Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus #2: Lockdowns

Thoughts on COVID-19? (Choose 2 options)

  • It's a naturally occurring virus

    Votes: 15 20.3%

  • It came from a Chinese laboratory

    Votes: 31 41.9%

  • It came from a US/other laboratory

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • It's dangerous and harsh restrictions are necessary

    Votes: 19 25.7%

  • It's not dangerous enough to warrant harsh restrictions

    Votes: 22 29.7%

  • It's basically another flu, so restrictions are silly

    Votes: 14 18.9%
  • Total voters
    74

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lethal Knights said:
Cue more vaccines to combat it.
Click to expand...
That's because all of these so called "deadly", "mutant", "highly infectious", "devil" variants have appeared after the vaccination trials in Sth Africa, Brazil and US and now California, so has anyone asked or tested if they are related to the injections being put into people?

The Oxford AZ injection is not effective at all with the South African strain and was banned. This is one of the effects warned of with spike protein injections.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

A mate sent me this. Have a listen to this absolute bullshit. No wonder Mullis (Nobel prize winning inventor of pcr test) labelled this guy a lier and a clown. Yet he leads the world on this.
I think I can see the puppet strings in the background. Who owns this guy and for how much?



“We hope that when the data comes in, it’s going to show that the virus level is quite low and you’re not transmitting it, we don’t know that now.”

But yep take the vaccine.
 
Last edited:
twotooto said:
Sorry to barge in on you guys but I have been labouring this point(amongst other points) in the other two threads for months on end now. I don't think anyone could rationally say that lockdowns have to have at least some impact on the spread(zero consideration about the other consequences though...something, something nuclear bomb to destroy an ant hill) but it's the continual assertion by a select group of particularly 'special' posters(we all know who they are) that the only reason AU has done so well is 100% because of strict lockdowns and that we are the gold standard for the rest of the world as to how to deal with the pandemic.

When asked for proof they'll say something like "this is a remarkably stupid request"..... not realizing that they've had an own goal and made my point for me - if you are going to speak in absolutes you need to provide 100% verifiable evidence for your claim. Of course they can not do so, yet continue pushing the same narrative.

Remarkably stupid, indeed.

(I'm legit not 100% that a lot of these *posters aren't bots because the levels of denseness wowwee//only half joking).

*in my mind, I call them Lighthouses...they continually swoop in and take it upon themselves to 'shine light' on the errors of our ways the moment someone posts something contrary or ask questions....yeah, thanks Lighthouse and kindly gfy.
Click to expand...
By the same reasoning they use, why didn't we totally lock down and shut businesses, schools and deprive people of their liberty every year for the flu?

We have an immune system that has handled worse with 2017 and 2019 flu, swine flu in 2009 and SARS in 2003. Then there are 6 other corona viruses (4 common cold, SARS 1, and MERS) that research has shown will give cross immunity for at least 60% of the population, because of memory T cells.

We have doctors, specialists, researchers and other experts all over the world backed by a multitude of peer reviewed research, that are saying there are safe and effective therapeutics reduce the severity of COVID by 100% and won't kill or have adverse effects, so why are they so worried?
 
Australian provisional mortality figures just released, confirmed in Aust flu disappeared with only 42 deaths. This compared to 950 deaths from flu in 2019, and over 1200 in 2017.

Total deaths in 2020, down by 1000 compared with the ave over the last 5 years.

Respiratory diseases include causes of death such as pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lower respiratory diseases (including emphysema and chronic bronchitis) with deaths due to COVID-19 (908) not included, show
  • 10,813 deaths from respiratory diseases between 1 January 2020 and 24 November 2020.
  • The average number of deaths for the same period between 2015 and 2019 was 13,167.
So even adding COVID deaths, we had 2000 fewer deaths from respiratory diseases last year compared with the average of the last 5 years.

COVID has the same effect or less than the flu, which conveniently "disappeared" this year.

And for those parroting it would have been far worse if we hadn't locked down, Sweden shows this to be a lie and lockdowns possibly making it worse if it takes more time to reach herd immunity. The similar SARS 1 virus disappeared when herd immunity was relatively quickly reached without a vaccine.
www.abs.gov.au

Provisional Mortality Statistics, Jan - Dec 2023

Provisional deaths data for measuring changes in patterns of mortality
www.abs.gov.au www.abs.gov.au
 
GuzzLG said:
www.news.com.au

Scientists discover ‘devil’ COVID strain

The new coronavirus variant from California appears to be deadlier, spreads more easily, and could weaken vaccine efficacy.
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au
Click to expand...
These people really need to stop, they can see the end is near and their time in the sun is nearly up so out come the new deadly more contagious strain crap.

California 7 day daily cases moving average:

January 14: 44,020
February 23: 6189

7 day daily deaths moving average:

January 14: 533
February 23: 338
 
I actually think the tide is turning. Speaking to different people this morning and they were all totally over it. Over the lock downs, over the masks, over the fear mongering. I mentioned the Fauci two masks thing to one person and she hadn't even heard about it, admitted she has switched off to anything to do with the virus now. Good signs.

Does anyone know anyone who was skeptical at the beginning and now thinks we did the right thing with lock downs and masks etc? I don't. I only know people that have changed their opinion in the other direction.
 
BlueE said:
By the same reasoning they use, why didn't we totally lock down and shut businesses, schools and deprive people of their liberty every year for the flu?

We have an immune system that has handled worse with 2017 and 2019 flu, swine flu in 2009 and SARS in 2003. Then there are 6 other corona viruses (4 common cold, SARS 1, and MERS) that research has shown will give cross immunity for at least 60% of the population, because of memory T cells.

We have doctors, specialists, researchers and other experts all over the world backed by a multitude of peer reviewed research, that are saying there are safe and effective therapeutics reduce the severity of COVID by 100% and won't kill or have adverse effects, so why are they so worried?
Click to expand...

For sure, could not agree more. At first, due to all of the modelling - which, incidentally has been diabolically wrong(again) - it was understandable why we took the course of action we did(yeah, good one, thanks WHO) but it became quickly apparent that there were massive *ups with the modelling(yet again) and we probably should change course. Except we didn't and we haven't and we(globally) don't look like changing course any time soon - we're just going to keep ramming the ship in to the rocks every time someone gets the sniffles.

All of the stats on avg age mortality, specific age groups and health status, being more, or less, susceptible etc support the notion that 99% of people are going to be fine and yet now we apparently all need to be vaccinated as well. Apparently, it's a 'remarkable feat of humanity'. Huh? Literally 99+% do not need it. Not saying that there is anything untoward going on with the va$$ine, just why? Why oh why do we all need it? Can we not just vaccinate the vulnerable, if they choose.

And that's where it's gonna start getting funky. Always the worry for me - the controls to make something 'not mandatory'(and not necessary) effectively mandatory i.e. if you want to participate in society you are going to need to be vaccinated. The erosion of personal liberties etc etc.

Anyway, nothing new under the sun from me - I'm sure you guys don't need me telling you what you already know. But this whole conspiracy thing whenever anyone is 'anti'. At this point if people want to throw around the conspiracy theorist label just because I have issues with how the whole thing has been handled and the precedents that have been set and the controls that are going to be put in place, then by all means, go right ahead. Rather be called a CT than the alternative.
 
Bumpswithagrin said:
I actually think the tide is turning. Speaking to different people this morning and they were all totally over it. Over the lock downs, over the masks, over the fear mongering. I mentioned the Fauci two masks thing to one person and she hadn't even heard about it, admitted she has switched off to anything to do with the virus now. Good signs.

Does anyone know anyone who was skeptical at the beginning and now thinks we did the right thing with lock downs and masks etc? I don't. I only know people that have changed their opinion in the other direction.
Click to expand...
I agree, particularly when I've discussed vaccines with work colleagues. All under 50, no conspiracy theorists, but none see the need for them to take it and would be against forcing it on them or their kids.

Also everyone hates masks. There is one area of our workplace where masks are required and everyone avoids going there wherever possible.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It would seem that Facebook and Twitter pay media agencies for "fact checks" - and even if they can't find a breach of "fact" - they will flag it as "missing context" instead which is basically a point blank "we do not like your opinion" flag!
How are you supposed to have a difference of perspectives in the media (you know - where different journalists portray things in different contexts) when social media giants are now policing and banning people for the actual context they use?
This is just "checking fact" - this is ******* controlling opinion!
Facebook and Twitter are effectively using the mainstream media to bless and rubber stamp its censorship program - and the commercial media that has seen a huge decline in revenue over the last 15 years is happily obliging because they like all capitalist businesses are a **** for cash!
Does anyone else see how the "missing context" thing is a dangerous slippery slope where we lose the ability in society to have a different opinion - and big tech with the help of the mainstream media are allowing it to happen?
 
So, people can't even choose their poison. Am I reading that right? Is it as devious as it sounds? :rolleyesv1:

TGA bans pharmacies from revealing which COVID-19 vaccine they offer.

Health providers and doctors will be banned from revealing which COVID-19 vaccine they offer as Australia prepares to roll out two jabs at the same time. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has revealed its guidelines for advertising the vaccine, barring health providers from using their own ads to spruik the jab. It also prohibits GPs, pharmacies and health centres from advertising which vaccine they offer.

www.news.com.au

What you won’t know about vaccine

Health providers and doctors will be banned from revealing which COVID-19 vaccine they offer as Australia prepares to roll out two jabs at the same time.
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au
 
BlueE said:
....shifted......to vaccines
Click to expand...
I read the following recently, but I can't be bothered looking for it: "the FDA are useless. For 50 years, people said that Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder caused cancer, but nothing happened. Johnson & Johnson finally had to pay massive amounts to victims, so now they focus on vaccines, because it's more profitable and they can't be sued"
 
Registered User said:
So, people can't even choose their poison. Am I reading that right? Is it as devious as it sounds? :rolleyesv1:

TGA bans pharmacies from revealing which COVID-19 vaccine they offer.

Health providers and doctors will be banned from revealing which COVID-19 vaccine they offer as Australia prepares to roll out two jabs at the same time. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has revealed its guidelines for advertising the vaccine, barring health providers from using their own ads to spruik the jab. It also prohibits GPs, pharmacies and health centres from advertising which vaccine they offer.

www.news.com.au

What you won’t know about vaccine

Health providers and doctors will be banned from revealing which COVID-19 vaccine they offer as Australia prepares to roll out two jabs at the same time.
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au
Click to expand...
TGA were called out three years ago for a too close a connection to Big Pharma, involving giving permission for drugs or devices that caused serious injuries, as well as Prof Clacey calling them out for influencing Government Health Officials in nor recommending safe and effective therapeutics for COVID.

Looks like they think people will want one poison over the other, and want to get rid of all their contracted doses.

They do have to tell the individual what they are receiving, but I don't know if this is before or after.

More concerning is the decision made by Government that remote Indigenous communities will receive Pfizer while the closest towns will receive Oxford AZ. They are using Indigenous people as Guinea pigs because there is no data at all on safety and efficacy of this vaccine for Australian Aboriginals. Wonder if they've come to an agreement to provide data for Pfizer like Israel have?

It's about time they answered a few question and were made legally responsible for their decisions.

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the role of the Therapeutics and Goods Administration (TGA) in banning Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the use in Covid-19 Illness presentations and thereby criminalising its use by doctors in this setting.

1. The Unwarranted Banning of an Effective Therapeutic.
2. Excessive and Inappropriate Sanctions and Criminal consequences for the Use of HCQ in the treatment of Early Covid Illness.
3. A failure to review the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of Hydroxychloroquine for use in Early Covid Illness.
4. Accountability and the Negative Consequences of Banning Hydroxychloroquine:

In short, we contend that Australian citizens should not be denied access to safe, effective and well-evidenced therapies for early Covid-19 illness. We strongly advise that the banning of HCQ by the TGA be urgently reviewed and revised based on the large body of medical and scientific evidence that is now available.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that you, or other representatives of the TGA, respond to the following questions:
1. To the best of your knowledge, what was the scientific and medical knowledge that was used to inform the TGA’s decision to declare HCQ as unsafe for human consumption in the setting of Covid-19 illness?
2. Can you provide the exact literature that was relied upon to form and sustain the view that HCQ was ineffective and/or dangerous, and thereby required being withdrawn from use to prevent medical doctors treating their patients with Covid-19 illness?
3. To the best of your knowledge, did the TGA rely solely upon the recommendations of Australia’s National Covid-19 Taskforce, headed by Professor Julian Elliot, to support its decision?
4. To the best of your knowledge, did the TGA conduct its own research or inquiries into the efficacy and safety of HCQ prior to its initial decision to ban HCQ for use in Covid-19 illness?
5. To the best of your knowledge, did the TGA put in place an ongoing review of the available scientific and medical evidence, to sustain or change its stance on the banning of HCQ? If not, did the TGA instruct the NC19T to do so?
6. To the best of your knowledge, can you explain the initial decision-making processes (and processes of review if they existed) to inform the TGA? In particular, what persons and agencies or organisations that were specifically involved in the process?
7. To the best of your knowledge, can you explain the communication protocols and processes between the TGA and Government as well as Statutory bodies and Chief Health Officers (CHOs) and Chief Medical Officers (CMOs), that led to legislative sanctioning and criminalisation of medical doctors for using HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients?
8. To the best of your knowledge, what person or persons do you consider to be ultimately responsible for the decision to ban the use of HCQ to treat early Covid-19 illness?
9. If it can be shown that the direct and consequential interference by Government and its advisors ( including the TGA, NC19T and the various CHOs and CMOs) to ban HCQ resulted in and contributed to identifiable harms and deaths, do you consider it the responsibility of Government, the TGA or the advisors upon whom the TGA relied for its decision, to be accountable for such outcomes?
10.In particular, should the consequences of the decision to ban HCQ be the sole responsibility of the TGA and its officers or should that responsibility be shared by other parties including Health Ministers, Chief Health Officers and the leadership of the Covid-19 National Taskforce?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top