New Comprehensive Review Examines Potential Harms of COVID-19 Vaccination and Intramuscular Vaccination
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
Post here for exciting advancements in mRNA technology!
47,413 Views |
682 Replies |
Last: 18 days ago by historian
This is getting tiresome.
🚨GROKIPEDIA VS WIKIPEDIA: THE IVERMECTIN TRUTH TEST
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 29, 2025
Wikipedia treats ivermectin like toxic waste, framing everything through "misinformation" warnings.
They even cite the FDA's "you're not a horse" tweet as if it's peer-reviewed science.
Grokipedia actually explains the… https://t.co/d78VoUh7Pq pic.twitter.com/1PIoMBjOcd
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
Brain Fog in post Covid Post Vaccination folks...
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
PVS - long lasting Post Vaccine shots issues
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
Immune markers of post-vaccination syndrome indicate future research directions
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
Walking back Covid Lies
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
House panel concludes that COVID-19 pandemic came from a lab leak
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
We've known that for 5 years. Some people cannot deal with facts or reality.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Interesting article on the strange habit some people still exhibit in 2025 of wearing masks:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/i_d_hide_my_face_too.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/i_d_hide_my_face_too.html
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Lab Leak is a complete red herring.
historian said:
Interesting article on the strange habit some people still exhibit in 2025 of wearing masks:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/i_d_hide_my_face_too.html
Imagine that!
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
Tempus Edax Rerum said:
Lab Leak is a complete red herring.
Maybe not:
Circumstantial "Evidence" Cited by Proponents
Geographic Proximity: The pandemic's initial outbreak occurred in Wuhan, China, home to the WIV, a prominent research center that studies coronaviruses in bats.
Illnesses at WIV: A declassified U.S. intelligence report noted that several WIV researchers became sick in the autumn of 2019, before the first identified cases, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.
WIV Research Activities: The WIV was known to conduct extensive research on bat coronaviruses, including "gain-of-function" studies, which have generated controversy among scientists.
Lack of Identified Animal Host: Despite extensive efforts, no definitive infected animal source (intermediate host) in the wildlife trade or its supply chain has been identified to fully support the natural spillover theory, leading some to question that hypothesis.
Biosafety Concerns: U.S. State Department cables from 2018 and internal Chinese documents indicated persistent concerns about the WIV's biosafety procedures prior to the pandemic.
Unique Genetic Feature: Some researchers have pointed to the presence of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 (a genetic feature that makes the virus more infectious) as an unusual feature not present in other closely related coronaviruses, suggesting possible human manipulation, though other scientists have countered that the feature is imperfect and would be difficult to engineer deliberately.
Osodecentx said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:
Lab Leak is a complete red herring.
Maybe not:
Circumstantial "Evidence" Cited by Proponents
Geographic Proximity: The pandemic's initial outbreak occurred in Wuhan, China, home to the WIV, a prominent research center that studies coronaviruses in bats.
Illnesses at WIV: A declassified U.S. intelligence report noted that several WIV researchers became sick in the autumn of 2019, before the first identified cases, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.
WIV Research Activities: The WIV was known to conduct extensive research on bat coronaviruses, including "gain-of-function" studies, which have generated controversy among scientists.
Lack of Identified Animal Host: Despite extensive efforts, no definitive infected animal source (intermediate host) in the wildlife trade or its supply chain has been identified to fully support the natural spillover theory, leading some to question that hypothesis.
Biosafety Concerns: U.S. State Department cables from 2018 and internal Chinese documents indicated persistent concerns about the WIV's biosafety procedures prior to the pandemic.
Unique Genetic Feature: Some researchers have pointed to the presence of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 (a genetic feature that makes the virus more infectious) as an unusual feature not present in other closely related coronaviruses, suggesting possible human manipulation, though other scientists have countered that the feature is imperfect and would be difficult to engineer deliberately.
You would have to be a complete idiot to think that the virus originated in a swamp. They've dissected it and found it to be manmade, that doesnt happen in a swamp
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
As usual, Assassin is uninformed.
Classified State Department Documents Credibly Suggest COVID-19 Lab Leak
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
Assassin said:
Classified State Department Documents Credibly Suggest COVID-19 Lab Leak
Not really, but since you are an expert you keep on telling yourself that, doofus. Good Lord it must be really weird in your head.
Fauci lies and makes mistakes just like the rest of us
"Never put a sock in a toaster." — Eddie Izzard
Tempus & Assassin please post articles of significance
I read your posts but am considering leaving 'tis thread
I read your posts but am considering leaving 'tis thread
Short answer: No there's no public, conclusive proof that SARS-CoV-2 was "created in a lab." The U.S. intelligence community's public statements have varied over time, and where some agencies lean toward a lab-related scenario they do so with low confidence not with proof that the virus was engineered. Director of National Intelligence+1
A bit more detail:
A bit more detail:
- In the August 2021 IC declassified assessment, the community did not reach a consensus: several agencies judged natural spillover (animal human) more likely, one agency favored a lab incident, and several were undecided. The report also said the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Director of National Intelligence
- ODNI and later declassified documents (including a June 2023 report) reiterated that the IC still couldn't reach a definitive conclusion without more cooperation and evidence from China. Director of National Intelligence+1
- In January 2025 the CIA publicly said it now judges a lab origin "more likely", but stressed that this conclusion carries low confidence; other agencies (and many scientists) remain unconvinced or split. "More likely" proven, and "low confidence" means the underlying intelligence is limited, contradictory, or circumstantial. CBS News+1
- Independent scientific investigations (for example the WHO-convened study and many peer-reviewed analyses) have generally not found convincing evidence that the virus was engineered, and many scientists still consider natural spillover a plausible explanation though they also say gaps in data make a firm conclusion difficult. World Health Organization+1
Osodecentx said:Assassin said:
Fauci lies and makes mistakes just like the rest of us
Fraser Institute?
Overview
The Fraser Institute, founded in 1974 and headquartered in Vancouver, is a prominent Canadian public policy think tank registered as a charity. It focuses on topics like taxation, health care, education, economic freedom, and environmental policy, often advocating for free-market principles, reduced government intervention, and libertarian-leaning reforms. While it ranks highly in global think tank assessments (e.g., #14 worldwide and #1 in Canada/Mexico per the University of Pennsylvania's 2020 Global Go To Think Tank Index), its credibility is hotly debated. Supporters view it as a rigorous, peer-reviewed source of data-driven analysis, while critics argue it's ideologically biased, with funding ties that influence its output and occasional factual inaccuracies, particularly on climate and health issues.
Credibility assessments depend on context: It's generally seen as reliable for raw economic data (e.g., its annual Economic Freedom of the World index is widely cited), but less so for policy conclusions that align with conservative agendas. Below, I'll break it down with evidence from diverse sources, including independent fact-checkers, academic critiques, and public discourse.
Bias and Funding
The Fraser Institute is consistently rated as right-center biased due to its promotion of business-friendly policies, such as lower taxes, deregulation, and privatization of services like health care and education. It receives no government funding and relies on donations from individuals, corporations, and foundationstotaling about $10.7 million in revenue in 2015, per its financials.
Aspect
Details
SourcesBias Rating
Strongly right-center; favors free markets and critiques government spending. Tied to networks like the State Policy Network (a U.S.-based conservative group).
Media Bias/Fact Check ; Wikipedia
Key Funding Ties
- Koch brothers' foundations: ~$765,000 (20062016) and $1.4 million (19972017).
- ExxonMobil: $120,000 (20032004).
- Philip Morris: $100,000 (20112012).
- Other: Donner Foundation (libertarian), Barrick Gold (via Peter Munk's $5 million donation for education programs).
SourceWatch ; DeSmog ; Corporate Mapping Project ; Huffington Post Canada (2014 report)
Self-Description
Claims impartiality: Research is "peer-reviewed" by an international editorial board; priorities set by staff, not funders; methodology transparent.
Fraser Institute website ;
Critics argue these ties (e.g., fossil fuel interests) skew outputs toward denying climate urgency or opposing regulations, making it a "legitimator of carbon industries." Supporters counter that funding doesn't dictate research, and its transparency builds trust.
Factual Reporting and Accuracy
Media Bias/Fact Check rates it mixed for factual reporting: High on economic data but prone to "false and misleading claims" on science, like global warming skepticism (e.g., a 2000s paper claiming no significant temperature rise in 1520 years, authored by skeptic Ross McKitrick). It's a top-rated charity by Charity Intelligence for program impact and financial health.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Sources- Economic indices (e.g., school rankings, tax simulators) use replicable methods and public data.
- Influential in policy debates; cited by politicians like Pierre Poilievre.
- Educational outreach reaches 8,000+ students/teachers annually.
- Cherry-picking data (e.g., ignoring global events in economic reports; using "average" vs. "median" family income to inflate tax burdens).
- Methodological flaws: School rankings based only on standardized tests, deemed "not objective" by educators and inadmissible in courts (e.g., BC Supreme Court, 2017; Ontario custody case, 2016).
- Health wait times: Survey-based, criticized for bias (e.g., small sample of specialists; CBC analysis, 2016).
- Tobacco ties: Sponsored pro-industry events (1999), disputed smuggling claims from tobacco taxes.
MBFC ; PressProgress , , ; CBC , ; Reddit discussions , ; Dougald Lamont Substack
Examples of disputed reports:
- Taxes: Annual "Canadian Consumer Tax Index" claims taxes consume ~48% of family income but ignores credits/deductions and uses gross debt metrics that inflate figures (critiqued by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives).
- Green Economy: 2025 report calls $158B spending a "failure" for minimal GDP/job gains, but omits long-term benefits.
- Health Care: Compares Canada unfavorably to peers, pushing privatization, but excludes pension assets in debt calculations for a "fair" view.
Public sentiment on X (formerly Twitter) leans skeptical, with recent posts (Nov 2025) dismissing it as "not credible," "biased," or a "propaganda mill" when cited in political debates (e.g., by conservatives critiquing Liberal budgets). Older posts echo this, calling it a "right-wing think tank" unfit for academic use.
Stakeholder Views
ExamplesPraise/Endorsements
- Global ranking as top think tank.
- Bradley Foundation promotes its programs.
- Economists like Milton Friedman hosted events; alumni include conservative figures (e.g., Danielle Smith).
- Charity Intelligence: "Top charity" for impact.
Criticisms
- "Propaganda" for privatization (Canadian Health Coalition).
- "Misinformation mill" (Medium, 2021); "Insurgent pedagogy of the right" (Canadian Dimension).
- Reddit: "Breeding ground for right-wing politicians"; media "eats up their ****" despite errors.
- X users: "Zero credibility" (e.g., @TOAdamVaughan, 2019; multiple 2025 posts).
Experts (e.g., University of Victoria's Jason Price) call school rankings "misleading" for ignoring socioeconomic factors. Courts have rejected its data as evidence.
Conclusion
The Fraser Institute is credible as a source of libertarian-leaning economic analysis and data transparency, earning high marks from think tank evaluators and charity watchdogs. However, its strong right-wing bias, corporate funding (especially from oil/tobacco interests), and history of selective or flawed reporting on sensitive topics like climate and public services undermine its neutrality. For balanced insights, cross-reference with sources like the OECD, Statistics Canada, or left-leaning think tanks (e.g., Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives). If you're evaluating a specific report, check its methodology against peer-reviewed studiesit's influential in conservative circles but often contested elsewhere.
Assassin loves to cherry pick crap that supports his pre-conceived ideas. He is incapable of thinking critically.