Celia, several doctors in OUR CAMP have now come out pointing out the inaccuracies in the video, including Malone and A Midwestern Doctor. The clots/amyloids aren't the problem, the woo woo conspiracy theory stuff is. The video can only hurt dissidents because it is so easy to pick holes in its foolish sensationalism.
Celia, several doctors in OUR CAMP have now come out pointing out the inaccuracies in the video, including Malone and A Midwestern Doctor. The clots/amyloids aren't the problem, the woo woo conspiracy theory stuff is. The video can only hurt dissidents because it is so easy to pick holes in its foolish sensationalism.
Bill Gates did say those things, so the meaning was inferred but not explicitly stated.
I suspect he was talking about vaccines saving children so that families would have less children, but then you see Gates with the population / global resources graph, that can only have one possible meaning.
Live birth rates have declined globally.
Death rates have increased globally.
The insurers have claimed a 40% increase in deaths of working age people.
Athletes have been dying at a vastly increased rate since the roll out.
The pathologists and undertakers have started finding clots that none of them have ever seen before.
There is a lot of great information in the film, so for some of "our" own side to dismiss the video for it's few missteps is a bit disingenuous.
A Midwestern Doctor gave a very fair and balanced critique of the film, unlike so many others, who leapt on the hit piece bandwagon..
regarding Bill Gates, his statement about vaccines reducing population can only mean one thing, and here's why: if a family wants 4 children, but they have 8 because 4 of them are like to die (or die), they end up with 4 children. If they are certain, due to better health (from vaccines?) that they will NOT have 4 children die, then they might only have 4 children.... still ending up with 4 children. Not a population reduction. Just a death reduction, through better health. Which would, if anything, cause a population to increase.
No, Bill Gates actually said that population would decrease due to doing a really good job with vaccines -- this is either through causing sterility or through causing illness/death. Can't mean anything else. Unless he totally misspoke -- but then, in that case, since this is so widely quoted, why not state a correction?
If the vaccines were a success and their children did not die as usual, it would take several generations of people to adjust to the fact that they did not need to have extra children to ensure the survival of a few.
SO the global population would rise massively during that transition period.
It makes no sense.
But given the hysteria over Stew Peters film, I felt it better to be charitable to Mr Gates and allow the "permitted narrative" to be heard.
I really don't mind if people disagree and want to state their criticism -- in fact, I like it. We've had far too much censorship and we need to get back to open and fair debate (many have forgotten what that is supposed to be like). Opinions. Free speech. Supporting arguments with evidence. Questioning the narrative.
There could be critique without the ad hominem pile on. But Stew himself has been prone to insults if someone doesn't agree with him 100%. The Left doesn't give a damn about facts so criticisms bounce off their nareatives (e.g., safe and effective) like they were Teflon. On the thinking side we "take no prisoners" of our allies. Not a smart strategy.
well, I believe it's complicated. It depends on how we frame what is happening. I think we are (obviously) at war. So, with that as my perspective, words and information are weapons. My perspective also is that while we are actually at war, there are a great many people who are unaware that this war is going on.... but everyone is affected by it.
What I'm getting at is that I am used to polite discourse yet at the same time I've never shied away from discussing controversial topics. I enjoy the debate very much, but not ad hominem (that destroys the fun of it). But, since my perspective is now that we are engaged in a war -- my purpose is no longer to "have fun" -- my purpose is to win. Or, if I am not a significant player, then I certainly cheer on my betters and I really want the good guys to win. Sometimes fighting gets ugly. I do and I don't have the stomach for it. I can take it if there is a good purpose to the "ugly." But under normal circumstances -- no. It's not cool, then.
I do think that some people need to be jolted from their unawareness. And I do wish some others would toughen up a bit and not be so easily offended, nor back down so quickly, nor accept degeneracy because they've been taught that tolerance is a good thing. It's all so very complicated, and different for each person.
Stew Peters currently performs a valuable role or function in this war. If the Left is on the attack and playing dirty, then there is no way to win by trying to play fair. It won't work.
What needs to happen is to wake up enough of the population that the Left's tactics won't work anymore. This IS happening. Stew Peters won't wake up everyone, but once you see, you can't unsee, so every person who wakes up "counts."
I agree. The "friendly fire" is lobbed at a few advancing troops all too often. Stew's movie has some flaws (the DoD data is flawed for example although the coverup is actually more diabolical than most people know according to Matthew Vrawford) but it is "close enough for military work." My father, a USAF major, explained to me that a bomb doesn't have to drop exactly on target to do major damage.
Sensationalism is just another in a long list of words that has changed in meaning, it seems. Someone whose hair is actually on fire running around calling out, “Help! My hair is on fire!” Would be called a sensationalist. This in not a sensationalistic statement. Please recall that a TV news reporter (CNN?) standing in front of a fire set by rioters claimed it was a “mostly peaceful” demonstration.
Sunfellow clipped the first part of "died suddenly", with the embalmers, to some interviews with Dr Ryan Cole. I love that Sunfellow did this, because then we can share this video with others and it doesn't have the depopulation agenda part that's harder for others to hear.
Celia, several doctors in OUR CAMP have now come out pointing out the inaccuracies in the video, including Malone and A Midwestern Doctor. The clots/amyloids aren't the problem, the woo woo conspiracy theory stuff is. The video can only hurt dissidents because it is so easy to pick holes in its foolish sensationalism.
What woo poo stuff?
Bill Gates did say those things, so the meaning was inferred but not explicitly stated.
I suspect he was talking about vaccines saving children so that families would have less children, but then you see Gates with the population / global resources graph, that can only have one possible meaning.
Live birth rates have declined globally.
Death rates have increased globally.
The insurers have claimed a 40% increase in deaths of working age people.
Athletes have been dying at a vastly increased rate since the roll out.
The pathologists and undertakers have started finding clots that none of them have ever seen before.
There is a lot of great information in the film, so for some of "our" own side to dismiss the video for it's few missteps is a bit disingenuous.
A Midwestern Doctor gave a very fair and balanced critique of the film, unlike so many others, who leapt on the hit piece bandwagon..
regarding Bill Gates, his statement about vaccines reducing population can only mean one thing, and here's why: if a family wants 4 children, but they have 8 because 4 of them are like to die (or die), they end up with 4 children. If they are certain, due to better health (from vaccines?) that they will NOT have 4 children die, then they might only have 4 children.... still ending up with 4 children. Not a population reduction. Just a death reduction, through better health. Which would, if anything, cause a population to increase.
No, Bill Gates actually said that population would decrease due to doing a really good job with vaccines -- this is either through causing sterility or through causing illness/death. Can't mean anything else. Unless he totally misspoke -- but then, in that case, since this is so widely quoted, why not state a correction?
I fully agree.
If the vaccines were a success and their children did not die as usual, it would take several generations of people to adjust to the fact that they did not need to have extra children to ensure the survival of a few.
SO the global population would rise massively during that transition period.
It makes no sense.
But given the hysteria over Stew Peters film, I felt it better to be charitable to Mr Gates and allow the "permitted narrative" to be heard.
I really don't mind if people disagree and want to state their criticism -- in fact, I like it. We've had far too much censorship and we need to get back to open and fair debate (many have forgotten what that is supposed to be like). Opinions. Free speech. Supporting arguments with evidence. Questioning the narrative.
There could be critique without the ad hominem pile on. But Stew himself has been prone to insults if someone doesn't agree with him 100%. The Left doesn't give a damn about facts so criticisms bounce off their nareatives (e.g., safe and effective) like they were Teflon. On the thinking side we "take no prisoners" of our allies. Not a smart strategy.
well, I believe it's complicated. It depends on how we frame what is happening. I think we are (obviously) at war. So, with that as my perspective, words and information are weapons. My perspective also is that while we are actually at war, there are a great many people who are unaware that this war is going on.... but everyone is affected by it.
What I'm getting at is that I am used to polite discourse yet at the same time I've never shied away from discussing controversial topics. I enjoy the debate very much, but not ad hominem (that destroys the fun of it). But, since my perspective is now that we are engaged in a war -- my purpose is no longer to "have fun" -- my purpose is to win. Or, if I am not a significant player, then I certainly cheer on my betters and I really want the good guys to win. Sometimes fighting gets ugly. I do and I don't have the stomach for it. I can take it if there is a good purpose to the "ugly." But under normal circumstances -- no. It's not cool, then.
I do think that some people need to be jolted from their unawareness. And I do wish some others would toughen up a bit and not be so easily offended, nor back down so quickly, nor accept degeneracy because they've been taught that tolerance is a good thing. It's all so very complicated, and different for each person.
Stew Peters currently performs a valuable role or function in this war. If the Left is on the attack and playing dirty, then there is no way to win by trying to play fair. It won't work.
What needs to happen is to wake up enough of the population that the Left's tactics won't work anymore. This IS happening. Stew Peters won't wake up everyone, but once you see, you can't unsee, so every person who wakes up "counts."
I agree. The "friendly fire" is lobbed at a few advancing troops all too often. Stew's movie has some flaws (the DoD data is flawed for example although the coverup is actually more diabolical than most people know according to Matthew Vrawford) but it is "close enough for military work." My father, a USAF major, explained to me that a bomb doesn't have to drop exactly on target to do major damage.
Crispin Miller gets like that too. Drives me nuts.
What a good point.
Sensationalism is just another in a long list of words that has changed in meaning, it seems. Someone whose hair is actually on fire running around calling out, “Help! My hair is on fire!” Would be called a sensationalist. This in not a sensationalistic statement. Please recall that a TV news reporter (CNN?) standing in front of a fire set by rioters claimed it was a “mostly peaceful” demonstration.
When the news is sensational, it sensationalizes itself.
Well said.
Sunfellow clipped the first part of "died suddenly", with the embalmers, to some interviews with Dr Ryan Cole. I love that Sunfellow did this, because then we can share this video with others and it doesn't have the depopulation agenda part that's harder for others to hear.
https://rumble.com/v1wjhcq-9-embalmers-and-dr.-ryan-cole-how-covid-vaccine-mystery-clots-are-killing-p.html
Excellent! Thank you so much for sharing, @Nova123 ~ Genuinely appreciated.