Post Covid “vaccine” deaths here

[beeohbeebeewhy]

Peat has updated his stance on this and said it is only logical that it can be passed.

If this is the case then quite a lot of people are screwed. A majority of my friends have been vaccinated and so have a few people in my family, I regular make contact with these people and I live with one of them so there's no avoiding it. Regardless getting a direct jab is probably worse than the viral shedding which occurs, at least I hope . I have yet to experience anything crazy though, not that I'm in the best health to begin with but nothing new has happened since I've been hanging out with vaccinated people.

Of the people I know who've gotten vaccinated they usually have similar symptoms to harsh covid cases (full body fatigue/weakness, brainfog, soreness) for a few days, the worst I've seen is a family friend who has a long history of gut issues and allergies, he had it pretty rough and developed a rash.

 

[LucyL]

I don't know if Gabs show up here, but this video seems close to the topic......

Lauren Witzke on Gab: 'They let it slip'

Lauren Witzke on Gab: 'They let it slip'

gab.com

 

[LucyL]

 

[PxD]

so "woke" equates to Marx's economics as explained in tests like "Das Kapital"?

Who is the right? Can you give an example or describe what the Right stands for? links are cool

No, Woke isn't classical orthodox Marxism, because it concerns itself much more with culture than with economics. Orthodox Marxism is about economics, not so much culture. Being two sides of the same coin, one would think that the two would be on good terms, but historically orthodox Marxists have despised the wokesters because they viewed them as degenerate, promoting a hedonistic culture of social decay.

Woke is properly known as Cultural Marxism or Frankfurt School Marxism: it's all about race (whites bad, non-white good), gender (men bad, women good) and sex (homosexuals good, heteros are oppressors, personal pronouns, and anyone can be a man or woman, depending on how they feel that day). Its stated goal is to dissolve traditional culture by attacking its most core, basic principles and its historical leaders.

Wokists don't read Das Kapital. They read texts like Rules for Radicals and White Fragility. The founding father of that branch of political ideology is moreso Antonio Gramsci than Karl Marx.

To answer your second question, I can give examples of what the Right stands for, although it varies a bit over time and from country to country. In its broadest sense however, it means conservatism - respect for practices and traditions that have been proven by time, which furthermore implies an emphasis for meritocracy and objectivity. The term was originally associated with conservatives who supported the established order and favored small, incremental, organic changes to society over drastic radical changes during the French Revolution. I think this is still the best way to think of it. The Left, in contrast, and especially the wokesters, are all about bringing about big social changes in the pursuit of a theoretical equality amongst all individuals and social classes, which in turn to at least some degree requires a rejection of historically observed reality and adoption of subjectivity. This worldview presupposes that one views the world as being divided into oppressors and victims, and only enlightened intervention can fix it. Indeed, the modern Left is really big into relativism and critical theory. The coining of the term "political correctness" allegedly came out of a statement made by Trotsky to the effect that the Communist Party didn't care whether a proposal or policy was right or wrong in any objective sense, they only cared if it was in line with ("correct" with) their political ideology, hence the only relevant question to ask was: But is it politically correct?

One example: in 1920-1940s Europe (and up to about 1980 in Spain), the fascist Right heavily promoted traditional family structure and child bearing, while punishing sexual deviancy such as homosexuality and also outlawing abortion. The Leftists around the same time were doing the opposite - attempting to replace biological parents with the State as the parent, liberalizing deviant sexual behavior and sexualization of children (e.g. Gyorgy Lukacs in the short-lived Soviet Repulic of Hungary), while encouraging women into career professions over raising families. The dominant theme through all this on the Right was doing the things that they perceived to be time-tested to produce social order and growth, with a "survival of the fittest" subtheme emerging out of this.

Another specific example from a different era: in the modern United States, the Right essentially stands for Constitutionalism, meaning a faithful interpretation of the original Constitution, as well as support for cultural and economic practices that the US has been grounded on since inception, such as free markets and property rights. Again, the theme running through this way of thinking is doing things by the ways that have generally worked well for the nation over time, with a strong subtheme of meritocracy as a logical conclusion.

The Right is more of a Darwinian worldview that generally splits the world into winners and losers. The Left is a worldview that splits the world into oppressors and victims.

*I noted that your second question possibly isn't sincere (can be hard to read tone/intent through text sometimes), and most probably you're trying to goad me into an argument, what with asking questions that are phrased as if you already have the answers in mind, and the sarcastic-sounding "links are cool" comment - but I answered you in a straightforward manner anyway. I'm not posting any links. Everything I've written that's factual is easily searchable online, the rest is my interpretation and commentary.

 

[Missenger]

He's saying what's on his mind reading his script.

 

[Braveheart]

No, Woke isn't classical orthodox Marxism, because it concerns itself much more with culture than with economics. Orthodox Marxism is about economics, not so much culture. Being two sides of the same coin, one would think that the two would be on good terms, but historically orthodox Marxists have despised the wokesters because they viewed them as degenerate, promoting a hedonistic culture of social decay.

Woke is properly known as Cultural Marxism or Frankfurt School Marxism: it's all about race (whites bad, non-white good), gender (men bad, women good) and sex (homosexuals good, heteros are oppressors, personal pronouns, and anyone can be a man or woman, depending on how they feel that day). Its stated goal is to dissolve traditional culture by attacking its most core, basic principles and its historical leaders.

Wokists don't read Das Kapital. They read texts like Rules for Radicals and White Fragility. The founding father of that branch of political ideology is moreso Antonio Gramsci than Karl Marx.

To answer your second question, I can give examples of what the Right stands for, although it varies a bit over time and from country to country. In its broadest sense however, it means conservatism - respect for practices and traditions that have been proven by time, which furthermore implies an emphasis for meritocracy and objectivity. The term was originally associated with conservatives who supported the established order and favored small, incremental, organic changes to society over drastic radical changes during the French Revolution. I think this is still the best way to think of it. The Left, in contrast, and especially the wokesters, are all about bringing about big social changes in the pursuit of a theoretical equality amongst all individuals and social classes, which in turn to at least some degree requires a rejection of historically observed reality and adoption of subjectivity. This worldview presupposes that one views the world as being divided into oppressors and victims, and only enlightened intervention can fix it. Indeed, the modern Left is really big into relativism and critical theory. The coining of the term "political correctness" allegedly came out of a statement made by Trotsky to the effect that the Communist Party didn't care whether a proposal or policy was right or wrong in any objective sense, they only cared if it was in line with ("correct" with) their political ideology, hence the only relevant question to ask was: But is it politically correct?

One example: in 1920-1940s Europe (and up to about 1980 in Spain), the fascist Right heavily promoted traditional family structure and child bearing, while punishing sexual deviancy such as homosexuality and also outlawing abortion. The Leftists around the same time were doing the opposite - attempting to replace biological parents with the State as the parent, liberalizing deviant sexual behavior and sexualization of children (e.g. Gyorgy Lukacs in the short-lived Soviet Repulic of Hungary), while encouraging women into career professions over raising families. The dominant theme through all this on the Right was doing the things that they perceived to be time-tested to produce social order and growth, with a "survival of the fittest" subtheme emerging out of this.

Another specific example from a different era: in the modern United States, the Right essentially stands for Constitutionalism, meaning a faithful interpretation of the original Constitution, as well as support for cultural and economic practices that the US has been grounded on since inception, such as free markets and property rights. Again, the theme running through this way of thinking is doing things by the ways that have generally worked well for the nation over time, with a strong subtheme of meritocracy as a logical conclusion.

The Right is more of a Darwinian worldview that generally splits the world into winners and losers. The Left is a worldview that splits the world into oppressors and victims.

*I noted that your second question possibly isn't sincere (can be hard to read tone/intent through text sometimes), and most probably you're trying to goad me into an argument, what with asking questions that are phrased as if you already have the answers in mind, and the sarcastic-sounding "links are cool" comment - but I answered you in a straightforward manner anyway. I'm not posting any links. Everything I've written that's factual is easily searchable online, the rest is my interpretation and commentary.

Thank you...some thoughtful commentary

 

[PxD]

Dan Kaminsky’s tweets reveal how smart he was, and yet how blind.

The mistake is thinking everyone is as honest and caring as yourself.

And yet he specialised in hacking as a means to improve internet security!

Perhaps because computers follow instructions literally, the expert computer programmer is less able to detect lies or anticipate human behaviour.

Here are some of his recent vaccine related tweets:

“There’s no suing coronavirus for this. There’s no pleading with a judge for a temporary restraining order against future infections while we investigate a rare side effect. We can’t pretend to not know the relative effects of inaction. We do know. It’s wartime. Cost enough.”

“[regarding next hacking conference being largely online] Measured and nuanced. I approve. Life *will* go on, whether that happens this summer is difficult to predict. But this is what a lot of people worked for; developing and deploying these astoundingly clever vaccines.”

“There’s been a change: Peacetime vs. Wartime. In peacetime, inaction is tolerable, any deaths resulting were inevitable. The goal is to avoid error, no matter how small. In wartime, inaction can itself be error. More will die if you do nothing, than if you operate imperfectly.”

“They have you stick around for thirty minutes just in case you have an adverse reaction. A nurse just walked up and checked on me. I want everything in my life to be as smooth and well engineered as this health care IT experience.”

Reading through this list of quotes makes me think of Taleb. I'm a big fan of Taleb and I think Taleb would have a field day cutting a muppet like this down to size.

Kaminsky sounds like the kind of person who thinks the universe can be neatly described by lines of code and packaged into tidy little boxes, that systems are linear and knowable, and the state of knowledge about the our state of knowledge of Nature is perfect.

He's an anti-intellectual smart guy, aka a nerd.

 

[Nemo]

Thank you Nemo. Sometimes I act in silly or rash ways and cause unhealthy antagonism. I must learn to be better.

You're passionate. That will see you through a lot.

 

[Richiebogie]

Reading through this list of quotes makes me think of Taleb. I'm a big fan of Taleb and I think Taleb would have a field day cutting a muppet like this down to size.

Thanks for mentioning Nassim Taleb. I didn’t know much about him.

I just checked out Taleb’s book “Skin in the game”.

Share traders who ignore risk can quickly end up losing all their money. They have skin in the game.

However journalists who write falsehoods may be protected by their peers and editors. They may actually lose their jobs for reporting the truth.

This vaccine could end my life or make me sick, so my decision to take it or avoid it means I have skin in the game.

The journalists and bureaucrats pushing vaccines have no skin in the game. As vaccine manufacturers are exempt from prosecution they have little skin in the game. They care more for perception than reality regarding how safe and effective their vaccines are.

Taleb says that imposing risks on others and not suffering any consequences of your bad decisions on yourself leads to collapse of systems.

People who realise news is fake will desert that channel or newspaper and look for other news sources.

***

So many minor celebrities under 60 are dying from the vaccines: newsreaders, actors, social media leaders...

Yet many people are still asleep.

 

[gaze]

What you’re asking the average individual to do who isn’t deep into health or have a good biochemical understanding of the world is too disregard the traditional authority on medical advice. This is a tough proposition, especially since so many people are witness to the effects of a virus like COVID. I can see how some dialogue could open up if one brings up points about the pharmaceutical industry and the unethical practices and incentives that happen there, but there has to be some objective assurance that they can remain as safe without having to resort to a vaccine. What would you tell these people, who have to interpret information to form as actionable truth from some source.

agreed. it's so easy to sit behind a keyboard and think people should just "do research" and get healthy and it's no problem. 99.99% of people have never heard of Ray peat nor that pufas are supposedly not good for you. so the average person does "research" and goes low carb, bringing their chances of death even higher. it's easy to critize policy when you have an understanding of human health from a hormonal prism, but most people don't have that luxury. for a lot of people, skewing from traditional authority goes bad, whether it be eating disorders, taking dangerous supplements, self diagnosing based on the first google searches. it's shaky terrirotity that is more nuanced than everything mainstream being bad and contrarianism being good simply for being contrarian. traditional advice has done a lot of harm no doubt, but alternative medicine is no saint either

 

[tankasnowgod]

agreed. it's so easy to sit behind a keyboard and think people should just "do research" and get healthy and it's no problem. 99.99% of people have never heard of Ray peat nor that pufas are supposedly not good for you. so the average person does "research" and goes low carb, bringing their chances of death even higher.

Ridiculous.

I didn't know about Ray Peat 10 years ago, and tried Low Carb and Paleo. Some things worked, others didn't. Eventually, I was turned onto the dangers of iron, and searching around, I kept on seeing Peat's name pop up with an article called "Iron's Dangers," and eventually, ended up here.

It people don't care about their health, or have the curiosity to dig deeper when things don't work, well, that's on them.

If they just want to accept everything they are told, and never question anything, even when it's obviously not working, well, god bless them. I don't expect anything from the "average person" that I didn't do myself.

 

[tankasnowgod]

View attachment 23028
View attachment 23029

More and more, I'm thinking, if someone plans on playing around with mainlining these dangerous mRNA drugs, they should load up on Cyproheptadine first. Like, enough cypro to put an elephant in a coma. THAT should stop the blood clots!

Or...... a combo of cypro+aspirin+vitamin E. High doses, all around. And, get as PUFA depleted as possible.

 

[gaze]

Ridiculous.

I didn't know about Ray Peat 10 years ago, and tried Low Carb and Paleo. Some things worked, others didn't. Eventually, I was turned onto the dangers of iron, and searching around, I kept on seeing Peat's name pop up with an article called "Iron's Dangers," and eventually, ended up here.

It people don't care about their health, or have the curiosity to dig deeper when things don't work, well, that's on them.

If they just want to accept everything they are told, and never question anything, even when it's obviously not working, well, god bless them. I don't expect anything from the "average person" that I didn't do myself.

yea but you're a one in a million case, literally. a lot of people do question authority, that's why they go low carb because the government promoted a high carb diet. they supplement fish oil, they watch joe rogan and go carnivore, the fringe finds westin a price. and that's only the people who have the time or energy to question things, a vast majority of people are working excessively, are raising families, or they're poor and have to rely on cheap junk to survive. not everyone can buy all the ingredients and cook every single meal, every single day. restaurants and fast food are just way too convenient . just because you ended up in a good place doesn't mean everyone else will naturally follow the same path, just not realistic for the majority of the population to be lucky enough to find peats work and have the money to live it. that's why for the majority of the people, following traditional advice is a better option than going low carb and going down a alternative health rabbit hole cause more often then not it ends badly

 

[tankasnowgod]

yea but you're a one in a million case, literally. a lot of people do question authority, that's why they go low carb because the government promoted a high carb diet. they supplement fish oil, they watch joe rogan and go carnivore, the fringe finds westin a price. and that's only the people who have the time or energy to question things, a vast majority of people are working excessively, are raising families, or they're poor and have to rely on cheap junk to survive. not everyone can buy all the ingredients and cook every single meal, every single day. restaurants and fast food are just way too convenient . just because you ended up in a good place doesn't mean everyone else will naturally follow the same path, just not realistic for the majority of the population to be lucky enough to find peats work and have the money to live it. that's why for the majority of the people, following traditional advice is a better option than going low carb and going down a alternative health rabbit hole cause more often then not it ends badly

Lol at "Money to live it." A lot of Peat's advice is to buy cheap, commonly available foods, one of the reasons milk and orange juice are mentioned so much.

Wanna eat at a fast food restaurant and follow a lot of Peat's advice? Go to In N Out, Order two flying dutchmans, and a large soda. Sugar, protein, saturated fat. Boom. Cheaper to do that than eat a Ribeye at every meal.

I don't have any problem with anyone who goes low carb or watches Joe Rogan, or goes carnivore. But if those things don't work for them..... I would think it silly if they didn't start questioning them after a time. If the person questions government advice, they should question the advice of "low carb gurus," Joe Rogan, and even people like Peat and Linus Pauling.

 

[gaze]

I don't have any problem with anyone who goes low carb or watches Joe Rogan, or goes carnivore. But if those things don't work for them..... I would think it silly if they didn't start questioning them after a time.

the sicker you get, the more close minded, angry, defensive you also become, so a lot of people who go down the fad diet pathway don't re consider their choices. that's why questioning things can be dangerous, because there's so much disinformation and propoganda out there from people tying to sell supplements or make a career that it's impossible to get good information. the reason sugar is so vilified is largely from low carb contrarians, who have convinced the public that sugar is the devil. and all the people who went vegan, or vegetarian, or dairy free. these are all contrarians who are "free thinkers" who feel good about themselves for going against traditional and governmental advice and making their fad dairy free diet their identity. in this sense the alternative health community has set back humans for decades, convincing the public that milk and sugar are dangerous. and like I said, traditional, official health policies have done plenty of harm without a doubt, but it would be a lie to say the alternative community hasn't been just as or even more damaging.

 

[FitnessMike]

Gosh, I would hate to be in a home like that.

People around here are frequently perplexed why a healthy person would visit the forum, assuming it must only be unhealthy people who post here. It's because I don't want to end up in a freaking nursing home. Is that not a good enough reason? Lol

God forbid I have a little foresight...

2 words, HOLY ****

 

[charlie]

Two teenage girls suffer Cardiac Arrest and sadly Die within days of having mRNA Covid Vaccine

The mRNA Covid vaccines have caused further devastation for two more families after two teenage girls sadly died after going into cardiac arrest just days after receiving a dose of the experimental…

dailyexpose.co.uk

 

[Aad]

'Fit and healthy' engineer, 27, died three weeks after having first AstraZeneca anti-Covid jab and 11 days after he went to A&E complaining of headaches​

Engineer, 27, died weeks after having first AstraZeneca covid jab

Jack Last, 27, died at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge on Tuesday, April 20, just 11 days after attending A&E because he was suffering from headaches.

www.dailymail.co.uk

27 years young!! Chances of him dying from Covid are basically ZERO.

 

[Nemo]

More and more, I'm thinking, if someone plans on playing around with mainlining these dangerous mRNA drugs, they should load up on Cyproheptadine first. Like, enough cypro to put an elephant in a coma. THAT should stop the blood clots!

Or...... a combo of cypro+aspirin+vitamin E. High doses, all around. And, get as PUFA depleted as possible.

I'm thinking along the same lines. Just about to order some cypro and Tocovit for my sisters. They're willing to do some aspirin. Not 6g a day, but some.

 

[Nemo]

'Fit and healthy' engineer, 27, died three weeks after having first AstraZeneca anti-Covid jab and 11 days after he went to A&E complaining of headaches​

Engineer, 27, died weeks after having first AstraZeneca covid jab

Jack Last, 27, died at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge on Tuesday, April 20, just 11 days after attending A&E because he was suffering from headaches.

www.dailymail.co.uk

27 years young!! Chances of him dying from Covid are basically ZERO.

Nattokinase is amazing at dissolving blood clots. I know because there was a period when my mother was having constant strokes and the doctors didn't realize her heart was spinning them out.

If someone gets a symptom like this of a blood clot, that's the thing I'd give them on the way to the ER.