Has Anyone Seen This? Deadly Bacteria With 50% Fatality Rate Declared Endemic To The US Gulf Coast

[RonDean]

How we jump from this admittedly questionable article to doubting the veracity of "scientists, doctors, hospitals" is what gets us in trouble. Because one of my friends is an ***** doesn't mean they all are. Had we ALL taken ***** seriously in the first place, I think we would have had fewer problems with it. I personally lost a disbelieving brother that refused to take ANY precautions.

Now, Big Pharma, there I'll join you. Their culpability has been proven in court - where rules of evidence apply.

 

[Cajunwolf]

I haven't been willing to swim in the Gulf since I was about 12. Nasty water.

Depends on where you swim and what time of year.

 

[Cajunwolf]

How we jump from this admittedly questionable article to doubting the veracity of "scientists, doctors, hospitals" is what gets us in trouble. Because one of my friends is an ***** doesn't mean they all are. Had we ALL taken ***** seriously in the first place, I think we would have had fewer problems with it. I personally lost a disbelieving brother that refused to take ANY precautions.

Now, Big Pharma, there I'll join you. Their culpability has been proven in court - where rules of evidence apply.

doubting the veracity of "scientists, doctors, hospitals" is what gets us in trouble

Who's fault is that? The scientists, doctors, and hospitals are packaged by the media, loved by the politicians, and financed by big pharma. The media played a massive role in inciting unreasonable fear. Still, in the endgame, it was simply human greed or perhaps corporate greed now that corporations are people too (bovine excrement, cough, cough). The one thing the ***** experience taught me is how gullible **** sapiens can be. Did some die because of *****? Yes, they did, and that's unfortunate; my heart goes out, but that doesn't change the fact it was way overplayed for the benefit of some. I'll remain a skeptic, thank you.

 

[Morgana]

Over one million people have died of ***** in the United States.
WHO data here.
CDC data here.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

How we jump from this admittedly questionable article to doubting the veracity of "scientists, doctors, hospitals" is what gets us in trouble .....

Questioning science is the proper way to do science.
Trusting 'scientists, doctors, hospitals' is most anti-science.

..... Had we ALL taken ***** seriously in the first place, I think we would have had fewer problems with it .....

China blew that narrative out of the water when they relaxed their 'zero-*****' policy late last year.

 

[RonDean]

Questioning science is the proper way to do science.
Trusting 'scientists, doctors, hospitals' is most anti-science.

China blew that narrative out of the water when they relaxed their 'zero-*****' policy late last year.

Spiff - No argument (mostly) from me. Peer review and skepticism are high on my list. But, some folks seem to take that another step and raise the bar to outright distrust of the whole profession(s). I saw medical professionals busting their humps trying to save lives during the worst of ***** and I'll defend them as far as I can. I agree most hospitals and big pharm are maybe all or just mainly about the profit motive. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong.

No argument that China let PR get in front of honesty for far too long. One could argue that still haven't come clean! But I don't see where that should make us distrust what our professionals tell us. I also think some (most?) of the blame belongs more to sensationalizing journalists and other writers trying to get more readers. (ie: clickbait) I just think we need to be a lot more careful where we point our "fingers of blame."

 

[Frood]

I think that questioning everything is, generally, a positive character trait. However, one must know their own limitations. I'm not a microbiologist, geneticist, chemist, immunologist, or biochemist. My knowledge of biology, chemistry, genetics, etc, is quite advanced for an average person. But being well-read does not qualify me to question the majority of scientists in that field. To disbelieve the majority of experts in their field is simply not a rational decision. A rational mind does not form an opinion and then seek data to support that opinion, but rather gathers data and THEN forms an opinion. EVEN if that opinion is personally or emotionally distasteful.

 

[magentawave]

Over one million people have died of ***** in the United States.
WHO data here.
CDC data here.

CCD and WHO, oh please. Even establishment shills at the New York Times debunked that number a couple months ago when they finally admitted what anyone that was paying attention already knew... and that was that they were counting EVERY hospital death as a ***** death because they weren't differentiating between "died with *****" or "died from *****." Hospitals were paid $40,000.00 per "***** death" by the government / TAXPAYERS then! Get hit by a bus and die in the hospital - it was counted as a ***** death. Die in the hospital from Stage 4 cancer - it was counted as a ***** death. (Dr Birx admitted this in one of the daily press conference. See video below.)

This was the biggest scam ever foisted on humanity and that became especially apparent when the authoritarians banned the safe, inexpensive and highly effective generic treatments.

Let's hope and pray that the criminal monsters that hyped this to hysterical levels and mandated lockdowns and toxic shots and useless muzzles and destroyed lives and hundreds of thousands of small businesses are brought to justice.

 

[magentawave]

I think that questioning everything is, generally, a positive character trait. However, one must know their own limitations. I'm not a microbiologist, geneticist, chemist, immunologist, or biochemist. My knowledge of biology, chemistry, genetics, etc, is quite advanced for an average person. But being well-read does not qualify me to question the majority of scientists in that field. To disbelieve the majority of experts in their field is simply not a rational decision. A rational mind does not form an opinion and then seek data to support that opinion, but rather gathers data and THEN forms an opinion. EVEN if that opinion is personally or emotionally distasteful.

Much of the data was based on false numbers though. I read many of the peer reviewed studies and they were quite simple to understand. I'm thinking of one study that the media ran with and politicians used to control us where they didn't bother to mention that the ***** deaths in the study were based on 65 years of age plus with 12 to 16 comorbidities. Mind you, most of those poor souls in that condition would have died from the seasonal flu or eve a common cold.

 

[Cajunwolf]

I can see underlying common ground in our arguments: the media and their role in shaping opinion for profit. These media empires are owned by people who have way more money than they need and have the wealth, therefore, the power to manipulate outcomes in their favor. They're friends with the fat gats in big pharma, big finance, and others, and they all own a politician or two. We **** sapiens like our shiny and flashy stuff, and the more flashy and shiny, the better, human nature 101. Big media and their buddies hire folks who understand this well. We are a gullible species with the attention span and memory of a gnat.

 

[Morgana]

CCD and WHO, oh please. Even establishment shills at the New York Time

The videos you shared appear to be obsolete -- from early days in the pandemic when things were moving quickly and people were obviously still feeling their way -- also, state- or local-focused -- NOT careful national or international reviews done after the fact. And they don't, in any case, support most of what you said. In at least one case, they directly contradict it.

Thinking that scientists are going to get absolutely everything right from day one, and that if they don't they're charlatans, is about the most unscientific thought you could have.

"I read a bunch of studies" is not proof. How about you cite specific studies from reputable sources that thoroughly back up your claims. Emotional, dismissive, insulting statements are easy to make, but they don't lead to anything that will keep us healthier /or/ more prosperous in the next public health crisis. And you can bet there will be a next public health crisis.

 

[user 22017]

CCD and WHO, oh please.

People track annual deaths when there is no epidemic. Guessing it is the CDC. More than once I heard it explained on the news, or in articles, that the number of deaths during ***** was much higher than normal. We always have deaths from a zillion things. So they look at the normal death count (from heart attacks, the flu, cancer, car wrecks, suicide, etc.) compared to the death count during epidemics.

Does that help you understand?

 

[Frood]

Disregard communicable diseases at your own risk. Just look what happened to Golgafrincham.

 

[magentawave]

People track annual deaths when there is no epidemic. Guessing it is the CDC. More than once I heard it explained on the news, or in articles, that the number of deaths during ***** was much higher than normal. We always have deaths from a zillion things. So they look at the normal death count (from heart attacks, the flu, cancer, car wrecks, suicide, etc.) compared to the death count during epidemics.

Does that help you understand?

Funny how the usual 30,000 to 70,000 annual flu deaths in the US weren't being recorded during the plandemic. I wonder if the CDC updated their site yet?

 

[magentawave]

The videos you shared appear to be obsolete -- from early days in the pandemic when things were moving quickly and people were obviously still feeling their way -- also, state- or local-focused -- NOT careful national or international reviews done after the fact. And they don't, in any case, support most of what you said. In at least one case, they directly contradict it.

Thinking that scientists are going to get absolutely everything right from day one, and that if they don't they're charlatans, is about the most unscientific thought you could have.

"I read a bunch of studies" is not proof. How about you cite specific studies from reputable sources that thoroughly back up your claims. Emotional, dismissive, insulting statements are easy to make, but they don't lead to anything that will keep us healthier /or/ more prosperous in the next public health crisis. And you can bet there will be a next public health crisis.

It's been quite a while since I read those so you will have to take the time to do your own research if you care to. I do remember one particularly snarky article in the LA Times hyping the hysteria had a link to a study. The disingenuous and evil (I think) writer didn't bother to tell his readers that the numbers he quoted from the study were based on the elderly with 12+ comorbidities.

As far as "early days" go... My ex-wife's father passed away from a 15 year struggle with leukemia in Palomar Hospital in Escondido, CA. Hospital staff wrote ***** as cause of death on the death certificate even though he didn't have *****. He died only 13 months ago so it wasn't "early days."

Doctors lost their licenses because they dared to speak out against the narrative or were caught prescribing the cheap and safe treatments. A couple of the more notable doctors still involved in litigation are Dr. Peter McCulough and the inventor of the MRNA shots, Dr. Robert Malone. Look them up as well as Dr. Scott Jensen.

They got away with it and Big Pharma made BILLIONS with ZERO LIABILITY on an experimental toxic shot so you can bet that they will most certainly create another manufactured health crisis.

re: Not saying that Scientist are always right.....or even that they always have a hidden agenda.

I agree that scientists are not always right, but I also have a real hard time believing the majority of them could keep some kind of global science conspiracy a secret. For the most part I think the majority of the science community are trustworthy. Individuals, like any other group, maybe not so much. So, when I read articles like this one, I try to do enough research to confirm it isn't a "one-off" and then pay close attention.

As someone that boondocks often I tend to trust my water filtration too much. I probably need to rethink that.

Like I said previously, if your income is derived from gov grants (as is the case with most scientists) then you dare not speak out or you could lose your job. What would YOU do in a situation like they are with a mortgage, car payments, insurance, kids in college, etc., etc.? Would you speak out and risk losing your job or would you keep your mouth shut and go along with the narrative?

I use RO water.

Disregard communicable diseases at your own risk. Just look what happened to Golgafrincham.

Ha, good one!

 

[user 22017]

Funny how the usual 30,000 to 70,000 annual flu deaths in the US weren't being recorded during the plandemic. I wonder if the CDC updated their site yet?

Wouldn't that mean that ***** caused even more deaths? If flu deaths were ignored (do you have a link for that claim?) and we still ended up with annual deaths much above normal, then ***** deaths equaled that normal flu fatality rate plus the number of deaths over the average. Some "cause" replaced flu deaths, since the annual deaths were above normal. Does that make sense?

Regarding scientists and mortgages, do a search for "whistleblowers in the U.S.". We have a long history of scientists & MD's exposing issues.

 

[Morgana]

It's been quite a while since I read those so you will have to take the time to do your own research

Nope -- you made the claim; you back it up. Until you do, it's just hot air.

 

[bullfrog !]

When I enlisted in the military they asked me where I wished to be stationed. My reply was somewhere with a sandy beach. They sent me to Tucson “all beach, no ocean” was the response I got when I questioned the assignment! At least I didn’t have to deal with these kind of problems.

 

[eDJ_]

Just an observation about some of these industrial born disasters.

I've witnessed in past decades all numbers of PAC's, radio pundits and a news network, not to mention disinformation websites that are known today for their habitual lying to the public. They hide behind the first amendment as if it also assures lying over the air waves with impunity to be part of that same right. They couldn't exist without the infusion of huge amounts of capital from America's wealthiest backers to promote an agenda that serves to protect their enterprises. (no such thing as climate change, global warming, etc) Because of this it seems we hear the most about those professionals whose salaries derive from Federal Government programs that exist to study these issues. It's always the Government and never those of Enterprise creating the problems. Anything that stands in the way of Corporate greed & avarice related to polluting the air, water, or soil...much less running rough shod over the human resources will surely be scrutinized to the maximum extent by these same news outlets in order to protect their financial backers & their industry. It would look as though that's why these entities were created to start with.

In the meanwhile the same problems/issues ferment while those assigned to study them struggle to serve and do their jobs. (while other factions try to sabotage their efforts by de-funding or canceling their program). In the end it becomes a challenge between the public well-being vs the profitability of industry. (with a new purpose built media set in motion to protect industry by molding public opinion with "mis-information")

 

[rvwandering]

This has become too political. Thread closed.