Pinned toot

Planet of the Humans
2019 documentary film directed by Jeff Gibbs

Pinned toot

I am genuinely interested to understand how can a scientist claim that the new mRNA vaccine technology is 100% safe and doesn’t have any significant long term health effects?

There is a clear bias in the scientific community, pharmaceutical companies and public health authorities to push one simplistic narrative that the mRNA vaccine is safe and effective. Any dissenting opinion questioning the mRNA vaccine safety or efficacy is labeled idiot, conspiracy theorist and anti-vax.

This toxic scientific debate climate makes critical data gathering and research challenging. Most career driven scientists, medical doctors or researchers don’t want to go against the main narrative and lose their credentials and livelihood.

Questioning the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines represent a threat to the institutions mandating and advocating for that technology. A threat that might lead to vaccine hesitancy, lost in credibility, lost of financial revenue and legal liability.

There are few brave scientists with a good track records of scientific research, publications and citations. I can’t name them all, these are a few top ones that I followed their work on this topic:

There is a clear signal form various public heath safety reporting data bases and scientific research that show an increase risk of Myocarditis after the mRNA injections:

Myocarditis is one advert event among many that Pfizer own clinical trials has revealed even before vaccine mass deployment.

I can’t personally ignore or dismiss renown scientific researchers and medical doctors warnings regarding the vaccine safety and efficacy. I am not against vaccines in general, they truly save lives.

I am strongly against vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, especially since the vaccines were never tested or designed to stop the transmission.

I don’t want to live in a future dystopian technocracy were the state controls all aspects of my life, I am pro choice, liberty and informed consent.

I hope that everyone that took the mRNA shots are and will be alright.

@freemo Dr. Freemo if you reading up to this, I hope you consider the scientific research I shared here, and acknowledge the concerns that some people have regarding the mRNA vaccines.

🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱
@ringo If i wasnt clear about my position, your an idiot if you still think the shot is dangerous at this point, though I would have agreed with ex...
Pinned toot

@freemo

You be as cautious as you want, its just important to be careful about trying to sell that caution as something justified by the science.

That’s your determination, the scientific research and the clinical trials on this matter are still on going, whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not.

I am relying scientific experts opinion on this topic as well as research studies and case studies therefore my concerns are justified and backed up by science not social conformity or peer pressure.

Expert opinion:

Research studies:

Case studies:

But at this point it has undergone all the same tests as any medication and there isnt much science to suggest caution is anymore justified than with any other medication or vaccine really.

The safety profile of the mRNA vaccines is not set in stone and will continue to be questioned as more data is reveled and research conducted, the same way as any medication really e.g. Bextra.

On April 7, 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the U.S. market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke and also the risk of a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdecox

Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine

Planet of the Humans
2019 documentary film directed by Jeff Gibbs

voidabyss boosted

You could get this all for $9.99 in 2015. Now half of this is$11 ... Wow
#inflation

voidabyss boosted

Let’s see 30M

Share, retweet, and embed this video!

This story is far from over.

voidabyss boosted
Gates made \$500B ROI on BioNTech which he invested in in 2019...

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pAcF4kUefb4
voidabyss boosted

Again, the FDA is lying

I'll take just one point, needle aspiration, pulling back the plunger before injecting to make sure the needle tip is not in a vein.

FDA: “Aspiration before injection of vaccines or toxoids is not necessary because no large blood vessels are present at the recommended injection sites, and a process that includes aspiration might be more painful for infants.”

That is a lie.

Many countries around the world require aspiration of the needle, and videos prove that approximately 1 in 1,000 aspirations of the vaccine needle in the shoulder draw blood, showing the needle point WAS in a vein.

Injecting the vaccine into a vein is virtually guaranteed to cause serious side effects, even death.

thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/c

voidabyss boosted
voidabyss boosted

Watch ""You Pick The Losers"" on YouTube
youtu.be/XzJquSrZXcI

voidabyss boosted

Bruce Marshall (PasswordResearch) and Michal Spacek (PWTooStrong) have been tracking this stuff for years, you'll find tons of examples on birdchan and Reddit. I also remember someone maintaining a GitHub repo called "Dumb Password Rules" that similarly tracked this stuff.

Here's a few famous ones I know off the top of my head:

Microsoft silently truncated passwords at 16 chars for Live, Outlook.com, etc for years, all the way up until 2019.

PayPal still silently truncates at 20.
reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/com

BofA also still truncate at 20 afaik.

Myspace truncated passwords at 12 characters (and also transformed them to uppercase making them case insensitive).

I think my favorite is Fidelity, who converts passwords to telephone keypad values (letters replaced with corresponding keypad number, special chars replaced with asterisks, numbers unchanged.) twitter.com/jmgosney/status/98

Bottom line, truncation is a super common practice. So is transformation, sanitization, etc. What you input may not be at all what gets hashed/stored.

voidabyss boosted

CW Long post. Original content.

How parents of DS children are subtly directed toward abortion

There has been little reaction to the news that 95pc of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome before birth at the Rotunda hospital are subsequently aborted in England.

The response to these horrendous figures has been silence or fatalism. For some, it is an individual “choice” to be respected. There is nothing to be worried about or, even when people find the figures regrettable, little can be done.

“I don’t have a view on whether that is the right thing. We don’t advocate for it, that is just the lived experience”, said prof Fergal Malone, master of the Rotunda.

Is it true? Is it really a purely personal choice, without outside influence or expectations from others? Two recent studies on the experience of parents of children with DS indicate otherwise.

Irish research published last year interviewed eight people following the birth of a child with DS. Some praised the doctors and nurses, but others said the information they received was too medically focused and too negative. It is very hard to believe the same does not happen to couples who are told their baby has DS before it is born.

“Don’t come in with a list of negatives, all the negatives that were put in your head initially we never expected her to be this good now”, said one of the interviewed mothers.

She recalls: “We received purely negative information that she could have this or that, …”

A father said, “Doctors should show compassion when they are delivering the news, have patience and don’t be rushing in and out”.

A Danish study spoke to parents who were told their babies had Down Syndrome before they were born. In Denmark, almost all children with DS are aborted.

The study notes: “Following the diagnosis, the couples were generally critical of the information provided by the hospital. Some felt that the health professionals had painted an unnecessarily grim picture of Down Syndrome based on what couples perceived as outdated information. … Some felt that there was an unnecessary focus on potential diseases and additional diagnoses when the couple was more interested in their potential for living a fulfilling life.”

Participants in the study report feeling pressure from health professionals they encountered to abort, or else that they were presented with overly negative information about their babies.

The research found that “couples felt that termination of pregnancy had been taken for granted following the diagnosis: ‘As the obstetrician sat down, she put those abortion application forms on the table in front of her’”, recalls a mother.

Even conveying apparently neutral information, such as presenting what other couples generally do, can condition parents. We tend to imitate others. Social expectations can be subtle and unconscious.

“Maybe there’s something wrong with me since I don’t just do what 98pc of all people would do”, said a Danish mother in the study, who decided to have the baby.

“The high percentage of terminations in Denmark was a source of doubt and uncertainty during the decision-making process. This left the couples feeling vulnerable”, it notes.

“Why is Down Syndrome the disability [considered] socially acceptable to terminate? And how do we come back from that?”, asks actress Sally Phillips in her documentary “Prenatal Genetic Testing” where she investigates how Non-Invasive Prenatal Tests have increased the number of babies with DS, and other genetic or chromosomal anomalies, who are being aborted. Phillips has a son with Down Syndrome.

These tests, which can take place in the first trimester of pregnancy, are becoming more affordable and available. They can be used to prepare families to welcome a child with medical anomalies, or they can be used to get rid of them, as almost always happens when a diagnosis of DS is given. A proper ethical debate about those prenatal tests has still to happen in Ireland.

In a society that has normalised abortion, the main way to fight the progressive elimination of children with DS is for doctors to portray life with the condition, and life for the parents of such a child, in far more positive terms than seems to be the case at the moment. The medical professionals claim to be neutral about their use, but being not directive isn’t enough when society goes in one direction only.

Certainly, a national debate is called for.

voidabyss boosted

Just six per cent of all the plastic ever produced has been recycled and 12 per cent incinerated.

The founders of London-based start-up Notpla believe they have an answer. Pierre Paslier and Rodrigo Garcia Gonzalez found their solution in the sea. Their plastic alternative is made from seaweed and plants.

euronews.com/green/2022/12/19/

voidabyss boosted

Open corruption, All day, Every where!

I am genuinely interested to understand how can a scientist claim that the new mRNA vaccine technology is 100% safe and doesn’t have any significant long term health effects?

There is a clear bias in the scientific community, pharmaceutical companies and public health authorities to push one simplistic narrative that the mRNA vaccine is safe and effective. Any dissenting opinion questioning the mRNA vaccine safety or efficacy is labeled idiot, conspiracy theorist and anti-vax.

This toxic scientific debate climate makes critical data gathering and research challenging. Most career driven scientists, medical doctors or researchers don’t want to go against the main narrative and lose their credentials and livelihood.

Questioning the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines represent a threat to the institutions mandating and advocating for that technology. A threat that might lead to vaccine hesitancy, lost in credibility, lost of financial revenue and legal liability.

There are few brave scientists with a good track records of scientific research, publications and citations. I can’t name them all, these are a few top ones that I followed their work on this topic:

There is a clear signal form various public heath safety reporting data bases and scientific research that show an increase risk of Myocarditis after the mRNA injections:

Myocarditis is one advert event among many that Pfizer own clinical trials has revealed even before vaccine mass deployment.

I can’t personally ignore or dismiss renown scientific researchers and medical doctors warnings regarding the vaccine safety and efficacy. I am not against vaccines in general, they truly save lives.

I am strongly against vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, especially since the vaccines were never tested or designed to stop the transmission.

I don’t want to live in a future dystopian technocracy were the state controls all aspects of my life, I am pro choice, liberty and informed consent.

I hope that everyone that took the mRNA shots are and will be alright.

@freemo Dr. Freemo if you reading up to this, I hope you consider the scientific research I shared here, and acknowledge the concerns that some people have regarding the mRNA vaccines.

🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱
@ringo If i wasnt clear about my position, your an idiot if you still think the shot is dangerous at this point, though I would have agreed with ex...

This image represents the damage of modern society on the planet and hypocrisy in mitigating that impact on environment.

voidabyss boosted
voidabyss boosted

Ratio - The thickness of the planet Earth's atmosphere, compared to the size of the rocky planet, is comparable to the thickness of the skin of an apple, compared to the flesh of the apple.

The planet's atmosphere is a, comparably, thin gaseous layer that covers the Earth. A layer that makes all life on Earth possible. That shields life from solar radiation, keeps the atmosphere not too hot, and not too cold, for life to be possible, etc.

The gaseous, atmospheric layer that human activities are changing the chemical ratio of. More greenhouse gases (e.g., Carbon Dioxide, methane), due to human fuel-burning & animal farming methods (things that billions of humans do a lot of).

Think again of an apple. A green apple. But this time it's on a tree.

That tree & the green apple represents life.

Life is (bio) chemistry (carbon-based lifeforms).

Fuels are (carbon-based) chemistry. Burning fuels such as coal, wood, oil, diesel, petrol & gas, causes toxins (gases and particulate matter) to be released into the air, land & water. Burning these fuels is also warming the planet's atmosphere, which is causing the climate to change at a life-reducing rate (biodiversity loss)

We've known this for decades. And yet, at this year's , the adults could not even agree on a plan to phase out fossil fuels. They could not even make that part of the main plan. Obviously, having fossil fuel lobbyists attend COP27 is the opposite of helping the process.

"100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World" doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.0

Of course, the fossil fuel lobbyists won't "agree" on the 100% clean renewable energy plan. It will put them out of business (& not a moment too soon)

So, the question is, what is wrong with these decision-makers? More specifically, who has an agenda that is ultimately irrational & immoral? Who profits by extracting, growing, selling & burning fuels?

Why won't they agree to save the "green apple" from their harmful products? (chemicals)

An industry & its associated sociopolitical & socioeconomic organizations that are rotten (corrupt) in their core (e.g., greenwash).

"Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry." ucsusa.org/resources/climate-d

That's who they're! That's what they're. Not the blah blah blah sales pitches.

" the seven “deception dossiers”
presented here tell an undeniable truth—that, for nearly three
decades, major fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked
to distort climate science findings, deceive the public, and
block policies designed to hasten our needed transition to a
clean energy economy.
Their tactics have included collusion, the use of front
groups to hide companies’ influence and avoid accountability,
and the secret funding of purportedly independent scientists.
Companies’ front groups have even used forged letters,
claiming to be from nonprofits that advocate for the wellbeing
of women, minorities, children, seniors, and veterans, to dissuade members of Congress from supporting much-needed
climate legislation" ucsusa.org/sites/default/files

That's who they're! That's what they're. Not the blah blah blah sales pitches

The fossil fuel, and wood fuel industries are the fraudulent empire (deception \ greenwash). They're the adults that know that they're causing harm - but do it anyway. Even though there are healthier options. They are the corrupt, the greedy, the people that look the other way if there is a profit to be made, even at the expense of other people's suffering.

Only good outcomes will be gained by replacing their air-polluting products with modern, clean air, energy products. The end of the evil fossil fuel empire is inevitable. Let's make their demise a change for our good

voidabyss boosted
a rare one that's actually given you permission to dance on his grave.
ghoulish.jpeg
voidabyss boosted
huh well that's a surprise
voidabyss boosted

Success is - a unified focused message. A strategy that the majority can relate to (plus inoculation against corporate greenwash)

The two fundamental requirements to mitigate global heating (therefore climate change) & biodiversity loss are:

1. Stop burning Carbon based fuels.

2. Protect \ restore natural habitats.

For example, "A growing body of research clearly shows that wood smoke increases the risk of serious health outcomes including asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and dementia" woodsmokepollution.org/phone/i

"EcoStoves" = disinformation.

"Carbon lean" wood fuels = disinformation.

"Smokeless" fuels = disinformation.

"green" fuels = disinformation.

"carbon capture" = disinformation.

"carbon offsetting" = disinformation

Burning "recycled" plastics for fuel = disinformation.

Burning fuels causes myriads of eco "problems".

Join the "dots". The message is "stop burning fuels" to stop global warming & improve our health, etc.

100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World sciencedirect.com/science/arti