This is not the win you think it is chump.

I'll explain my thinking with regards to my contempt I have for you and that's the last I have to say on the matter of this.

I asked you if you believed the earth was 6000 years old. You said it is.

99% of science says it's not.

That tells me all that I wanted to know about your thought processes. You are a cherry-picker of the highest order. You cite 1% of your 'science' and ignore the 99%.

You are not intellectually honest and although some of your links may have merit you are not worthy of engagement. In fact I debase myself for arguing with an idiot.

There is no debate around the age of the earth or evolution on the macro scale. NONE.

Yes they don't know everything but that's a lot different from saying it's wrong. (Or 'just a theory'.)

I was very keen on understanding if you actually thought an echidna (or a kangaroo or any marsupial) could walk to Australia. The fact that you think that, not that it's possible, but actually happened lets me know that you are clearly deluded.

deleted, transferred to "6000 years" thread.

Just some comments that caught my eye underneath an article citing a New York Times article that admits:

New York Times Headline: "Covid Shots May Slightly Raise Stroke Risk in the Oldest Recipients"
"A federal study hinted at increased risk when the vaccine was given with the high-dose flu shot, but the research is far from conclusive."

My own elderly relative died of a stroke two days after the jab. A family friend's brother died of a stroke two days after the jab. A friend's dentist died two weeks after the jab, and their other relative died soon after the jab. Another friend's cardiologist told her that her heart condition was from the jab. Another friend, who is a paramedic, because he knows the doctors from work, the doctor told him his heart condition was from the jab. etc. etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/health/covid-flu-vaccine-stroke.html?

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-bad-news-gently

In the substack article reporting the New York Times article, this comment:



You ask: why are people so slow in the uptake? To see why people are so slow, this thread is a public record of how the average Aussie thinks. People like tsf, who are average, they will insult and slam anyone who is against the Mainstream Narrative. When tsf, who studied at uni, is informed of the inadequacy of using "ad hominem" attacks against people, he does not skip a beat.

While we're at it, here is some research peer-reviewed paper from Australian universities:

‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA
Seven Australian Authors Publish Comprehensive Peer-Reviewed Paper Concluding Genetic Vaccines Must be Pulled
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37626783/
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/spikeopathy-covid-19-spike-protein

• Children's Health Research Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia.
• Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia.
• Children's Health Defence (Australia Chapter), Huskisson, NSW 2540, Australia.
• Microbiology Research, QAAFI (Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation), The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.
• Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
• School of Agriculture and Food Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.

Just to explain it. These new MRNA jabs, they're not like conventional jabs.What the MRNA jabs do is to inject an MRNA code into your body that teaches the cells in your body to manufacture the spike protein. Hence, what this Australian research is saying ... or rather, confirming ... that, whether the spike protein comes into you via Covid .. or whether the spike is manufactured inside you under instruction from the MRNA injection ... both are dangerous to you.

When I have spare time, I'll extract the numerous key statements from this review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines by Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287

e.g. "These [NSW government] data do not support the premise that the vaccinations have ‘saved millions of lives’, but instead indicate correlations between more doses with severe COVID-19 illness warrants investigation."

In the past, I already gave you this NSW government data, and also supplied links to the Cleveland Clinic saying the same thing. But people like tsf and Muz trashed the data I gave them. Now, you have scientists from top Australian university medical schools saying the same thing.

I suspect tsf and Muz will still trash them them as mugs.

Here is Dr Peter McCullough's summary of the above Australian paper.

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/spikeopathy-covid-19-spike-protein

For the record, here is the link 10 months ago where I showed you the NSW government data - and it is public record how people like tsf and Muz insulted and slammed me for being an idiot. Now, why don't you both go and say that to the scientists at Melbourne University and Queensland University etc?

https://forum.insidesport.com.au/2890432/Coronavirus-Megathread?PageIndex=137#bm3057932

The entire response from government and the health authorities was politicized and commercialized to hell and back  The usual processes for drug approvals were set aside. 

 Why did that happen?

Those responsible could not admit that the safety of the products may be uncertain because they would never have achieved their vaccinated percentage targets.  Worse, there may have been large scale refusal resulting in physical conflict. and who knows where that would have gone- martial law, forced medical treatments. 

So they had to bullshit about the "safe and effective' narrative.  Safe and effective-for whom?

I can see why they did what they did, taking a society-wide overview in the context of a world wide disease with non fully-documented outcomes.  On the whole, the authorities  believed the risk equation favoured vaccination.  But do they get to make that decision for others whilst spreading misinformation as fact, and going further at the same time ostracizing dissenters as crackpot conspiracy theorists, or threatening professional de-registration?

From the outset I've been critical that there was insufficient information to determine an individual's risk-benefit balance.  If you were a young (under 30) male with a normal BMI especially if  you worked outdoors, and avoided crowds, there was and is no good reason to infect yourself willingly with the bi-engineered spike proteins generated by the vaccines, and in fact it could be more harmful to do so than not.  Novak was right to do what he did.

The narrative was to stick to the "evidence".  This is ridiculous when there is a paucity of evidence, or when what evidence there is has legitimate questions against it.

That's what happens when an issue is politicized and commercialize to hell and back.

You asked, "Why did that happen?"

There's no need to speculate when you can hear the Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla, speak for himself. The interview is in the first one and half minutes of this video.

https://rumble.com/v3rsgqp-dna-in-the-covid-jab-interview-with-jessica-rose-viva-viva-frei-live.html

Bourla says, prior to Covid, he said Pfizer only had 2 years of experience using MRNA and, to quote him word for word: "MRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product till that day".

But CEO Bourla went with his intuition.

So in summary, you simple folk were persuaded to be guinea pigs for a brand-new technology that had never been used commercially before --- and the testing of the Pfizer jabs was done at "warpspeed" by skipping the usual testing procedures. How? Instead of Phase 1, 2 and the final big Phase 3, what they did was to merge Phase 2 and 3. Essentially, all you lot where the Phase 3 trials.

And yet, when the TV tells them these were "safe and effective", even now 2 years later, the simple people will lynch anyone who dares provide data to the contrary.

And now, they're working to add MRNA to the vegetables and food that you eat.

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/drs-mccullough-and-victory-on-ask

Peter McCullough interview with Dr Drew and Dr Kelley Victory, at the 0:42 mark in the video, Dr McCullough talks about recent research on how they are adding MRNA into vegetables and milk. He said there is research to show that the MRNA can get absorbed into the body through the cell walls of the intestines.

There's nothing that can be done to stop this. The dollar is the driving force.

Breaking news from New Zealand, 30 November 2023


"... a New Zealand government data administrator identified as Winston Smith has come forward with startling claims regarding the consequences of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in New Zealand."

"Winston Smith emphasizes that he is not an anti-vaxxer. He clarifies that he has been vaccinated in the past and has even contributed to building the COVID vaccination system in New Zealand, which gave him access to the data , making it clear that his stance is not born from opposition to vaccines on principle."

• For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
  
  
• Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
  
  
• Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
  
  
• Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.

https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administrator

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/

https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator

Winston Smith eh? What a coincidental name 

Winston Smith is a fictional character and the protagonist of George Orwell's dystopian 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The character was employed by Orwell as an everyman in the setting of the novel, a "central eye ... [the reader] can readily identify with."^[1]

In the video, the NZ lawyer says that the name "Winston Smith" is a pseudonym.

Here is the video link to the N.Z. lawyer who investigated the whistleblower, Winston Smith's, claims.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/

This, therefore, comes down to the heart of the people - whether they are mockers or truth-seekers. For example, during Covid, people mocked the other side's doctors by saying "correlation does not mean causation". True. Absolutely true. BUT the test is what the person does next.

When there is correlation, the mocker will just mock, and leave it at that.

When there is correlation, the truth-seeker will seek clarification.

So, when there is a credible whistleblower ... and his reports correspond with the latest peer-reviewed data on excess deaths and the dangers of the Covid MRNA vaccines ... are you just going to leave there after you've had your jibe/insult/mocking. Or will you want the whistleblower's data to be tested?

This is why a person's heart determines whether they will find the truth.

(I didn't want MSC's ridiculous mocking of the person's nickname to cause the news story to get lost in the thread, so I am re-posting)

Breaking news from New Zealand, 30 November 2023

"... a New Zealand government data administrator ... has come forward with startling claims regarding the consequences of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in New Zealand."

• For batch 1, out of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152 fatalities were reported, indicating a staggering 21% mortality rate
  
  
• Batch 8, with a 17% mortality rate,
  
  
• Batch 3 with 15% mortality rate
  
  
• Even among larger sample sizes, such as batch number 70 that vaccinated 11,000 individuals, there were 498 deaths accounted for, representing a 4% mortality rate.

Below is video of whistleblower interviewed by his lawyer:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dmgyKfhAZkxz/

____

https://www.aussie17.com/p/new-zealand-government-data-administrator

https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/new-zealand-database-administrator

Quiz question:
If a whistleblower risks his career and even life to reveal to the public -- referring to data on a government database that is not clasified, but for internal use -- that there have been massive numbers of deaths following vaccination by certain batches of vaccines -- and this is similar to reports in the U.S. of high deaths in certain batches of vaccines -- WHAT do you do?

1) silence the whistleblower, discredit him, charge him with accessing databases, and tell everyone "nothing to see here, folks, Just move along".
      OR
2) Scientifically investigate to see whether the high death rates are true.

For reference, here is a report of similar findings in the U.S. where certain batches of vaccines accounted for massive number of deaths, suggesting problems in quality control of certain batches of vaccines.

Article title, "Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events"
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/bad-pfizer-vaccine-batches-account?


Answer: the following articles show what they did to the whistleblower.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/301019640/what-we-know-about-te-whatu-oras-vaccine-data-scandal

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-arrest-man-in-connection-with-alleged-te-whatu-ora-mass-privacy-breach-of-covid-vaccination-data/SF3KR4MIJRGXRPXMB22XND74D4/

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/former-te-whatu-ora-worker-barry-young-appears-in-court-accused-of-illegally-accessing-vaccine-database.html

https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/04-12-2023/the-bulletin-health-worker-arrested-over-covid-vaccine-data-breach

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/


Think. When you read articles like the above, ask yourself: what is the sequence of events?

- Did they 1) assume the vaccines are safe and effective, therefore 2) the whistleblower's data is crazy and false.

OR

- Did they test the whistleblower's data, and from that, conclude that the data did not show any danger in those batches of vaccines?

... continuing with the above story of the NZ whistleblower.

(Quote) “As soon as the system went live, we noticed that people were dying almost straight away after being injected. So, that sort of prompted my curiosity a bit. So, I dug a little deeper,” he added. This cannot be a natural event. This is man-made,” Young argued, adding, “If it’s happening here, guarantee it’s happening everywhere, and we need more people like me to stand up and just come out. Don’t be scared, just do it.”

This NZ whistleblower risked his life and future, so that you (the public) would be warned of the dangers of the MRNA vaccines. But the average bloke in the street attacks the whistleblower as an idiot.

Why? It is the way the average person thinks through these things. The average person 100% believes the Mainstream Media - so if a whistleblower comes along with the opposite, the mob immediately attacks anyone that steps out of the group-think.

It is human nature (you lot) to refuse to see evidence that shows that you made a life-changing mistake. It's easier to slam the whistleblower as an idiot - than to investigate data that shows you ignore the videos/articles that your friends sent you, warning that the MRNA substances were harmful to your children and family. Hence, human nature finds it naturally easier to just ignore the data -- and just attack and belittle the whistleblower.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/hero-health-worker-turned-whistleblower-faces-court-after/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-new-zealand-health-ministry-employee-whistleblowers-home/

Think..... How does a "whistle blower" jeopardise their career buy using a pseudonym..... ?

Not going to click on any of your suspicious looking links but if by some clever twist off fate the actual "person's" name is revealed in one of your vids then I would question the need for such a victim ladened pseudonym to begin with.

Do better in who you choose to believe in johnsmith.

The N.Z. whistleblower tried to keep his name secret -- but it has since been revealed -- because the vast majority of people in society are incredibly unfair.

The unfairness is seen in people who reject the data/evidence - just because he used a pseudonym.

And the government -- rather than first checking whether the data/evidence is true -- instead, they sent SWAT teams to arrest him

The unfairness in the Media is that, rather than investigating whether the data is true -- the Media focuses on the charges of using the data illegally.

And the masses of people do not care.

This is a hard world - and it is so because the vast majority of people are hardened.

Can you imagine, through history, the true whistleblowers who help save society -- being rejected by the people whom the whistleblower wanted to help -- you -- you reject him solely because he used a pseudonym to try to protect himself from the attacks he is now receiving?

I gain experience by dialoguing on this website because I interact with people like you. I learn how people think in their hearts. If the tables were turned, and someone rejected your whistleblowing attempt to help society .... simply because you tried to keep anonymous (as most whistleblowers as allowed to do) ... you would be crushed if your attempts were met by a hardened society that spat in your face.

I don't know who you are beyond your initials MSC - but I'm guessing society is filled with hardened people. We can see the total effect of lots of people being hardened, because society is being hardened, one person at a time.

I'm extremely against what you wrote above. If you Google for - 

anonymous whistleblower protection site:gov.au
anonymous whistleblower protection site:govt.nz

you'll see that it is a right of whistleblowers to remain anonymous. Whereas, this NZ whistleblower, while trying to keep his name hidden, had the guts (or stupidity) to show his face on camera when making his disclosure.

I am shattered by the hardness that you demonstrate - by you slamming this NZ whistleblower for trying to keep his name secret.

This is one of the best websites on the net for anything medical related. Probably the only decent thing lowercase js has linked.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org (A brilliant site.)

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-kirschs-mother-of-all-revelations-about-the-deadliness-of-covid-19-vaccines-goes-poof/

Oh no, it isnt my intention to shatter anything for you johnsmith, hope you dont take my "hardness" to heart.

It is indeed the right of ANYONE to remain anonymous (we both do the same on this forum) however claiming that that person is putting their reputation and career on the line by doing so is extremely ridiculous.

You have no idea what is and isnt in my "heart" johnsmith and your insistence of doing so just shows your arrogance not some sort of holy understanding of human nature..... 

If I had something to say to the world and I could, with a clear conscience, stand behind my convictions, I would use my own name... not hide behind anonymity.... 

Despite what you think, trading barbs on a football forum anonymously is an entertaining pastime, not some sort of evangelical political statement.

MSC, rather than using a diminutive as "sheep or herd mentality" -- I'll unpack it to show its substance. It's based on the premise that the vast majority -- and it's around 95% of people in society -- do not make their decisions firstly and primarily based on evidence and data. Rather, their first recourse is to follow those they trust, e.g. Mainstream Media, their GP, their culture's heroes.

This means that it is almost impossible to persuade people -- by giving them evidence/data that is opposite to what their trusted people are saying.

You, MSC, exhibit this. When faced with a NZ whistleblower who is a database administrator, who has exclusive access to data -- instead of testing the whistleblower's data, you instead revert to "sheep mentality" by seeing if you can trust the NZ whistleblower. Your instincts -- bred into you -- warn that you cannot trust the NZ whistleblower because the entire Mainstream Media is slamming him. The NZ Whistleblowers data goes against what your GP told you that the MRNA vaccines are "safe and effective".

So you grasp at the pathetic straw - that the NZ whistleblower is not to be trusted -- because he did not use his real name.

Notice -- this is an example, where it is impossible to persuade such a person by presenting facts/data that oppose their trusted people. For example, when I cited evidence that governments provide for whistleblowers to remain anonymous -- and that most/many whistleblowers who make an impact do remain anonymous. Yet, despite giving you this fact/evidence, you still ran for cover to hide under the safetynet of those you trust.

MSC, our brief discussion on the NZ Whistleblower is a prime example of how 95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following those whom they trust. Hence, it is not a derogatory insult to call the 95% of people to be sheep. It is an analogy that is based on fair observation.

.

Hahahaha there you go again making assumptions. There is no clutching at straws about some turbo in NZ being a whistleblower... I could care less what he did or didnt say as I wouldnt read it anyway... you made the correlation about how this "hero of truth" risked his job and reputation by shedding light on the massive conspiracy (or whatever turbo shit you are spinning now) and I simple pointed out that its not a risk to anything when you hide behind a pseudonym (regardless if he was dumb enough to reveal his identity or not)

Your bible thumping garbage about 95% of people not driven by facts/evidence and being sheep is hilarious. Purposefully insulting and extremely contradictory to your "true Christian" preaching of forgiveness and brotherly love, but hilarious nevertheless. Sadly people like you are the ones that turn many away from having any faith in God. I hope this earns you a place in your imaginary spaceship amongst the other 144 thousand souls or has that number changed along with your "end of days" timelines?

"Morpheus says "You take the blue pill... the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe."

Few people take the red pill. But if you do, here's the video of Steve Kirsh's presentation at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, dated 30 November 2023

https://rumble.com/v3yzeoh-must-watch-steve-kirsch-presents-record-level-covid-19-vaccine-data-from-3-.html

95% of people believe the earth to be round including you. (As you said at the very outset of the other thread.)

As you have just said '95% of people in society are not driven by facts/evidence, but instead, by following whom they trust.'

So, by your own retarded logic, you are in fact a 'sheep'.

I would NEVER take any sort of pharmaceutical without first conducting my own pseudo-scientific, google based, research and then perhaps asking myself  what would Jesus do in a legal context....  There MUST be something in Genesis for this sort of thing?

The consequence of being a crowd-follower, a consensus follower, a sheep, is that .... usually no consequence. Most times, things work out fine. In most areas of life, we just go with the system.

But where it goes wrong is where people who are in charge of the system get it wrong. That's when the crowd-follower goes over the cliff with the other lemmings.

The litmus test of how a person responds to whistleblowers.

The sign of a mobster is: 1) the insult the whistleblower, and 2) refuse to see the data for themselves, and 3) they follow the crowd because that is where their peace and safety come from.

A mobster -- even if in their heart and mind, they realise there is something wrong --- they simply cannot stand being in the outsider 5%. That is a fate worse than anything, so they would rather insult, jeer and mock to convince themselves that "there is nothing to see here, folks, just move along".

So you're admitting you're a sheep for believing the earth is spherical. Thank you for confirming you are indeed a 'sheep' with regards to a spherical earth.

You'll begin to realise that I am speaking common sense.

The term "sheep" is not an insult. It is descriptive of when we follow the direction of a crowd.

In some areas of our life, we are followers. In other areas of life, we are leaders.

But there are certain emergency situations where we ought to shift from sheep to leader -- when the direction of the crowd suddenly goes wrong.

So one could make a distinction between smart-sheep versus idiot-sheep.

Hahahah Muz, I think he is trying to hypnotise you.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH 

Look deep into his eyes and you will begin to believe he is talking sense.. hahahha

Ah re johnsmith, you really are entertaining. 

So you're a 'sheep' for believing the earth is round. 

Just say it. 'I am a sheep because I believe the earth is round'. (An oblate spheroid but let's not split hairs.)

Entertaining?

The bloke is nuts.