Rompho Ray

Feel free to contact the CDC, point out that they are wrong, and demand that they rewrite their website. Do let us know how you get on.

I installed one of those in the condo I'm renting before Lady R got here, and use it constantly (when required of course). Unless you live in the Arctic, I suppose the water temperature should be bearable.

SARS stands for "sudden acute respiratory syndrome". It's the disease, not the virus. https://www.cdc.gov/sars/index.html I suppose you must know better than I do about that. I deal only in facts, to which I provide links. Like the ones getting paid royalties from the drug companies to push vaccine propaganda? https://abc7amarillo.com/news/nation-world/rand-paul-and-fauci-clash-over-nih-royalties-we-are-going-to-learn-about-it Look, you can believe anything you want. Mangosteen is dead, and I'm really not arsed about what people think. I simply do my research, collect the facts, and make my decisions accordingly. Sometimes I share the results of my research with interested people. People are free to take an interest in the facts, including the ones that are contrary to what's being pushed by governments and the LMSM, or not, at their pleasure. Silly attempts at "insult" by people who aren't especially good at it are boring, and have nothing to do with facts. I have provided a wealth of data on this thread that presents a plausible alternative to the government/LMSM/pharma industry narrative. People who are interested in facts, especially in consideration of the fact that they have put into their bodies experimental, untested "vaccines", may find the data interesting. Everyone else is free to ignore my posts and believe anything that makes them comfortable. Have a nice day.

Agree. If you decide to consider information from outside the flat earth of your government-dictated preconceptions, feel free to get back to me. Much before that, sure, believe everything your government told you. After all, they have no reason to mislead you. Or any other sheep. That has always worked out well.

Getting ready to sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide out the door here at work and start my weekend.

I'm fookin hosed!!!! Good resource though.

You make a post in the comments section of the article where the error occurred. "His idea of possible variants"? He analyzes data presented by government agencies and other official sources, so whatever "idea of possible variants" he might have would have been created by the source of the data, rather than being "his idea". And again, as far as I can recall, he does that exact thing in at least one article. I don't have a photographic memory of his entire substack publication, so I can't direct you to an exact post. You'll have to use the search function to find one I'm afraid. Well, it's also an island that was sealed off from the outside world for over a year if I recall correctly. They had options that other countries might not have had, including because of the willingness of the residents to accept authoritarian mandates and things like that. And, although I don't have the numbers in front of me and haven't really had any reason to single out Singapore in my reading, I'll simply say that what constitutes handling a pandemic "well" is a matter of opinion. I'm sure that plenty of folks in Australia and New Zealand think those countries handled the pandemic "well", but it would take a fair bit of persuading to get me to agree. In Singapore's case, I'm not sure what you base your opinion on, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it.

I think if you put that to a vote, there would be one more resident at the local leper colony.

Well, he has already collected the data, which in some cases was difficult according to him. IMO you can read his posts, look at the data he presents, and decide whether or not you agree with his conclusions. Also, he consistently asks people to tell him in the comments if they disagree with what he writes in the articles, and why, so that option would be available to you too. Or you can just ignore this source, makes no difference to me. I decided I'd rather look at the data he presents at the risk of disagreeing with his conclusions, which I did sometimes. As always and with everything, YMMV.

To be very honest, although I know that HPV causes cervical cancer in women, I'm a bit less clear on what sort of cancer risk there is for men. Also, what's the risk of passing HPV along to a partner, especially if the man doesn't presently have the outward signs of infection (to put it delicately)? That's the key to doing the risk/benefit tradeoff in your case I think.

https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/features/should-your-child-get-hpv-vaccine

SHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! I can hear the clanking of chains coming from the corner of basement where I keep Mangosteen!

https://boriquagato.substack.com/archive The guy who writes the articles in that substack is at least one and probably both of those, and has written extensively on what you're asking about. There are a lot of articles on different subjects on his substack, so if you're interested in reading his analysis of this you may have to use the search function.

BTW, I'm not going to camp on this thread, much to everyone's relief I'm sure!

[pedantic mode] Well, that's not exactly what the source is doing, at least it's not how I'm reading it. The first sentence in the "background" section says this: "At the end of 2019 a new coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), originated from a spillover and appeared for the first time in a non-immune population, spreading quickly around the world and causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ...etc." That is, SARS-CoV2 is the virus, and COVID-19 is the disease it causes. Compare to the distinction between the HIV virus and AIDS, the disease it causes. [/pedantic mode] I took a quick look. I think what they're arguing is that the Omicron variant is so genetically different from the original virus strain that it could be considered a new virus. I found reading that a slog and didn't get all that far, but what I did read I didn't find convincing. Maybe I'll get a second wind and try again later.

Admit it: You miss Mangosteen.

I have no intention of "Mangosteeninging" this thread, but equally funny would be a reductio ad absurdium of what we actually did this time: "First we're going to take the first few infected people we detect and lock them together with uninfected senior citizens, despite knowing from other countries that the virus is mostly killing seniors. Then we're going to put people on ventilators and only stop doing that when more people die from the ventilators than are dying from the virus. Then we'll call people 'racists' for naming the virus after where it came from like we've always done. Then we're going to force everyone to stay home from work, that is, unless they work for gigantic corporations who pay a lot of taxes, or they work in various service industries whose services we need, because that makes them immune. Then we'll develop 'vaccines' that don't provide immunity, and force people to take them every 6 months, even after we discover that they are harming a lot of people (but that's OK because we'll ignore the evidence of that and call people 'antivaxxers' if they notice)...etc."

Sorry if I seem argumentative, but how so? They certainly sold it to us that way, but it absolutely wasn't the first pandemic caused by a respiratory virus, and in fact it wasn't even the first coronavirus-caused pandemic, or even the first SARS-CoV pandemic! Yep, that and also it allowed governments to do things like stamp out the protests in France and Hong Kong, and generally run a full-scale game-out of what would happen if they tried to impose marital law, impose medical "mandates", punish dissent by restricting access to the banking system, restrict travel, temporarily re-work capitalist economies into drain/drone pseudo-socialism, etc. Fortunately, none of the latter experiments worked very well (well, except maybe in Canada). UNfortunately, the world recession the experiments caused will take a while to sort out. Which is pretty much how the world handled these things before. Pandemics suck and kill a lot of people and that's bad. But, how we handled this one failed and might have caused more deaths than the Bat Soup Flu would have caused if we had just let it run its course. Sad that we had to re-learn the lessons that a) there is no such thing as a "vaccine" against viruses of this type, and b) pandemics are nearly always resolved before the vaccines that would have stopped them can realistically be produced, proven safe, and given to enough people.

Any explanation for the fact that the CDC changed their definition of "vaccine" multiple times, but only eliminated claims of "sterilizing immunity" after it was discovered that the BSF vaccines didn't work? 2012: Http://web.archive.Org/web/20120710132002/Https://Www.cdc.Gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.Htm Immunization: The process by which a person or animal becomes protected against a disease. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation. Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease. Vaccine: A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol. 2015: Http://Web.archive.Org/web/20150214043055/Https://Www.cdc.Gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.Htm Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected. Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease. Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation. Prior to August, 2021: Http://web.archive.Org/web/20210826113846/Https:/Www.cdc.Gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.Htm Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease. Current as of September 2021: Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease. Maybe this will help: Https://technofog.substack.Com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine "CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of 'vaccine'/'vaccination'. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue. In one August 2021 e-mail, a CDC employee cited to complaints that 'Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…'" More at link. Given that your source was written during this time period, I assume you understand that it could be part of the same public relations effort, and have nothing to do with real science? If you don't, I suppose you may be right: There is no point in us discussing this. Also, looking at your article, it's clearly gibberish. To take just one example, it says: "Sterilizing immunity is extremely rare and may even be impossible to demonstrate. This is because it is difficult to identify people who have been infected when they do not show any symptoms." This is complete nonsense. First, you can't "identify people who have been infected" quite simply because NOBODY GETS INFECTED IF THEY HAVE STERILIZING IMMUNITY. Also, you identify people who SHOULD have been infected by PURPOSELY EXPOSING THEM TO THE ANTIGEN, then testing if they develop an infection, or if they exhibit an immune response. Further, you don't identify people who might be infected by checking if they have symptoms, you check for the presence of the antigen or antibodies in his blood. However, they ARE kind enough to admit that I was right in saying that there can be no such thing as a "vaccine" against the Bat Soup Flu: "Sterilizing immunity also is not associated with viruses that attack the mucous membranes (the tissue lining body cavities such as respiratory passages), like SARS-CoV-2." Correct. Given that the correct definition of "vaccine" (which everyone used until the inconvenient truth came out) is that it prevents infection, i.e. provides sterilizing immunity, the Bat Soup Flu "vaccines" DON'T WORK, AND CAN'T WORK. Now, if you're still with me, it's well known what happens if you "vaccinate" people with potions that don't provide sterilizing immunity: It makes antigens mutate until they can't be controlled by the "vaccine". However, often the body's immune response is locked onto the original antigen, which epidemiologists call "original antigenic sin". And that appears to explain why the Omicron variant completely evaded the "vaccines", resulting in the need for "multivalent" "vaccines", and 23,409,867,358,280,954,820 "boosters". https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230113/Recent-findings-on-original-antigenic-sin-and-SARS-CoV-2.aspx "Due to OAS, neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers adequate to cross-neutralize yet-to-emerge SARS-CoV-2 variants might be attained for a brief period, post-vaccination or boosting with original S antigens. Moreover, homologous boosting of S antigen-specific responses by recurrent vaccination or reinfections by ancestral strains might trigger their immune imprinting resulting in an OAS-like response upon exposure to new variants. Likewise, the relatively attenuated response of vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta/Alpha variants upon exposure to variant-specific epitopes might be due to OAS. On the other hand, hybrid immunity acquired by vaccination and infection raises the overall nAb titers that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Omicron, compared with vaccination. Thus, mild breakthrough infections might offer adequate immune protection against circulating and future SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, relying alone on this protection poses risks for high-risk populations, such as immunocompromised individuals." So, not only do the "vaccines" not work, they are in fact harmful to populations who take them because they force mutation of the virus while impeding or preventing the body from establishing a broad spectrum immunity to variants of the original antigen. In layman's terms: Dat ain't good.

It's just a style quirk he adopted. I don't care for it either, but the data is more important.

What you post is true, but none of it was known about the Bat Soup Flu at the beginning. Yet, governments closed down their countries almost immediately upon detecting the first cases, and in the US the lockdowns started ~3 months later, before there had been a significant number of deaths. Also, it's now known that many of the early BSF deaths were avoidable. Especially, BSF patients were housed in nursing homes, and we now know that the elderly are a primary demographic for death from the BSF. Also, early guidance was to use respirators for some strange reason, and these appear to have caused a large number of unnecessary deaths. Why the difference in the earliest responses between the BSF and H3N2? And, if we hadn't made the early mistakes, would the death toll have been anywhere near as high? I read a substack blog by a rather eccentric but obviously intelligent guy who, while he's anonymous, is clearly some sort of statistician. He has posted a lot of data-packed articles on the Bat Soup Flu since the beginning. Lately he's been going back and looking at it retrospectively based on what we know now. Yes, yes, I know. But, suspend your resistance to alternative ideas and give this article a try: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/iatrogenic-deaths-was-it-mishandling "the closer i look at this, the more it looks to me like the huge killer here was the truly nasty combo of bad policy on care homes, hospitals, and vents and the massive suppression of effective medicines and health aids. covid became deadly because we lost our collective minds and short circuited the functioning of modern medicine. it looks like the virus did a fair bit of killing, but it was not because the virus was inherently unusually deadly, it’s that we made it so through mishandling. this was an own-goal." Again, this won't confirm your priors, and it's a slog to read. However, I think you'll appreciate the thoroughness of his presentation. Go on, give it a try.

Anywhooooo... While researching something else I ran across a video review of the same generation Honda Civic Si as I drive (one model year newer; pic posted earlier in this thread), including a professional racing driver taking it for a lap on the track. Thought some BMs on here might find it interesting. https://www.carscoops.com/2020/05/what-does-a-pro-racing-driver-think-of-hondas-2020-civic-si-coupe/

They're useless for stopping viruses unless you use them correctly. Whether to trust the average person to read, understand and follow those instructions to the letter is a different matter, I grant you.

Well, why is that? In what prior instance was this the case? Between 1967 and 1970 there was a flu pandemic, H3N2 (commonly referred to as the "Hong Kong Flu" at the time, and without anyone being called a "racist"), that claimed ~50 million lives worldwide, including ~700,000 in the US. The only thing I remember from that period of time is Woodstock; the government was not "slated" for "allowing" it. Why? What was so different about the Bat Soup Flu?