• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Conspiracies The Covid Narrative

Status
Not open for further replies.
Xorkoth said:
Businesses in the US get to make the choice whether they require vaccinations. Unless that changes, currently that is the case. Some businesses are choosing to require it and some aren't.
Click to expand...

Oh really? i live in the US too and that's not the case so don't tell me it is

Anything connected to the state, in WA anyway, you have until Oct 18th or you're out of a job

and on top of that, there's this:

mynorthwest.com

Rantz: All religious accommodations for Washington state troopers rejected, per Inslee

Some Washington State Patrol troopers were told that all religious accommodations will be rejected for public-facing employees.
mynorthwest.com mynorthwest.com


and so far, not 1 medical exemption has been approved either
 
^ your post about sa referred to businesses. xorkoth also clearly referred to businesses.

the state government of wa is not a business, in that sense. they are related, but different, discussions.

alasdair
 
it's coercion

now read this:


fortune.com

Montana becomes the first U.S. state to ban vaccine requirements for employees

The GOP-backed law has come under fire among state employers amid a rise in COVID-19 cases.
fortune.com fortune.com

GOP lawmakers who supported the bill in the state Legislature said it was needed in response to employers “coercing” employees to get vaccinations under threat of termination. Some of the loudest supporters of the bill were employees of Benefis Health System in Great Falls who were told earlier this year that COVID-19 vaccines would be necessary to keep their jobs.





i'd be surprised if that doesn't set a precedence in future court rulings
 
Xorkoth said:
I support businesses being able to choose. I don't support government forcing businesses to mandate vaccines, nor do I support government disallowing private businesses to choose to require vaccinations.
Click to expand...

Im right with ya on that - 100% - totally fine with it being up to the employer but we can't have government making these decisions - that's not who we are

this country was built by people who didn't want to be told what to do - don't forget that
 

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com


“The idea that somehow everyone would be in lockstep on this is quite misguided,” said Adam Finn, another JCVI member and professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol. “It’s not what we normally see with vaccine programs in terms of timing or indeed in terms of which vaccines are or aren’t used.”


i couldn't agree more

but we got 1 doctor here, and if he says something, we all have to fall in line with what he says - he's the only face of it all and that's absurd

It's always a group of doctors - not just 1 - who have these debates to make rational decisions
 
Long haul COVID is so debilitating.

Vaccinated people won’t likely have long-term COVID symptoms, according to new research

This wretched pandemic has been full of terrible mysteries, and long COVID has been among the most confounding. Long haul COVID — a condition that involves lingering ailments that sometimes follow infection — is strange enough that, for a while at the beginning, some people found it the whole idea of it kind of sus. But the reality of long COVID, which sometimes included flu-like symptoms, fatigue, and loss of smell and taste, persisted. And now it could be qualified as a disability, for some.

Once we got the vaccines, it was evident that some people would get breakthrough infections, but we had no idea if their symptoms would stick around for long. Luckily, a fairly large new study suggests that vaccinated people who get breakthrough infections are less likely to get long COVID.

The study, which was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal on Wednesday, was part of what’s referred to as the “COVID Symptom Study,” where 1.2 participants across the U.K. were asked to use an app to self-report their symptoms. Participants were people who had had two doses of the Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca vaccines, and also included a control group of unvaccinated people and people who received only one dose, reported the New York Times.

In case you need another reason to get that second shot, this study offers plenty of material. Only 0.2% of doubly vaccinated participants reported breakthrough infections, and those who did get were twice as likely than unvaccinated people to be asymptomatic. Unvaccinated individuals were 51% more likely to get long COVID symptoms. T

o put that all in context, of the almost million vaccinated people the study analyzed, only 2,370 reported breakthrough infections, and those people were 49% less likely to have any symptoms after two weeks than unvaccinated people.

In case all those numbers are making your head spin, let me break the most important finding down: In fully vaccinated people, breakthrough infections appeared quite rarely, and most of the people who got them didn’t have symptoms. Even if they did have symptoms, they were far less likely to experience them for a prolonged amount of time. Seeing data to back up the anecdotal reports of people’s NBD breakthrough infections is, needless to say, very encouraging.

“This is the first study showing that long COVID is reduced by double vaccination, and it’s reduced significantly,” Claire Steves, a geriatrician at King’s College London and the study’s lead author, told the Times. This is crucial for us to know because, as Steves emphasized, “we don’t have any treatments for long COVID.” The best way to prevent contracting and getting very sick from COVID — despite what Joe Rogan seems to believes — is to get vaccinated.

The study does have some limitations, as the data was self-reported. But it is, frankly, impossible to conduct a study of this magnitude in a lab. Hopefully, the findings will convince more people to get vaccinated.
Click to expand...
 
cduggles said:
Long haul COVID is so debilitating.

Vaccinated people won’t likely have long-term COVID symptoms, according to new research
Click to expand...
Yes, but alternatively, as I did acquire legit Long C myself before any available jab, and have seen it through all stages to currentle nadder or nowt at last...


And Bizarrely unusual for me personally with my abnormal level of immuno compromisation and disposition to all new respiratory espec viral infections, no sign of a new Covid infection in mum nor myself, same each, ever since in a year practically now.

So that really is encouraging on another note it's just a point I want to make because this experience I report is absolutely genuine and has been much to my surprise and equal pleasing too see positive signs too.

And again just for the record despite the obvious unfortunate tragedies many many people recover absolutely fine from a Covid infection so these people to hopefully will have acquired a very strong lasting natural immunity which would prevent them from ever being in a case where they might suffer and more debilitating case of long Covid.

Just adding that not trying to dispute what you are saying at all also I think it's on topic lo!

About time!
 
alasdairm said:
what if the government is the employer?

alasdair
Click to expand...
I go with that. The government, unlimately being the empoyer. If the get their final wicked way, in just here MY OWN wild belief system, like 2030 maybe.

Their intentions collectively by then are in MY view seem being the only legal "emplyers" as well as owners of everything eventually.
 
Last edited:
i'm not sure i understand what you are saying.

i'm just trying to understand the apparent inconsistency in krinkle's position... which seems to be that employers should absolutely be able to coerce employees into being vaccinated. but if that employer is the government (as in the case of wa state employees) then they should not...

anyway, happy to wait for clarification.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
i'm not sure i understand what you are saying.

i'm just trying to understand the apparent inconsistency in krinkle's position... which seems to be that employers should absolutely be able to coerce employees into being vaccinated. but if that employer is the government (as in the case of wa state employees) then they should not...

anyway, happy to wait for clarification.

alasdair
Click to expand...
Sorry man that wasn't put clearly at all by me.late here now and quite...medicated.

I was speaking of the idea of a world we May be moving towards whereby eventually citizens do not rightfully own anything including properties and allsorts but my head is not awake enough I'm too tired also a bit more so I won't comment anymore on this right now and let you carry on sensible meaningful debate with Mr Krinkle here.
 
I love how people who dump rando drugs into there body balk at a vaccine. The Govt has no doubt done some nasty shit but this whole covid vax is not one of them. There really is no room for conspiracy when it comes to the vaccine. I’m sure there is wierd back room shit going on but it doesn’t involve the vaccines. It’s more than likely transferral of monies and power and stealth law and regulation changes. During the covid crisis in America The only people I heard of getting tested on with out there consent by unscrupulous people in positions of power by administering drugs to a vulnerable and captive population Drugs that were being prescribed for reasons other than there stated purpose and in an investigatory manner making the administration illegal. This secretive and blatantly abusive drug testing was done on vulnerable inmates even though prescribing this drug for covid is against the advice of the manufacturer as well as federal health officials . This human rights atrocity was done to the Inmates of the county jail in Little Rock Arkansa Obviously with the Sheriffs approval and they were given the Anti - parasite Drug Ivermectin with out there knowledge or consent when they asked what it was they were lied to and told a range of bullshit. This is America as a rule We don’t do secret test on Prisoners. At least not openly this needs to stop.
 
Dumpsterbunnie said:
I love how people who dump rando drugs into there body balk at a vaccine. The Govt has no doubt done some nasty shit but this whole covid vax is not one of them. There really is no room for conspiracy when it comes to the vaccine. I’m sure there is wierd back room shit going on but it doesn’t involve the vaccines. It’s more than likely transferral of monies and power and stealth law and regulation changes. During the covid crisis in America The only people I heard of getting tested on with out there consent by unscrupulous people in positions of power by administering drugs to a vulnerable and captive population Drugs that were being prescribed for reasons other than there stated purpose and in an investigatory manner making the administration illegal. This secretive and blatantly abusive drug testing was done on vulnerable inmates even though prescribing this drug for covid is against the advice of the manufacturer as well as federal health officials . This human rights atrocity was done to the Inmates of the county jail in Little Rock Arkansa Obviously with the Sheriffs approval and they were given the Anti - parasite Drug Ivermectin with out there knowledge or consent when they asked what it was they were lied to and told a range of bullshit. This is America as a rule We don’t do secret test on Prisoners. At least not openly this needs to stop.
Click to expand...
How many of those shamefully exposed to an actually very safe remedy which cured river blindness and parasitic disease after being introduced in 1981?

Ivermectin is not backed up as being dangerous. It has certain efficacy too.

So how many of these of all by far the greatest voctims of shocking injustice placed at such great danger,mcame to harm?

When they were not tested, with for example, something NEW, UNTESTED and EXPERIMENTAL technology, but a drug come supplement without a track record for causng harm.

No blood clots. No sudden deaths. Or whatever the most common or typical vaccine side effects are currently.

Ivermectin on paper and by record of usage history uptil now is a hell of a lot safer than....

The "control" study. There is, officially, no control. The control group in a study where people entered believing they had a chance of receiving a PERFECTLY SAFE placebo, were given the real deal.

So no unvaccinated control group officially. In the official safety trials. Which were not designed by method to actually establish actual safety??

Ivermectin is safe. Vaccines....are not.

Lucky inmates. No harm done I'm sure, as what they were given was effectively safe.

If not for the bastard media's there wouldn't be this conjured fear of Spiderman.

Fortunately Ivermectin isn't half as dangerous as medical cannabis, obviously as our good old government protect most of us, stiill, by firm law, from that dangerous untested plant.

Imagine, and what an atrocity it would be, to test those unwitting inmates with Cannabis?

Thank god they at least chose something LEGAL and freely available which without huge propaganda from the mainstream emphatically insisting it doesn't work, would very unlikely be seen as dangerous at all.

So the principle you talk of is worthless as we as human test subjects and propert of the government are already since ever unwitting and unwilling test puppets.

We just see things polar oppositely on this but you will stand with staunch support from the minority.

I am curious how much harm those inmates came to.

Lucky it wasn't the 60 years in use solid safety track record NAC they silently used.

NAC is banned now or imminently. Banned, for public use. 60 years hailed as an excellent amino acid with positive health benefits and actions.

One day...let's study NAC for activity against Covid so many people are reporting it online....next day- NAC will soon be banned.

Just wait for the patented watered down, toxic synthetic version replaces the all natural and pure as it can be, non toxic, side effect free, NAC with a dozen extra questionable, as is in all pharma meds, toxic excipients.

For at least 100 times the cost too I expect, typically.

The govt only want to protect us. They have done for so long, are still doing so well to PROTECT us from accessing natural safer than vaccines, I mean houses, medical cannabis also the unknown conundrum still wrt safety CBD oil for so long too and still wherever they can get the laws though regionally to keep us safe there.

But no. There are some bad people in the world. Maybe there are lots of decious money making oriented groups making money off this opportunistically bit nah, the vaccine itself is 100% clean of all mal intention, as benevolent a thing in this world as we aill likely ever be blessed with.

Right? Well, I can't swallow that. I know there are at least a million other people to undercomensate with an easy round minimum minimum, whose gullets would also have diffulty getting it down.
 
There are ivermectin overdose cases being reported by doctors.

Here’s what the FDA has to say:

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19​

COVID-19. We’ve been living with it for what sometimes seems like forever. Given the number of deaths that have occurred from the disease, it’s perhaps not surprising that some consumers are turning to drugs not approved or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

One of the FDA’s jobs is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use. In some instances, it can be highly dangerous to use a medicine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 that has not been approved or has not received emergency use authorization by the FDA.

There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans. Certain animal formulations of ivermectin such as pour-on, injectable, paste, and "drench," are approved in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. For humans, ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses to treat some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock.

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin​

  • The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
  • Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.
  • Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
  • If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.
  • Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.

What is Ivermectin and How is it Used?​

Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.

Some forms of animal ivermectin are approved to prevent heartworm disease and treat certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe only when used in animals as prescribed.

When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe?​

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay.

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.

Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People​

For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. Moreover, the FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in products for animals aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Options for Preventing and Treating COVID-19​

The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 include getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you and following current CDC guidance.

Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history.
Click to expand...

www.fda.gov

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.
www.fda.gov www.fda.gov
 
But the medicine and poison lie both in the dose accordibly.

Even safe things are dangerous past a specific dosage, and medicines ineffective below one.

Thank you for sharing that.

I heard of ivermectin long time ago, before it had more recently appropriately been branded (like cattle lol) so conveniently for discouragement purposes as a plain horse dewormer to make it sound as deadly as a horse brush might be if used by a human.

It's long been regarded as very safe.

NAC really has an impeccable spotless safety record.

But that is not legally permitted from now on. While government bodies continue to lobby ceaselessly to make it compulsory by law to literally risk your life based on an algorithm of wobbly concocted stats and almost a religion devoted to the moral and scientific reasons supporting the procedure.

I don't like smelling rats. I just wish they were not here in the first place because people just don't appreciate what a really wonderful, peaceful harmonious worldcwe could have ifvrge existing good will of humanity was just free to work together, unimpeded/shackled/restricted.
 
cduggles said:
I believe ivermectin to be a safe medication in appropriate, human dosages.

@Neophyte @negrogesic Are medications for animals in general made to the same standard as they are for humans (or close enough)? Just curious.
Click to expand...
That's really the message I picked up times ago when I spent lots of time exploring, trying all and any alternative treatments and supplement protocols.

But I still object to it being classed as a horse or animal medicine first, foremost and only.

It's a medicine. Which being so effective for purpose, as with many natural likely also synthetic medicnes too, which are long established as safe and effective for human use, like those has no less efficacy and safety for animal use too.

It's unfair, and innacurate to me, to label it as an animal medicine, because from there it's too easy to raise concern about it's applicability, safety and efficacy in humans.

And again lol, pure veterinary ketamine, apart from being 4-5 times as potent medicinally and recreationally, is no less pure and safe and efficacious to humans than horses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top