Viruses / Vaccines 2

lastexitlondon

The virus kills people  not just by cardiac arrest. By many ways. Mainly lungs pneumonia . That would be excess deaths 
 I do not think  its more dangerous than the original  covid.  But i do think  it has dangers we dont fully know with clarity yet i think  is where im at.

Merkin Baller

lastexitlondon said:

The virus kills people  not just by cardiac arrest. By many ways. Mainly lungs pneumonia . That would be excess deaths 
 I do not think  its more dangerous than the original  covid.  But i do think  it has dangers we dont fully know with clarity yet i think  is where im at.

I guess i don't understand why you think the excess deaths can't be talked about, or why you suggested the uptick in heart attacks is related to the vaccine when that trend started before the vaccine rollout. 


There have been cryptic comments made about "the truth" in the last several days, but when pressed, no one has said what this truth is. 

lastexitlondon

Nothing  cryptic things get removed or taken down if you speak about them. 
Lots of people who post on you tube or whatever  have videos removed. I watch a dr. Campbell  who just goes through studies and peer reviewed  papers and he cannot mention anything  to do with  vaccine induced  myocarditis or pericardyitis with out the algorithms  taking it down. I dont understand  why it cant be  debated. Russell brand has had the  same thing  it gets removed. Why is all i don't  understand.  Let people talk about it.

Merkin Baller

lastexitlondon said:

Nothing  cryptic things get removed or taken down if you speak about them. 
Lots of people who post on you tube or whatever  have videos removed. I watch a dr. Campbell  who just goes through studies and peer reviewed  papers and he cannot mention anything  to do with  vaccine induced  myocarditis or pericardyitis with out the algorithms  taking it down. I dont understand  why it cant be  debated. Russell brand has had the  same thing  it gets removed. Why is all i don't  understand.  Let people talk about it.

Are they also blaming the vaccine for the uptick in heart attacks? 

It's a misleading statement to suggest the trend started with the vaccine. You get that, right? 

HughFreakingDillon

I haven't any posts taken down here. we're talking here. if there were posts taken down on youtube, I'd need to know context. Maybe there was one comment in a 30 minute video as the reason why. who knows. 

lastexitlondon

HughFreakingDillon said:

I haven't any posts taken down here. we're talking here. if there were posts taken down on youtube, I'd need to know context. Maybe there was one comment in a 30 minute video as the reason why. who knows. 

The whole video are taken down. Not frim a comment.  The content isnt allowed.

lastexitlondon

Merkin Baller said:

lastexitlondon said:

Nothing  cryptic things get removed or taken down if you speak about them. 
Lots of people who post on you tube or whatever  have videos removed. I watch a dr. Campbell  who just goes through studies and peer reviewed  papers and he cannot mention anything  to do with  vaccine induced  myocarditis or pericardyitis with out the algorithms  taking it down. I dont understand  why it cant be  debated. Russell brand has had the  same thing  it gets removed. Why is all i don't  understand.  Let people talk about it.

Are they also blaming the vaccine for the uptick in heart attacks? 

It's a misleading statement to suggest the trend started with the vaccine. You get that, right? 

The  trend didn't start
 It grew by a bigger margin. Covid causes heart issues. Also diabetes in some. Lung disease in others. But the incidence of heart problems  seemed  to get higher after mrna was introduced. 

HughFreakingDillon

yes, I know the whole video is taken down. I mean it might have been taken down not because of the larger content of the video, but something else not related to what you think it got taken down for (i wasn't referring to comments on the video; IN the video). 

either way, if you have something showing what you are talking about (video, links to peer viewed studies, etc). post em. 

lastexitlondon

.

Merkin Baller

lastexitlondon said:

Merkin Baller said:

lastexitlondon said:

Nothing  cryptic things get removed or taken down if you speak about them. 
Lots of people who post on you tube or whatever  have videos removed. I watch a dr. Campbell  who just goes through studies and peer reviewed  papers and he cannot mention anything  to do with  vaccine induced  myocarditis or pericardyitis with out the algorithms  taking it down. I dont understand  why it cant be  debated. Russell brand has had the  same thing  it gets removed. Why is all i don't  understand.  Let people talk about it.

Are they also blaming the vaccine for the uptick in heart attacks? 

It's a misleading statement to suggest the trend started with the vaccine. You get that, right? 

The  trend didn't start
 It grew by a bigger margin. Covid causes heart issues. Also diabetes in some. Lung disease in others. But the incidence of heart problems  seemed  to get higher after mrna was introduced. 

It could also have been caused by the continued spread of covid in the second year of the pandemic. 

lastexitlondon

https://youtu.be/-MSKzoI72eU
This is in the  house of parliament.  Peer reviewed. Its on our news. Not from  some  quack

lastexitlondon

The swine flu vaccine was removed  for 1 in 100.000 yellow card events. 

benjs

lastexitlondon said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I haven't any posts taken down here. we're talking here. if there were posts taken down on youtube, I'd need to know context. Maybe there was one comment in a 30 minute video as the reason why. who knows. 

The whole video are taken down. Not frim a comment.  The content isnt allowed.

If I'm understanding correctly, the timeline of events as you see them, seems to be:

1) Content gets posted

2) Some sort of content filter (either a human one or an automated one) flags the content as controversial

3) The internet is scraped for facsimiles of the found content by said filtering team/algorithm

4) The source content is deleted (without discussion or debate or warning)

5) The found facsimiles are deleted or people are pressured into deleting it (without discussion or debate or warning)

6) Those who saw the content are subsequently gaslit into believing they were wrong about what they saw/read
7) The details are added to a list of things to make sure never get posted in the future

No disrespect, but I can't see how this makes sense. When something gets posted on a website, it's typically scraped by digital services automatically, and often downloaded and shared by people who find the content compelling. This is even more likely on a site like YouTube, which produces upwards of 10% of the world's internet traffic. Both of these initiatives can/do take place within minutes.

What authority do content flaggers have to compel other entities, not owned by them, to remove content (assuming the content is also not owned by them)? How are there never any 'close calls' or whistleblowers who respond negatively to the pressure campaign to close them down? The idea of a global suppression effort successfully hiding 'truths' about a highly viral and controversial topic such as CoVID-19 is virtually impossible on the internet of 2023.

What I would like to know, is where this content that people are adamant that they once saw and then disappeared, has gone. Is it there, buried under more honest and/or popular content? Was it self-deleted (and why)? Have they somehow lost their ability to find it once more given a flood of new information? Are there algorithms suddenly burying the content (meaning it's still there, but one isn't likely to encounter it)? I don't have any answers to these (yet), but I'm really grateful for you carrying on this conversation with me, lastexitlondon  

lastexitlondon

benjs said:

lastexitlondon said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I haven't any posts taken down here. we're talking here. if there were posts taken down on youtube, I'd need to know context. Maybe there was one comment in a 30 minute video as the reason why. who knows. 

The whole video are taken down. Not frim a comment.  The content isnt allowed.

If I'm understanding correctly, the timeline of events as you see them, seems to be:

1) Content gets posted

2) Some sort of content filter (either a human one or an automated one) flags the content as controversial

3) The internet is scraped for facsimiles of the found content by said filtering team/algorithm

4) The source content is deleted (without discussion or debate or warning)

5) The found facsimiles are deleted or people are pressured into deleting it (without discussion or debate or warning)

6) Those who saw the content are subsequently gaslit into believing they were wrong about what they saw/read
7) The details are added to a list of things to make sure never get posted in the future

No disrespect, but I can't see how this makes sense. When something gets posted on a website, it's typically scraped by digital services automatically, and often downloaded and shared by people who find the content compelling. This is even more likely on a site like YouTube, which produces upwards of 10% of the world's internet traffic. Both of these initiatives can/do take place within minutes.

What authority do content flaggers have to compel other entities, not owned by them, to remove content (assuming the content is also not owned by them)? How are there never any 'close calls' or whistleblowers who respond negatively to the pressure campaign to close them down? The idea of a global suppression effort successfully hiding 'truths' about a highly viral and controversial topic such as CoVID-19 is virtually impossible on the internet of 2023.

What I would like to know, is where this content that people are adamant that they once saw and then disappeared, has gone. Is it there, buried under more honest and/or popular content? Was it self-deleted (and why)? Have they somehow lost their ability to find it once more given a flood of new information? Are there algorithms suddenly burying the content (meaning it's still there, but one isn't likely to encounter it)? I don't have any answers to these (yet), but I'm really grateful for you carrying on this conversation with me, lastexitlondon  

No worries.  Im happy to conversate.
No. videos with content that doesn't  fit the guidelines get taken down. So the  guidelines are set by lets say you tube as its the only social media (if it is ) that i have. 
They choose  whats allowed. 

HughFreakingDillon

lastexitlondon said:

https://youtu.be/-MSKzoI72eU
This is in the  house of parliament.  Peer reviewed. Its on our news. Not from  some  quack

thanks for the video rob. I'll digest and comment later. 

Go Beavers

lastexitlondon said:

Go Beavers said:

lastexitlondon said:

Go Beavers said:

lastexitlondon said:

Its pointless because anyone who dares to question or feel for the families who lost someone to the vaccine is some kind of odd ball  with misinformation.  Any link or Dr thats put on here is made our to be not good enough or from somewhere  thats not real. I dont know what you are told or read over there but  many studies and actual numbers are starting to all say the same.  If anyone  dares to say wait a minute  this looks odd. They  must be  a nutter or political.  I guess time will tell. I may be a nutter. 
We all make our choices.  I just wish with hind sight we have full information before taking and giving our kids. We were all told take it to protect others.  So we did.

Be honest. Your source is a video from social media where headlines of sudden death scroll by and someone is off to the side making smug faces. 

Honest. I am.
I dont  have any social. I do watch some you tube but just  peer reviewed  trials and Dr or consultant  reports.lm not a modern guy 

We can walk you through how to copy and paste those links in here if you’d like. 

Where as everyone  else here seems to be able to just conversate and be sensible  you  seem to be a little condescending.  No need my friend.  No need

I’m being a sarcastic twat because you’re avoiding backing up your claim you made earlier, and one of the norms in here, which makes the discussions much better, is that people quote and link their sources. 

lastexitlondon

For  example  the  video i posted . The dr. Couldnt say that stuff but he could post a video of a member of parliament  reading peer reviewed studies to the house. 

Merkin Baller

lastexitlondon said:

https://youtu.be/-MSKzoI72eU
This is in the  house of parliament.  Peer reviewed. Its on our news. Not from  some  quack

Some interesting stuff in there. I'm going to rewatch when I have more time as I couldn't devote 100% of my attention to it. 

On it's face, it seemed to dramatically understate the effectiveness of the vaccine, but I also can't disprove that... I am interested to hear / read more about this. 

Thanks for posting. 

lastexitlondon

Go Beavers said:

lastexitlondon said:

Go Beavers said:

lastexitlondon said:

Go Beavers said:

lastexitlondon said:

Its pointless because anyone who dares to question or feel for the families who lost someone to the vaccine is some kind of odd ball  with misinformation.  Any link or Dr thats put on here is made our to be not good enough or from somewhere  thats not real. I dont know what you are told or read over there but  many studies and actual numbers are starting to all say the same.  If anyone  dares to say wait a minute  this looks odd. They  must be  a nutter or political.  I guess time will tell. I may be a nutter. 
We all make our choices.  I just wish with hind sight we have full information before taking and giving our kids. We were all told take it to protect others.  So we did.

Be honest. Your source is a video from social media where headlines of sudden death scroll by and someone is off to the side making smug faces. 

Honest. I am.
I dont  have any social. I do watch some you tube but just  peer reviewed  trials and Dr or consultant  reports.lm not a modern guy 

We can walk you through how to copy and paste those links in here if you’d like. 

Where as everyone  else here seems to be able to just conversate and be sensible  you  seem to be a little condescending.  No need my friend.  No need

I’m being a sarcastic twat because you’re avoiding backing up your claim you made earlier, and one of the norms in here, which makes the discussions much better, is that people quote and link their sources. 

That aged well . I agree you are

lastexitlondon

Merkin Baller said:

lastexitlondon said:

https://youtu.be/-MSKzoI72eU
This is in the  house of parliament.  Peer reviewed. Its on our news. Not from  some  quack

Some interesting stuff in there. I'm going to rewatch when I have more time as I couldn't devote 100% of my attention to it. 

On it's face, it seemed to dramatically understate the effectiveness of the vaccine, but I also can't disprove that... I am interested to hear / read more about this. 

Thanks for posting. 

I do agree . Some interesting  stuff  i re watched  it to make sure  i dont get absolutely  hammered . And i appreciate the  conversation