Reply With QuoteIt is however another signal especially with in the context and correlated with many of the other data sets discussing this issue.Originally Posted by Barry Charles
Member
I love Fauci, he can say one thing one day, a completely different thing the next day and you could never tell which one was true. Probably the best liar in history. Even Ferguson has a tick every once in a while, but not this guy. He never breaks character.
Member
It is however another signal especially with in the context and correlated with many of the other data sets discussing this issue.
TMPHBITEU
More on the FBI: FBI Kidnapping Caper Was Flagrant Election Interference › American Greatness
And: Abolish the FBI or Face an American Putin › American GreatnessIn a redux of the 2016 Trump-Russia collusion farce designed to sabotage Trump before Election Day, the FBI used its powerful resources to again interfere in a presidential election to help the Democratic nominee for president. News of the arrests made national headlines for days; Joe Biden made the most of the political gift to his campaign. “There is a throughline from President Trump’s dog whistles and tolerance of hate, vengeance, and lawlessness to plots such as this one,” Biden said in a statement released on October 8, 2020. “He is giving oxygen to the bigotry and hate we see on the march in our country.”
At a campaign stop with Kamala Harris in Arizona later that day, Biden blasted Trump for his alleged coddling of “white supremacists” and accused the president of “breath[ing] oxygen to those who are filled with hate and danger.” A week later, in an unhinged tirade at another campaign event in Michigan, Biden continued to blame Trump. “All President Trump does is fan the flames of hatred and division in this country!” Biden screamed from the stage. “What the hell’s the matter with this guy? When the president tweeted ‘Liberate Michigan, Liberate Michigan,’ that’s the call that was heard. That was the dog whistle.”
To prevent the FBI from abusing investigations to capture the levers of government and subverting democracy, the Justice Department has established rules. Most important among these rules is that the FBI isn’t supposed to start investigating a public official unless it has reason to suspect a crime. Nearly every “sensitive case” evidenced violations of the rules. In fact, the office of inspector general identified an average of two violations for every reviewed sensitive case.
Vladimir Putin, not unlike our current FBI Director Christopher Wray, got his start as a “reformer” known for mouthing reform slogans to parry public outrage over the many abuses of the national police organization. Like Putin, Wray has used the smokescreen of cosmetic reforms to amass great power at the expense of the democratic process he is supposed to protect. The FBI has proven over and over again to be totally immune to reform. It consistently fails to punish employees for violating the rules, so changing those rules has no effect.
The existence of the FBI has had no effect on the crime wave plaguing America. Contrary to the many dramatized depictions of the FBI, the Bureau solves an insignificant minority of crimes in America.
Member
Y'know, I used to think anti-vax (in the pre covid definition, not the newer more expansive definition) ideas were just all wrong. But now I can't really trust medicine anymore. There's been so much clear lying about this stuff, that I can't be certain of what they have and have not lied about. Now I have to wonder if maybe problems I've been experiencing for decades now were brought on by childhood vaccinations. I have to decide whether or not if I have children someday, if I want to keep them from receiving vaccinations. I'm even pondering removing myself from organ donor status, because the medical establishment has proven itself to be of so little trustworthiness. I have to wonder now, is that anti-vax movement really just a group of people desperately reaching for an explanation for a rising ailment with an elusive cause, or are they really onto something, and they've just been maligned by this same machine? I hate it.
Member
He’s probably a nurse.
Member
That you can't ask the question, not you, but them, should tell you all you need to know.
Member
I was prescribed blood pressure medication around age 25, then allergy medication to treat those symptoms from the blood pressure medication. After another 4 prescriptions, and more adverse side effects, I stopped all prescription medications a few years ago.
Never felt better.
Member
Oh yeah, I'm revoking my organ donor card as well...
Member
Let me walk you through this, but it's not really that complicated. The surgeon performs a surgery without taking all necessary measures to reduce negative outcomes (i.e. post operative complications). By not performing these measures the patient experiences post operative complications including but not limited to death. The surgeon then goes in front of a medical review committee explaining why these measures were not taken, placing his medical license and livelihood at risk. Now may I ask you, why should the surgeon take this risk? It is also possible that the surgeon simply wants to perform what he feels is best practice, not not feel compelled to comply to any demand a patient makes.
I made a one time reference stating that I had a medical license in reference to a condescending question from Mark when he specifically asked the question. He made an assumption, and he was wrong. Where was I bragging? But thank you for this contribution to the discussion. It has been very helpful.
This has been explained several times now. Yes, the patient has the right to sign a waiver. The surgeon can accept that waiver and also the risk if he chooses. But then again the surgeon also has the right (personal freedom) to not take the risk. Get it? The surgeon should not be compelled to perform the surgery, even Mark appears to agree with this point. The father has several options as well. He can take what he perceives is a "risk" of the vaccine to have the surgery completed. He also has the option of waiting for another match for his son's renal transplant. He might not be required to get the vaccine in this scenario, as it is my understanding that the vaccine is required for "his" elective surgery (kidney donation) to reduce the risk of postoperative complications for "him". (i.e. he is at an increased risk of COVID related complications post kidney donation). The third option would be to find a "willing" surgeon who is willing to take on the increased risk without the vaccination. I have zero problems with any of these scenarios. My only problem is the expectation that the surgeon "must" perform the surgery at the demands of the father. He has a right to say "no" to the demands as it is his medical license on the line.
✓ Member
Come on now bud, we have loads of historical outcomes and a real scientific process that was adhered to for the real vaccines we have.
The covid19 "vaccines" are not vaccines, as they don't prevent transmission or infection, and they pretty much shat on our entire scientific process, laws, and ethics that were previously established. On top of that there is theoretical basis for both the mRNA tech. and the spike proteins generated to be harmful to the human body, loads of anecdotal evidence of adverse events, the VAERS data, the monthly release of Pfizer documents demonstrating adverse event outcomes, and lots of dedicated researchers looking into the issue - some of the top researchers in the field - not crackpots.
It's not worth it to throw out everything that is known just because some loons got in charge of the system of late and are causing havoc.
Of course, be weary of doctors pushing pills and treatments because they struck a deal with a pharma sales-rep. You should be self-sufficient enough to know when you need a treatment/medicine or not and to do your background check on it before you go through with it.
Posting Permissions