IMO this is a very twisted logic, because people's recovery should always be the goal, especially if you can do it quickly. It'd be fair if Bill said something like : I hope people recover early, but I'm afraid the disease could spread like wildfire. But no he clearly said otherwise. The point is Gates clearly stated "we don't want" a lot of recovered people NOW, who's this "we"? And in March 2020, the numbers were low as this craze barely started, Gates said although the number is low now, with "exponentiation" it's gonna get to 3million. I repeat, he had just said "we don't want" a lot of recovered people NOW. Why not? I would. So he rather the number gets to 3 mil with his hypothetical "exponentiaion"? OTOH, I already showed you the definition of "infection" should also be brought into question. But no, because that's against government policy. Let me show you how happy and giddy Gates is whenever the idea of the lay people's "economic pain" crosses his mind, I have watched countless such reactions from Billy; oh, and he doesn't really want to get into why all the billionaires can like double their wealth in a year the little guys are all forced to shutdown and adapt to the new era of tech monopoly: @5:15 On GPS: Bill Gates on re-opening the U.S. economy / CNN Fareed Zakaria
Just wanted to say that Kary Mullis didn't invent the PCR test, he invented PCR itself which is in vitro DNA replication. His original method was done using water baths and not thermal cyclers like they are today. I'm not dismissing his opinion, just saying that he's not as much of an expert on the current topic as you're making him out to be. Source: I'm a Cell and Molecular Biology PhD candidate at UNLV who does maybe 4 or 5 PCR runs a week. Also on the bigger topic of why it's hard for me to buy Covid and vaccinations as a government conspiracy, if you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, everyone including no nonsense countries like Germany, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Norway, etc and even political "rivals" like China and Russia have similar pro vaccine stances. I mean if ALL the countries, even those prone to disagree, agree on something, that would be pretty hard to manufacture as a conspiracy wouldn't it?
Yes, the newer method is always based on a continued development. But I need to cite Kary as a gateway to the topic because he carries the top title "scientist" as ordained by the official bodies. As said, plenty of other scientists point to the same issue, nonetheless there is always people trained by the mainstream media to discredit them in order to distract attention from the content. By citing Kary, I wish at least a few people would start looking into the test itself. It is not that hard. Like you said, PCR is a method of DNA or now with added procedure, RNA replication. It is not a detector of infectious disease, until the industry decided to abuse it. The CT cycles should always be public whenever they announce a "positive test", transparency is what we as citizens should fight for. If there's an appetite for why other countries follow along, I can share a little bit (but clutch is a leisure forum, I'd try to make it short). I would also love to hear your opinions on this. Thanks for caring! CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel @ page 39 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR Aim We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available. Methods Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology. Results The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV. Through coordination between academic and public laboratories, we confirmed assay exclusivity based on 297 original clinical specimens containing a full spectrum of human respiratory viruses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/
The bolded quotes just mean that they didn't use any live viral samples as a positive control when developing the diagnostic kits. And honestly, they didn't need them. PCR as a diagnostic tool only needs prior knowledge on the DNA/RNA sequence of the target. The full nCov-19 viral sequence was released within weeks of the beginning of the pandemic and so it was possible to design the necessary primers to detect it using rtPCR (reverse transcriptase). The key thing is that it can differentiate the covid virus from other viruses that have similar sequences (which can easily be done using BLAST or alignment software). Anyways, I do kinda agree with you that some of the measures taken were excessive. Yes, a lot of individuals that probably were hardly contagious were classified as positive and put under quarantine. Yes, a lot of the lock downs went longer than they needed to. But I don't think it was because of an ulterior motive or some conspiracy. You also have to remember that when you're making policy, you have to cover the whole spectrum of possibilities. This time, they decided to err on the side of caution in hopes that baring with extreme measures would allow us to get through the whole ordeal faster. Yes, they were maybe playing it too safe but you have to remember that here in the US, there's less of a notion of social responsibility as there is in places like Japan or Australia and so some of the measures that people were doing voluntarily in places like that had to be legally enforced.
Belarus & IMF First of all, there are a few countries who refused to follow along with the lockdown protocol, such as Belarus, Tanzania, Haiti, etc and they do absolutely fine. However, countries often cannot act on its own volition without facing international pressure. For instance, the Belarus president still refused to lockdown and actively hurt the livelihood of its own citizens even with the IMF money on the table (what I call bribery). to save time, from wiki: On 16 March, the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, dismissed the threat of coronavirus and encouraged working in fields and driving tractors as a way of overcoming the pandemic: "You just have to work, especially now, in a village [...] there, the tractor will heal everyone. The fields heal everyone."[239] In his further comments on the pandemic, the Belarusian leader referred to it as "psychosis", and on 28 March he played a game of hockey, later stating in an interview "it is better to die on our feet, than live on your knees [...] sport, especially on ice, is better than any antiviral medication, it is the real thing".[240][241] Prior to that, in an official meeting, Lukashenko proposed "poisoning" the coronavirus with vodka, as well as attending banyas as the best cures for the disease.[242] On 30 March 2020, Belarus and International Monetary Fund (IMF) started negotiations on a $900 million loan intended to compensate the economic losses from the coronavirus pandemic.[295] On 19 June 2020, Alexander Lukashenko stated the IMF was demanding imposition of lockdown measures as a condition for loans, but the demands were declined by Minsk.[296] On 10 September, Belarus was refused the loan due to "significant disagreements on the reacting measures to current difficulties".[297] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Belarus
"Rival countries" or partners? "Yale Group Spurs Mao’s Emergence" As proudly reported on a Yale daily news headline, Mao Zedong, the communist leader portrayed as an evil adversary, was actually helped and trained by Yale. Thousands other important Chinese communist leaders were trained in France, Germany etc. in the 1920s, at the time when communists were very active in Europe. The headquarters of the first international was located in London and New York. Yale Daily News Historical Archive, 1972 February 29 http://digital.library.yale.edu/cdm/ref/collection/yale-ydn/id/135148 >> Hoover Institution Research Fellow Antony C. Sutton has cited from government internal documents showing how the USA has been funding the communist development in Russia and others. Practically all technological development in Russia and China were possible only via USA or European FDI and technology transfers. The USA groomed them. But for what? The Rockefellers were also the founder of the most authoritative medical institution in China, PUMC Beijing Union Medical College Hospital, the Johns Hopkins, and many others around the world. David praised "The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history" https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html >> The logic of the LOCKSTEP So the intent of shutdown is supposed to be saving lives. But according to a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation report, "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development", (as per title, it's a report the writers day-dream about how the high-tech will be implemented across the world in the future), here is what the LOCK STEP scenario is about: LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback The pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. ... The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers. ... even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery. p18 https://archive.org/details/davidrockefeller00davi
He didn't say otherwise. It goes without saying that he hopes people who have the virus can recover from it. You seem to be interpreting his words as he hopes the people who get infected don't recover, a very bizarre interpretation. Obviously that's not what he meant, as should be obvious from the immediately following sentence he spoke. He meant that we need to be focused on minimizing the infection rate. Having a lot of "recovered" people in total means that you had a lot of infected people which in turn means you had more deaths within the vulnerable population that it spread to.
So "it goes without saying" based purely on your assumption? So this "goes without saying" can directly dismiss what Bill clearly said in plain language "NOW we don't want a lot of recovered people"...? I appreciate that you are engaged in trying to have a dialogue about this whole thing, I think we are all fine people hoping for the best. But the difference here is I doubt the policy makers are as well. as explained, the following sentence he spoke were about lockdown and vax ID, in Mar. 2020, and then why is the lockdown the ONLY solution offered? Remember, this is when the public was told the lockdown is only for two weeks in order for ppl to accept it easier. So yes, he wants to push for lockdown because it supposedly can reduce "infection rate". Again, this is a made-up logic (as portrayed in the 2010 Rockefeller daydream scenario) which can't stand the test of empirical evidence. In 2020, those who didnt lockdown had the same or lower "infection" rates"; some countries also saw LOWER death rates than years past, such as Japan. I understand it is more comfortable to "assume" these big players are here to help us, but who are they serving more, their cronies or us avg joes? It's been a year and a half and the mass wealth transfer and the digital implementation is plain for all to see. There is a thing called "The Great Reset" which these guys have been promoting, they claim the "pandemic" necessitates a whole "re-imagining" of how the society is run. Basically they want to re-do the economy. The World Economic Forum sends out the book to every world leader and ask them to follow the plan to digitize and track everything under the sun (among other plans). So even with a "pandemic", is a total system reset necessary? Why can't we go back to mom-and-pops? Please consider the wider context also, which I have provided in other posts, as I refrain from repeating. I'd like also to see how would you defend his huge smiley reaction when the CNN host brings up "long term economic suffering"? Is it just some anomaly not worth bothering? There are hundreds other such examples by Bill and other authorities, if you bother to follow what these policy-advocates are into, but I refrain to share too much here. I understand it is easier to believe the top guys are here to help as they claim, but there are tons of holes in their stories. I am just a normal guy hoping that there is fairness and justice for all. But these thinktanks and top guys have trillions of dollars to bribe, PR, do social experiments and study psychological manipulation. They are far more advanced today to impose Authoritarian rules, dictate policies, abuse their power but at the same time make everyone support it instead of opposing it. This is the story of the 20th and 21st century.
I wish these authorities are not laughing at us. But they are. Are we supposed to not bother? At least it's a clear case of poor etiquette? But if they're serious to "save lives" how on earth would any qualified public servant behave this way? Is it acceptable to you? Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matthew John David Hancock) "It’s such tough year for so many people and there's William Shakespeare putting it so simply for everybody that you know we can get on with our lives..." said while this top official can't stop laughing his ass off all the way through the live morning interview. @5:25 Matt Hancock Gets Emotional as the First COVID Vaccine Is Administered | Good Morning Britain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLLG1-vIGuo Short version: They're laughing at everyone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQcv8ht5DoY
Tksense has been waiting for 19 years for a moment like this. He's letting it all out Feel the power forum goers, I'm hyped right now
Haha, funny pic. Yes i lurk, I come for entertainment. I'm not afraid to speak on unpopular subjects, this one is quite important. I care about people.
When I was 14 and got my first laptop I was convinced I found the cure for cancer while surfing youtube for a couple of hours on a random afternoon What a time to had been alive
With a lot of documentary pieces they will interview people for hours on end and then ultimately only use a small snippet of the entire conversation. I won't pretend like I couldn't be taken out of context. Do you think the people on Tiger King truly understood the full scope of how they were going to be portrayed??
What's amazing is how you're convinced of extremely ridiculous ideas using piss poor evidence on a regular basis, yet can't be convinced by real experts using real evidence of basic truths, like the government not being efficient enough for almost any of the conspiracy theories you believe in. I'm glad you care about people. You should go into comedy.
I genuinely don’t understand the significance you’re attaching to the word “NOW” in that sentence. In common spoken English, people use “now” as a transition word to start a new sentence, when making a clarifying point or otherwise diverting the conversation. Are you by chance not a native speaker? To see what I’m talking about, look at the following link: https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/...n_8220now8221_is_used_as_an_introductory_word
You may feel it's ridiculous because it's not congruent to what you're told. But what's "piss poor" about the evidence? I've shared direct quotes by important actors in this matter. My intent is for more people to consider the content of their speech or publications. They are by Nobel prize winner, Yale Newspaper, Stanford Hoover Institution professor, article published on NYT by the prominent banker himself whose family had founded countless world-changing institutions, and then the foundation's own publication 10 years ago about a future scenario. these are not theories, these are simply information for you to consider. Now, you just made a theory that they are "piss poor", but it appears that you haven't really tried to process them yet. I understand you may want to resist the content out of instinct, that's fine, but you don't have to make unsubstantiated labels just to make yourself feel better. Let me explain one more thing. A criminal liar who's a regular joe, if caught, they get arrested and charged with a count of "conspiracy" because the conspiracy is proven in court. But when the top ruler commits a crime, who else is there to charge them and seek justice? The answer is no one. But the persecutor would be labeled as "conspiracy theorist". As you can see, the only difference here is the power status of the defendant. Like I said earlier, the only function of crazy wacky theories is to demonize the persecutor, so real crimes can fade even more into the background. Hence most of these stupid **** you see online are actually the creation by these powerful players. That's also why you see them all over youtube. OTOH, tons of legitimate information get deleted right a way, so it's harder for people to encounter them. If you are serious about learning what's really going on, you have to use discretion and differentiate them. Moreover, plenty of highly respected, high-status pros have been selflessly fighting the corrupt system, such as Dr. Mullis, Dr. Michael Yeadon, Brandy Vaughan etc, many of them have been harmed because of it. It is my wish that, if you are neutral and care a little bit about justice, you can at least consider not joining in to attack those who still have the heart to fight corruption.
Durvasa, you are right, this sounds more like a transition word, which I'm aware of. My presentation was leaning on this being a time indicator, because I personally also would like to give Bill the benefit of the doubt, to interpret his statement as not meant for all people at all times. I've rewatched it, and you've convinced me to take his statement clear cut. This makes Bill's comment morally exponentially worse imo. Also thanks for being engaged in the topic. I am interested in how anyone would make a different interpretation as well. It helps me understand how people would react as each piece of info is introduced. I really appreciate it. There are still tons of relevant information or details which I rather not get into yet because I'm wary it'd get too far off-topic here (incl. details responding to what lakersuck2 graciously shared regarding PCR), unless I learn that there is interest here or if it's actually OK to share more here instead of D&D. So I encourage anyone to digest the info I've selected in this thread, and consider the larger context of this matter. The cui bono. the world economic forum, the great reset, the fourth industrial revolution, etc. Thanks for caring!
Think about it — if 60% of the US population is “recovered” (just to give a random number to it) and this is before the vaccines have gone out — how many deaths would that imply? You seem committed to giving that sentence a sinister meaning when there is a much simpler, more understandable meaning — the public health goal at the time was to minimize the number of infected people, not maximize the number of recovered people.
