday in Parliament the shadow home secretary spoke in defence of Assange according to my memory and this article:
“Diane Abbot has been criticised after defending Julian Assange following his removal from the Ecuadorian embassy and arrest.”
I suppose it is quite comical to try to stand up for democracy against the onslaught of totalitarianism and Guardian bigotry. So I give up completely. But what is the justification for this (below)? How does it help anyone? or is it just supposed to be a punishment for daring to leave the regime? It confirms to me we are absolutely right to leave.
I don’t know what happened to my twitter links, they should have been these:
t w i t t e r.com/JewishLabour/status/1115282710182989824
t w i t t e r.com/OwenJones84/status/1115299916602073090
But got mangled up somewhere into t.co
It is the right twitter link. It shows JLM responding to Leave.EU. I don’t think it does their cause much good because it makes it look like the vote was motivated by anti-brexit. I am responding mainly to the Independent article. It looks like a lot of mud slinging in all directions. What is the truth? Is the labour party or Leave.UK more racist than a random selection of people?
Firstly: antisemitism is real, it's a horrifying menace, and it must be defeated. Labour's own disciplinary procedures are out of date, not fit for purpose and need far reaching reform.
That doesn't mean The Sunday Times splash is accurate or fair. It isn't: and that matters. https://t.co/WOlvZk3ueA
— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) April 8, 2019
What conclusions should I draw from this?
We also voted overwhelmingly to support @peoplesvote_uk.
You are a divisive race baiting organisation and we want nothing whatsoever to do with you.
Go away and leave us and other minorities alone. https://t.co/Ez8YaIUG7c
— Jewish Labour Movement (@JewishLabour) April 8, 2019
Look at this remarkable contribution to the debate on the revocation of article 50 petition:
I have questioned the Prime Minister, and I am confused. Why does she think it is okay for MPs to change their mind and vote time and again, yet it is not okay for the people of our country to do that? After all, every five years we expect the country to change its mind in voting in general elections. In fact, the Prime Minister wanted the country to change its mind so that the Government had a stronger majority. Clearly that did not go well for her, but that was after just two years. We are now nearly three years out from the 2016 referendum. My constituents are absolutely right to call for a public vote with the second petition.
Amazingly, she has completely overlooked the fact that Brexit has not happened (yet?). If Labour win the next general election, should we leave the tories in for three years and have another go?
(To be fair, it was April 1st).
Apparently optimism for a soft brexit has made world stocks go up. Wow! Such massive influence for such a laughing-stock country. But why don’t we let the markets run everything? Maybe because the markets just read the press. And the press just looks at the markets. No, let’s not go there, it would be a cliff edge to the abyss.
Quoting the Guardian article:
I expect the minority of dedicated white nationalists and xenophobes to throw the towel in
What bigotry. Nationalism is a rude word for course, but what happens when the EU becomes a nation? will remainers be nationalist? Oh no, leavers will be separatists. You can put a spin on anything, and the Guardian does. Totalitarians! Plutocrats!
I don’t know how we would get a national unity government.
As parliament agrees on only one thing: that it is opposed to everything, and it is too late to do anything now because of EU elections, I suggest that the queen dissolve parliament and revokes article 50.
In the longer term we could have a referendum on England leaving the UK. That would solve the Irish and Scottish problems. Maybe Wales would like to join us.
If we have another referendum do we have to take into account the two and a half year pro-remain campaign by the Independent? or do we just write that off as “news” about the future? Or maybe we just wipe the slate clean and have a token period of unbiased reporting.
