Forum Replies Created
Thanks Quercus for sharing your expectations. I agree that obviously those who have been vaccinated are expected to be exposed to a much higher level of spike proteins than their unvaccinated contacts, however I take a slightly different approach to the conclusions to be drawn. As Grover stated, this area is a big question mark to which we don’t know the answer. Many people like to think in terms of statistics and percentages in order to arrive at an opinion about an issue. But in this case, we don’t even know if it is a valid assumption that one must be exposed to a large number of spike proteins for a reaction to occur. The reactions to the vaccines cover quite a wide range and different people have very different reactions. Many have no problems at all so far, but others have serious adverse effects; the same may be found to be true of unvaccinated contacts. It’s possible that reactions in the contacts of vaccinated people was not even considered in the clinical trials, and is only now being discovered as an unexpected side effect.
The other point is that those who have decided not to risk taking a vaccine may be quite surprised to find that they could suffer from adverse effects of someone else getting the vaccine. A pregnant woman who has decided not to risk a Covid vaccine may be devastated to learn that her miscarriage was the result of someone else’s jab. And the facial paralysis of Bells Palsy can change a person’s life. However, even if an unvaccinated person has no discernable reaction to spike protein exposure, they simply may not want that exposure. Some people may not want to risk being that ‘one in a million’ that has an unexpected reaction to such an exposure. For me, reading that this is a possibility was an eye-opener to say the least…..
Olive Oil – this is an important question you are asking. One aspect I see is that those who have been vaccinated seem to feel it is their duty to convince others to also get vaccinated so that everyone can be safe. My new approach is to try to avoid the discussion as much as possible due to the strong opinions surrounding this, and the overwhelming rollout campaign – it’s next to impossible to change the minds of your loved ones. I’ve decided that we all make our choices and I respect the right of those close to me to choose what happens to their bodies. I’ve sent them the information I have access to and if they ignore it and suffer consequences from taking the vaccine I will not feel guilty, and I accept that this was their choice (in the same way that if I suffer consequences from not taking a vaccine, it was my choice). However I always state that I do not intend to get the vaccine, and I don’t pretend that I agree with the Emergency Use of the new vaccines, especially as it’s not the only option available.
On the physical side, I have just read an article in the latest Frontline Doctors newsletter regarding post-vaccination complications. One point caught my attention:
3. Can the unvaccinated get sick from contact with the vaccinated?
The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipient. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts. The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (“disease causing”) just like the full virus. What is most worrisome is that a person’s body is being suddenly flooded with 13 trillion of these particles and the spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus. Because of the biomimicry (similarity) on the spike, shedding appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons. Worldwide cases of pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated. In addition, we know the spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.
I don’t know how long the ‘shedding’ of spike protein particles by vaccinated people can occur, but it may be an idea to be cautious until more is known…..
Arthur Bradley at Disaster Preparer offers 2 sizes of anti-tracking / EMF blocking pouches:
This issue of mandatory or coerced Covid vaccinations raises a question. If a majority of the population in various countries can be coerced into taking the vaccination (many against their better judgement), then what happens in the future?
Obviously governments are desperate to resolve the current situation, hence the ‘Vaccine Frenzy’. But it also constitutes a test. If a majority of people can be convinced (or forced) to take the Covid vaccine, will the next step be to enforce digital implants containing health information? Or some other unknown initiative?
This seems like a very slippery slope…..
Canuck21 – The German Chancellor announced a while back that no one will be forced to take a Covid vaccine. I also heard of demonstrations very early on (last October or November, I think) against mandatory vaccines. I haven’t heard of vaccines being mandated in other European countries but I don’t have information on this. I’d be surprised if European companies are allowed to impose restrictions regarding employment or tourism/hospitality based on vaccination status, but this remains to be seen.
I assume you already have either European citizenship or a Residency permit if you wish to ‘hole up’ in Europe. Unless of course you are a MENA migrant. Re: travel restrictions, it is unknown how the European airlines are going to handle passengers with respect to proof of Covid vaccination – presumably all major international airlines are discussing this amongst themselves and assessing what to do. Legally, it may depend on the country where they are headquartered – something to keep an eye on…..
The information came from the ‘where the hell is chris?’ thread:
What I say to people is this: ‘If you have researched the vaccine and feel it is right for you then you should take it. If you don’t feel it is right for you then you shouldn’t take it.’ I don’t ask for their acceptance of my decision, and I don’t try to change theirs if they have already made up their mind. My view is that this is a personal decision and everyone is different in terms of their age, state of health and personal philosophies. It’s not my place to instruct people what they should do with their bodies (and it’s also not the place of a politician or a royal prince).
I have otherwise stopped talking to people about the vaccines. If they parrot the ‘threats’ (ie. loss of the right to work, travel, have fun etc.) I point out the alternative of class-action lawsuits.
In our house we decided not to get the vaccines, now or in the future. Our plan is to avoid catching the virus, and if we do happen to catch it, to trust that our health and immunity can shut it down and protect us. Where we are living it seems unlikely that we could get access to Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine, and definitely could not import it. That’s fine – we’ve been following the other advice on PP and know how to keep healthy and how to decontaminate ourselves and anything entering the house after being out in public. We would rather take that risk than the vaccine risk.
There is a huge cyber censorship campaign in the UK and U.S. on this topic, to allow only positive information to be spread about these experimental jabs. Just ignore it and keep your head.
However, one thing that really bothers me is when I hear of people who have been coerced. An elderly family member, who has been as suspicious of the vaccines as I, and had no intention of getting it, last week made a snap decision to go and get the jab. A pro-vaccine family member immediately arranged it and took her. The reason for the change was a news story that elderly people were going to start being charged if they did not agree to take the vaccine. I don’t know if this policy is true or not, but it made me sad that it had this effect.
I can foresee class action lawsuits if vaccines and vaccine passports are mandated. People need to push back hard on this, whether they personally want the vaccine or not.
A number of polls show that at least 50% of the populations of several different countries are suspicious of these friendly new syringes and don’t want them (in Russia I believe it was 65%).
If the general population were all in favour of these vaccines, there would be no need to try to force people to take them.
Personally, I’m not so sure that the conflict would be about content or censorship. The fact that the company name has changed indicates that the business has been restructured with new shareholders (ie. ‘the investors’). These people clearly have a significant stake in the new company, but hopefully not a major controlling interest. However, they knew that Peak Prosperity was a largely censorship free site, with ‘outside the box’ thinking on the part of the founders as well as followers, when they bought in. Presumably they agree with the content, philosophies and conclusions put forth by the founders, which is one reason why they wanted to get involved.
My thought is that they probably want more of the same, but perhaps to further monetize and restructure the website, in a way that Chris doesn’t agree with. Adam seems to indicate that there is a disagreement, but that he is not involved in it. Peak Prosperity is somewhat unique in that the Comments section of the public blogs, as well as the Forum section of the site are a complete ‘free-for-all’. Anyone can express any opinion on almost any topic and share any information, including links to other sites – and they can communicate directly with the founders this way, whether they are paid members or not. Also, importantly, both founders engage directly with the followers in these sections, with Chris being particularly active. The followers, most of whom are highly intelligent, also regularly engage with each other, especially those who have extra time on their hands. These things create the feeling of being ‘a tribe’ and result in followers who are loyal to the founders and each other. This is valuable.
I’m thinking of those Youtube channels which have livestream shows where audience members who wish to engage in, or influence, the conversation and connect with the host must pay a ‘pledge’ or ‘donation’ in order for their comment to be displayed or reacted to by the host. Or the platforms where you must be a paying member in order to see the content or participate in the comment section. Currently, Peak Prosperity has many followers who don’t pay anything, or they pay sometimes, or they used to pay but don’t right now. It’s possible that proposals have been made to change the communication structure so that it’s not so open and dialogue is only possible when it is paid for, and that a wider audience could be reached with a ‘pay as you go’ approach. It may be that such changes would be expected to result in a higher return on investment for the owners. But it would of course completely change the dynamics of the current business model.
I may be wrong and you folks may be right about content and censorship issues. In any case, it seems we will soon find out…
Dave – Adding my thanks as well…..I have always enjoyed reading your words, whether here in the Market Commentary or in Forum posts. Time is precious and you only live once. Wishing you all the best in reaching your goals.