patrick.net

stfu says

I can't figure out how to post the link here but go to Market-Ticker.org and look at the story "I'm just going to leave this here".

https://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=245779

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/pfizer-trial-fraud-the-house-of-cards

Pfizer Trial Fraud: The House of Cards Shakes

Arnie1974
@Arnie1974
·
10h
Pfizer, Moderna, and Their Enablers Should Be Indicted: Their Behavior Is the Clear-Cut Exemplification of Fraud

Dr. Robert Malone: "[The GAO Report and Pfizer Documents show] that a lot of the propaganda and information that's been pushed on us about vaccine efficacy and safety is fraudulent. I don't know how else to say it. That is the legal word for when you know you are saying things that are not true."

Arnie1974
@Arnie1974
·
7h
@rwmalonemd Violates the Nuremberg Code: Pfizer Clearly Knew the Risks of the Shot and Failed to Provide Fully-Informed Consent

Dr. Robert Malone: "Disclosing to patients fully and completely what the potential risks are [is a staple of medical ethics], and we now have clear documentation that those risks were known, they were extensive, and information about those risks were withheld."

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/05/23/pfizer-tells-federal-judge-that-pfizer-owns-the-federal-government-and-is-thereby-immune-to-normal-contract-law/

https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving

Is Subject #12312982 the Key to Proving Pfizer Vaccine Trial Fraud?
The Story of Augusto Roux

https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/did-pfizer-roofie-the-placebo-babies

Saline injections are not supposed to have such an aggressive side effects profile. So what exactly was in Pfizer's placebo injection?

https://philharper.substack.com/p/pfizer-documents-show-pfizer-made

On May 24th, the anonymous Twitter account JikkyLeaks claimed that data contained inside the massive Pfizer Documents release shows their vaccine had close to zero efficacy even when it launched. There is some correcting of the raw data required to reach this conclusion, but the raw data alone hints at an efficacy of 53%. The data contradicts Pfizer’s published claims the vaccine was 95% effective, a claim still published on gov.uk domains. The original data and specifically the “95% efficacy” claim was key to getting the vaccines onto global markets around the world. If Pfizer reached this conclusion dishonourably, there could be sizable implications.

At least one other researcher has publicly reached the same results using data contained in the court-ordered Pfizer documents. I have already verified that the data exists, and using very simple public code, that the numbers add up to what Josh and Jikky claim. Understanding what they mean, and the potential implications is what I will now address here.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/is-pfizer-suppressing-vaccine-adverse

is pfizer suppressing vaccine adverse events reports in infants?
because it would certainly fit as part of a larger pattern

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/welt-report-uncovers-evidence-of?publication_id=268621&post_id=103669443&isFreemail=true

Welt report uncovers evidence of serious irregularities in the Pfizer phase 3 Comirnaty trial, suggesting systematic attempts to cover up adverse events at the Argentine clinical site ...

The centrepiece of their reporting is patient number 12312982, a 36 year-old Buenos Aires resident named Augusto Roux, who participated in the vaccine arm of the trial and experienced significant adverse reactions following both doses of the vaccine. His most severe symptoms followed the second jab; they included shortness of breath, nausea, fever and darkened urine, and required hospitalisation. Throughout both sets of reactions, he tested negative for Covid. A trial doctor judged his symptoms very likely to be an adverse reaction to vaccination, and there are compelling reasons to think he suffered pericarditis. Roux promptly dropped out of the trial, and his lawyers succeeded in gaining access to internal Pfizer records his case. These reveal that Buenos Aires researchers recorded Roux as testing positive for Covid following dose 1, despite multiple negative PCR tests. To cover for his September hospitalisation, meanwhile, they listed him as suffering from a “severe anxiety attack.”

Welt finds other irregularities in data from the the Argentine clinical site as well. Following the first dose at the end of August, they removed 53 trial participants; internal documents give nothing but vague, contradictory excuses for the purge. Following the second dose, Buenos Aires researchers removed a further 200 participants – two-thirds of all removals across the entire trial.

Irregularities appear to extend beyond the shady Buenos Aires operation. As a friend notes on Twitter, the fact that there were more deaths in the vaccine than the placebo arm of the Pfizer trial has always been considered an awkward coincidence by the fact checkers. Upon closer examination, though, it begins to look like deaths from severe vaccine injuries were actually what put the vaccine arm over the top:

[Pharmacology expert and head of the “Data Based Medicine” network and the vaccine injury support organisation React-19] David Healy has … questions about the trial beyond the Augusto Roux case and other events at Buenos Aires. He wonders about a total of 21 vaccine group deaths that are said to be “not due to vaccination.” In at least two of these deaths, this conclusion doesn’t seem to be fully justified. WELT has documents showing that patient No. 11621327 was found dead in his home three days after the second dose, apparently a stroke. Patient No. 11521497 died 20 days after vaccination, diagnosed with cardiac arrest. “According to the current understandings, these two cases would be attributed to vaccination,” says Berlin-based pharmaceutical specialist Susanne Wagner, “especially since the US health authority CDC is currently investigating strokes in vaccinated people and it is known that blood clots can trigger sudden deaths following vaccination.”

We'll find out in a couple of years if we're going to have to do mass executions, and I still support mass sterilizing of their progeny to wipe this scourge off the Earth if this was a mass genocide.

Think I'm going too far with that punishment? If this was a genocidal attempt, they are intending to become the predominate gene group through indiscriminate murder. Produce the opposite result and this shit won't happen again for a 1000 years.

We don't need to execute the innocent, but for this, we can't allow their gene line to continue IF this is what happened.

Time will tell.

This is kind of going down a different path on the topic. I think it is relevant though. I never thought I'd say this, but I think legal marijuana is really bad.

If you didn't start it as a teen and jumped into it now as an adult, you have no clue. Zero. Just because it's legal and exponentially more potent doesn't mean it's okay. New users don't know moderation and how much they can take. I swear sometimes that I'm walking amongst a sea of zombies in public with it being legal in IL and other states. I think it's factoring into the labor shortage as well, not just the covid BS.

Crazy tangent for sure. I'm second guessing legalized weed. My sister specifically is one example. Her husband drank himself to death, but it's beyond that. She booked a vacation in two weeks and is currently in New Mexico. She's much more reckless and she's an attorney. Everyone seems high around me and I think that plays a factor in the Covid response. I smoked at 13 and it was shit ditch weed. People haven't gotten a tolerance to this heavy dispensary weed and are blinded by the bull shit that is/was vaccine mandate and masks.

Note that non-legal pot states seem to be doing better on covid response. Again I love it being legal here in IL. My sleep has been exponentially better. That's what I use it for. I'm never high during daylight. I feel like there's a segment of the population that never got high and is paranoid about Covid and isn't seeing the bull shit because they're high on highly concentrated THC edibles and flower.

Put this way. I got the belt on the ass as a teenager when it was illegal. Now my own mother is consuming edibles almost daily. Oh how the times have changed. TL:DR - I think we have a lot of newbies experiencing their weed paranoia for the first time with regards to covid. Fauci and big pharma are cunts too, but I believe they've had assistance.

WookieMan says

I think we have a lot of newbies experiencing their weed paranoia for the first time with regards to covid. Fauci and big pharma are cunts too, but I believe they've had assistance.

No.

In Silly Con Valley, I would bet more than 50% of engineers have done weed. It's a creative drug.

90% of the population here, of well educated people, who have taken statistics (that's a fucking hard course) can't add 2 numbers together, and they won't come to different conclusions than what's on teeeveeee.

The idea that you SLEEP on the shit is alien to me. I very rarely use weed, but when I do, I have to read, create, think, and I cannot sleep on it.

People, even "smart" people, are just stupid. It's not weed that makes them stupid, it's a lack of confidence and a lack of suspicion. 20 years ago there was a VERY large group of people here that thought George W. Bush lied us into a war, and he did lie us into a war. 12 years later, these very same people were cheering on the wars in Syria and Libya. They are cheering on the war in Ukraine right now. Turns out these people aren't principled or smart, they are just democrats. If the DNC told them to rape babies and that's a good thing, 90% of them would do it.

richwicks says

90% of the population here, of well educated people,

What's well educated? Education has no bearing on being high either. I've tended to find if I'm sober that an educated person is just as dumb as the redneck that doesn't even have a GED while high. Honestly people that "think" they're smarter are usually the dumbest on weed is my observation.

Also different strains help with sleep. I'm no aficionado, but I know what works for me, and it definitely works. Pre-legal weed I'd occasionally smoke it here and there. I've found a brand/strand of edible that puts me the fuck to sleep for 8 hours. I usually would sleep 3-4 hours on average without it. I don't need it every night, so not addictive. Only do it when I can tell I'm out of whack with sleep. I generally only experience the high for 10 minutes and I'm out. I do feel more hung over on weed though compared to beer. I never get hung over on beer. Literally ever. Only hard liquor, which I don't consume anymore.

My point is pre-legalization, I highly doubt 50% of engineers did weed. At least consistently to build a tolerance. They smoked some ditch weed in the 90's. Got high. Laughed and goofed off. 2020, the game has fucking changed. I didn't hallucinate on acid or mushrooms. I've hallucinated on dispensary edibles multiple times. The game has changed.

Either way I think more people are doing it is the point. I've talked with lots of people and paranoia is the first side effect almost anyone mentions. Now throw a airborne virus into the mix and your government is telling you you'll basically die, that's not a good mental state while high on current THC content.

As far as creative drug, totally disagree as a drummer. It's the absolute worst for creativity. Having recorded probably 50-100 sessions, 4 albums high as fuck, we played better sober. Anecdotal for sure. Maybe guitar. But bass and drums need to be mostly sober. Keys too, but I don't play them. Guitar I think you can get away with it. I have zero issue with people smoking or doing edibles, but I wouldn't have them working on my website or programming while high. As someone that's played live shows as a drummer, being high is awful. You think you're doing good, but you're not.

WookieMan says

As far as creative drug, totally disagree

This. Thinking that pot makes you creative is like the drunk at the bar that thinks he now has James Bond appeal to the ladies.

I think weed really does somehow encourage creative thinking. You come up with insights you might not have had otherwise. They might be stupid, but they tend to be new.

Based on the fact that you literally cannot kill yourself with weed no matter how much you take at a time, I think it should be legal if alcohol is legal, for consistency.

Yes, you can stay stoned all the time and impair your memory and your ability to do good work for your overlords, but people should have the right to fail. Even the memory impairment goes away after you stop getting stoned all the time.

My one objection to weed is that it might be linked to psychosis in teens. But I think even that is rather rare.

WookieMan says

What's well educated? Education has no bearing on being high either. I've tended to find if I'm sober that an educated person is just as dumb as the redneck that doesn't even have a GED while high. Honestly people that "think" they're smarter are usually the dumbest on weed is my observation.

What I'm finding is that the LESS educated a person is, the smarter they actually are.

I have a hypothesis on this. People who are "highly educated" MUST be gullible because they are trusting authority for their education. I can still do polynomial math, and what freaking use does that have? Well, it can be used for CRCs and generalized equations of arbitrary powers. When I learned this I was in 9th grade, and I still remember how to do it. SMARTER people were "what the fuck is this useful for???" and they were kind of right.

In any case, I'm more likely to have a ditch digger agree with me over this covid nonsense, than a PhD. I literally know a biologist (semi-famous one) that thinks the vaccines are a good idea.

HeadSet says

WookieMan says

As far as creative drug, totally disagree

This. Thinking that pot makes you creative is like the drunk at the bar that thinks he now has James Bond appeal to the ladies.

I did most of the design of a VLSI arithmetic logic unit when I was stoned.

I would get stoned on Friday, on Saturday I'd go through my notes and discard the nonsense (90%), Sunday I'd fully recover, and the week I'd implement.

My professor thought I was a fucking genius.

Being CONSTANTLY stoned certainly doesn't help, but screwing up your neurons DOES make you creative, at the expense of making you stupid. I came up with LOTS of stupid ideas while I was stoned, but not all of them were. Some ideas were brilliant. I'm insanely curious when I'm stoned, and I'm curious when sober. Just talked to a Russian 20 minutes ago I ran into, and we had an interesting discussion on the mess in Ukraine.

With pot, there's use, and there's abuse. I never did "wake and bake". I'd use it maximum once a week, and I hardly ever use it now.

Alcohol does nothing for me intellectually. I'm having a beer now.

Pot is useful when you're working on a problem, and it does give you insights into how to do it, just because it's messing up your brain, you come up with ideas you otherwise couldn't. Even stupid ideas can be useful. You have to be working on a problem that takes time to figure out. Again, 90% of what I came up with was nonsense, but the next day I could see the false paths to avoid them, and I had ideas that might work, which I otherwise just couldn't come up with. I don't think being stoned would help me learn to repair a car, but it does help in some areas where it requires creativity. For me, I had severe limitations on chip size, so I had to get clever on how to do things in minimal space.

BTW - I can't do actual work when I'm stoned. I can't write code when stoned, nothing that requires attention to detail. Just over-view ideas.

richwicks says

Being CONSTANTLY stoned certainly doesn't help, but screwing up your neurons DOES make you creative,

I like to make the comparison here to old style computer punch cards.

Imagine you have a stack of 2,000 punch cards, each card is a line of code. That line may be an equation, a line of graphic, or just text. Now imagine you run the batch and it works perfectly. Now you take out a single card and it still works. Next, you take out 5 random cards, and the program still works, but an obscure piece of text is missing from a label. Since the program still runs, would you conclude that randomly taking out cards does no damage, or just damage you can tolerate so far? Now take out a handful of cards from the middle, shuffle them up, and put them back in the stack. Do you think this will improve the program in "creative" ways?

HeadSet says

richwicks says

Being CONSTANTLY stoned certainly doesn't help, but screwing up your neurons DOES make you creative,

I like to make the comparison here to old style computer punch cards.

Imagine you have a stack of 2,000 punch cards, each card is a line of code. That line may be an equation, a line of graphic, or just text. Now imagine you run the batch and it works perfectly. Now you take out a single card and it still works. Next, you take out 5 random cards, and the program still works, but an obscure piece of text is missing from a label. Since the program still runs, would you conclude that randomly taking out cards does no damage, or just damage you can tolerate so far? Now take out a handful of cards from the middle, shuffle them up, and put them back in the stack. Do you think this will improve the program in "creative" ways?

I wasn't stoned all the time and I'm not just a machine.

Let me explain how an evolutionary program works. You create an algorithm with a bunch of variables, and run it to do some task, like chip routing. It produces a result, but it's not ideal, so you randomly change the variables by a little bit and you do this with 20 copies (children) of the first algorithm. You then run the algorithm of all 20 children, and find the best 5 results. Then you add randomness and combination to THEIR children to create 20 copies, and run it again.

You do this over and over and over and over again, for 10,000 generations. This is just an evolutionary algorithm.

And you end up with a very good solution in a week. And I mean VERY GOOD, what it produces 100 engineers couldn't make in 100 years.

I can't COPY myself of course, but adding in that mutation, throwing off a bunch of variables, can help sometimes.

When stoned, you can think in completely STUPID and (rarely) brilliant ways but I needed a day off to recover from it. I don't think pot effects me the way it does for most people. Many people say they are "sleepy" when they get stoned, I'm anything but. I end up always researching and reading when I'm stoned - I don't retain much, but I do take notes. I can make connections. Sometimes the connections just don't exist, and I'm making tenuous connections that are bullshit, but I can also make connections that DO exist, and I just didn't see it previously.

It's a drug I RARELY use. If I want to sleep and can't, melatonin works for me. Pot sure as hell does not.

It's only a drug useful for LIMITED creativity. You can't learn on it, you can just use the knowledge you already know.

When I had my two dogs, it also made me more gentile and nice. Because I had reduced my intelligence, I could see the world for a few hours though their eyes. I used to get stoned once a week with my cousin and take my dogs for a walk. They LOVED being outside and going for long distance walks, and it rubbed off on me. I was happy, they were happy, and I loved everything around me. People who can get stoned and are violent, that's a psychopath. I just wanted to be nice and kind to everything and everybody. That's not a bad experience at all. No guard up at all for a few hours. It's very pleasant.

It's not an entirely negative drug but it does have to be used sparingly. It intensifies emotions, allowed me to have better empathy, it made me ENTIRELY non violent and made me stupid. Not everything is intellect.