SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

And then we get a bunch of data to wade through. I understand that the approach to this should be based on science and data...but there are collective overall elements that can't be just simply explained by science and the newest data.

This is where we reach an impasse. I'm genuinely invested in allaying your concerns, but if I can't build on a foundation of science and data, then I simply don't know how to start.

Take, for example, the statement that the CDC quietly downgraded the death count for COVID to 6% of what was reported. That interested me, so I went to take a look. This is what I found on the CDC website.

Among 378,048 death certificates from 2020 listing COVID-19, 5.5% listed COVID-19 without codes for any other conditions. Among 357,133 death certificates with at least one other condition, 97% had a co-occurring diagnosis of a plausible chain-of-event condition (e.g.. pneumonia or respiratory failure), or a significant contributing condition (e.g., hypertension or diabetes), or both.

So what this tells me is that of the death certificates that listed COVID, all but 6% had further detail on the mechanisms by which COVID operated. They didn't retract the diagnosis and say that it's possible these folks would have died either way. They're providing additional information for analysis.

For example, my sons both died of intraventricular hemorrhage as a consequence of extreme prematurity. IVH is what killed them, as opposed to lung failure or necrotizing enterocolitis or any of a number of other conditions that emerge in superpreemies. That doesn't mean that they didn't die of complications of prematurity. They would not have had brain bleeds if they hadn't been born so early. So if someone said, "Look, prematurity isn't nearly as dangerous as everyone claims because 95% of preemie death certificates list another cause," that would be very misleading.

I can go through your list of concerns and try to address them as I did this one. My experience, unfortunately, is that this often comes off as argumentative and is therefore poorly received. So I'm sincerely interested in how to have those discussions in a way that doesn't shut things down.

I can go through your list of concerns and try to address them as I did this one. My experience, unfortunately, is that this often comes off as argumentative and is therefore poorly received. So I'm sincerely interested in how to have those discussions in a way that doesn't shut things down.

If this will help, I'm on board to do the same. Not to be argumentative, but genuinely because I hate the idea that you're in so much fear and that you're feeling like there are conspiracies everywhere. It must be like feeling people are out to get you all of the time and that sounds awful.

How many masks are y'all wearing?

How many masks are y'all wearing?

The KN-95 is my mask of choice. I've been wearing them since they became available again in 2020.

Can anyone who has expressed reluctance/skepticism to "accept the narrative" and/or is mistrustful that we are being told the truth about vaccine effectiveness and potential adverse effects explain something for me?

To what end? If the scientists and medical professionals who continue to stress the importance of vaccines and mitigation measures are not telling the truth, what is the motivation or plan that you ascribe to them? I am not ridiculing your position, and I'm not trying to shut you up or shut you down. I truly want to understand because I can't. I've been a nurse for 33 years. My parents were both nurses. I've been around hospitals and health care my whole life and have learned more about public health issues than I ever wanted to know. And this is the thing that I just can't grasp.

Same here. It's the whole world. The entire world. Like the actual human population of earth is experiencing this. This isn't some re-election campaign for some political party in a random country. It's the whole entire actual world. Like you can get COVID in Nigeria or Turkmenistan or Bali or Argentina too. It's a global thing. Scientists from every fucking where are working on this and discovering new things and I just do not see how on earth you get a workable global conspiracy when you involve everyone from everywhere right down to the individual nurses and doctors to keep secrets and lie to everyone around them.

"How many masks are y'all wearing?"

How many at once? How many a day? I'm not sure I understand the question.

I wear a KN-95 mask.

How many masks are y'all wearing?

Well I started with a nice blue one with sunflowers and moved onto a black one with butterflies and there's a sparkly red one that looks great at Christmas and a couple with art prints on them, but had to get hold of some KN-95 masks after they were recommended for Omicron and they're kinda boring.

I wear them when I work with the public at the animal shelter on weekends for hours at a time. And no, I do not actually like wearing a mask. I do not particularly enjoy it. But it's not that big of a deal, really. I would wear it to protect the people who mock COVID in case the last person who mocked COVID breathed some COVID all over me because there is a lot of mocking COVID where I live.

** Posting as a member **

I'm really puzzled by truthsetmefree's post. Again, I wonder about the sources that led to the opinions.

For example, it looks like the mortality in the US is quite a bit greater than 1% in raw numbers, and it climbs even higher if you look at 'excess death' numbers.

Similarly, comments are taken out of context. For example, millions of deaths were expected before any vaccines or treatments were available. I think it's indisputable that the prediction would have come true without treatments/vaccines. If I were a pharmacy, I would have refused to fill a 'script for HCQ or Ivermectin, too - the data just doesn't support these as treatments for Covid.

But I'm pretty sure there's no point in discussing each questionable assertion....

*****

I was told early in my career that 'the guy with the numbers wins'. That was my experience as a techie, supervisor, manager, and consultant - when I had the more believable numbers, I almost always won; when someone else had the more believable numbers, I lost. When I look at Covid-19 numbers, the CDC, WHO, NY Times, Hopkins, etc. are among the most believable I've seen.

I trust pharma and hospitals to line their corporate execs' pockets above all. But the statistics are pretty clearly in favor of the vaccines. If they weren't, I expect some journalists to uncover the frauds, and I expect I'd find their reports. Most US statistics are generated for the benefit of businesses. US statsistics have proved valuable to businesses in so very many contexts. Why mistrust the CDC? And why trust dsites that question govt. statistics without evidence?

*****

A lot of conspiracy theories are floating around, probably more than usual. If you search the web on 'covid test misinformation' you'll find an interesting story about websites spreading misinformation about - you guessed it - covid testing. Why believe those sites? What do they say that evokes belief?

Do readers not ask themselves what the websites have to gain by publishing the misinformation?

We used to have some sheets that I guarantee looked green to me. Blue is my favorite color, and I see blue everywhere. But plainsong tells me those sheets were blue. Now, maybe she was gaslighting me - but maybe most other people would call them 'blue', too. Why don't conspiracy theorists question their own beliefs, just to be sure?

*****

I know I took risks in adopting a vaccine early. I decided to take the risks. I saw then and continue to see a staggering preponderance of believable evidence on one side.

I can understand reasoned objections, and some of truthsetmefree's post lays them out. The vaxes came awfully quickly, perhaps too quickly to be trusted. The vaxes probably have unintended consequences; it would be really unusual if they didn't. I understand and agree with refusing to be vaxed upon competent medical advice or if one had an unusually bad reaction to a first shot. I can see refusing to accept an EUA from the FDA.

But to say 'they're not vaccines' because they don't protect everybody 100%? To ignore the context in which recommendations were made and changed? To attack something because it was based on certain conditions, and the conditions changed? To expect anyone to predict the future? Those are unreasonable expectations, IMO.

Agreed, sisoon, and I'd piggy back off your post and suggest that no one short of God could have perfectly predicted exactly what would happen from the beginning. I don't think anyone expected the level of non-compliance to social distancing and then masking in the beginning or the sheer numbers of people who wouldn't get vaccinated. Methods to control the spread just don't work if they aren't embraced by most of the people. Vaccines work really well on the variant they were created to combat, but people refusing to follow advice and mandates meant that there would be variants that changed the game somewhat. My vaccine was more valuable when I got it than it is today. I'm going to hazard a guess that given where I live and the sorts of opinions rampant in my family that this vaccine might have gotten quite a workout by now anyway and that I might have been exposed a number of times.

I said I woundn't post again. I hate to not be someone of my word...because I really truly did not intend to post again given the discussion as it was going. (Not because I thought anyone particularly rude...just because it was becoming so circular and thus grounds to become divisive. That is the LAST thing I want.)

But having said this and with the below quoted question (and some of the others along this line) I would like to respond again with a question that will help me know whether this discussion may take a turn that could change my prior "I'm out" stance.

To what end? If the scientists and medical professionals who continue to stress the importance of vaccines and mitigation measures are not telling the truth, what is the motivation or plan that you ascribe to them?

This is SUCH a fair question and so very much appreciated because it at least gives recognition to the collective picture I tried to show earlier. So my question: Do any of you believe a one world government could ever be a possibility?

Number4 thank you for posting that answer regarding masks.

No problem. I should have added that I work out in a mask, too, at the PIlates studio I go to. While I don't like it (when I'm laying on the Reformer and my instructor is at my feet, it's sometimes hard to look at her if my mask has slipped up at all and partially obstructing my view of her). Because my Pilates studio also is a physical therapy clinic, with many elderly patients, they are rigid about mask-wearing. I appreciate that. They had one client come in for a second appt., and jump all over/verbally abused a staff member who corrected him for not wearing his mask correctly. He was ushered to the door and told he needed to find another PT clinic.

I would like to see the controlled studies that show athletes can faint from wearing masks that cause oxygen depletion.

Do any of you believe a one world government could ever be a possibility?

As in a secret round table that controls all the worlds events? As described in the Movie Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson. The "THEY" and "THEM" and that they are all one?

Anything is possible i guess but...No. i dont really believe in that.

I think its more possible that Mother Nature is simply sick of human crap and released a virus. Thats actually scarier.

No, and here's why. It's not because governments and businesses and people are too trustworthy for that. It's because they are too untrustworthy for that. Not that I think a world government would be a good idea, but it's the crappiness of mankind that will save us rather than sink us.

Like sisoon, and I suspect like you, I believe in the almighty power of money. However, when you're taking about extraordinarily wealthy people, money is just a way of keeping score. Scoring is irrelevant unless you have an opponent, and it's unsatisfying unless you have a worthy opponent. You may play for one team or another -- political parties, governments, cartels, "families of companies," etc -- but in the end, there are simply too many people with a thirst to be in charge and a love of winning the game. Alliances fall apart because there isn't enough to go around. There's no way you can trust your allies when the stakes get that high. Backstabbing is inevitable among powerful people, and regional powers will fight, either with fierceness or with subtlety, to keep or regain autonomy. Every empire or dynasty that ever existed learned that the hard way.

The other reason, and I'm walking this line very carefully to avoid violating two different guidelines, is religion. We have thousands of years of conflict in several regions of the globe that will never, ever allow for unity between certain cultures. Some of them have great wealth and power independent of any government. That was the primary headache for most kings and emperors of medieval Europe. They will never bow and never give up. When you have people who are willing to die for faith, and other people who will harness that willingness for other purposes, then even money has its limitations.

Do any of you believe a one world government could ever be a possibility?

No. I don't think that's even remotely possible. I am familiar with the philosophies behind this particular theory and I think I have more of an idea of where you're coming from now. But no, the level of cooperation necessary for that would be absolutely unimaginable in reality.

BSR - Such a well-thought out and well presented point. I believe that every dictatorship eventually fails for the exact reasons you have stated. But I'm also left to ask...what is the depth and breadth of the casualties in the rise of it. This is where my concern lies.

We have long fought wars on behalf of wanna-be dictatorships...but they have been across borders, fought for essentially one dictatorship grappling for power over another...the people always just pawns. But what would it look like, how would it be, should such a war ever be fought between classes? Not between the classes we know....those battles that have been stirred for years - between the sexes, between the religions, between the races, and now the vaccine status. But between the wealthiest..and all the rest of us. That very elite (so few in numbers really) against, well..all of humanity? Is it such a ridiculous concept when you truly realize how very little the ultra elite can relate to the common man? What would be our biggest obstacle for them? They already have most of our money, control most all of our day-to-day resources. Would it just be our sheer numbers?

It seems a preposterous notion until you look at the divide that is just ever growing as the disparity in wealth only increases and technology advances. (No longer need so many peasants "in the fields to grow the crops".) We have fought wars as countries, as nations, over resources...but are there other ways to make resources less scarce? Maybe it's no longer the typical strategy of "get more or eat less" and rather a thought of "less mouths to feed".

These are not just the thoughts of a crazed, conspiracy theory mind - though that may still be true for me. There are numerous videos over the year of a well-known, ultra rich, elite "philanthropist"speaking of the need for population control and imbedded chip technology. He's also been known to dapple in vaccines that have had extremely detrimental results (just ask India and Africa) and has had influence with these current vaccines. His foundation was one of the main sponsors of Event 201 - an eerily similar coronavirus simulation that took place on Oct 19, 2019. The event was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum, which is an organization founded by Klaus Schwab and described as "an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas." (per their website). Coincidently, Schwab also wrote & published a book in July 2020 titled "Covid-19: The Great Reset". His & the WEF's predictions for the landscape of the future are chilling. The fact that the WEF's slogan, "Build Back Better" seems to be on the tongue of every world leader that has attended the forums, even more chilling. The info is out there but if you consider that almost all media is owned by only 6 companies - well, we see what they allow us to see. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

But no, the level of cooperation necessary for that would be absolutely unimaginable in reality.

How much would you need to own of any one industry before cooperation would not be necessary? Respectfully, I don't think this would require cooperation, I think it would require control. That's why some of us are suggesting to follow the money trails (maybe not for the same reasons...but it's pretty solid advice when things don't make sense.)

DH - I'd actually be ok if this is Mother Nature. She seems to be pretty smart.

As a qualifier, I read many posts here but not all.

One thing I'm wondering is what is the nature of the statistics on Covid 19 that I am reading? I read in early May, 2021 that the US CDC changed their directives of what US states needed to publish. At that time, several US states stopped including breakthrough cases (those vaccinated with Covid 19 positive) to CDC unless they were hospitalized or deaths.

That's true of my US state, and about 18 or 19 others I think. If I go to my state Department of Health website, am I seeing all positives from testing or only a sample? What about the John Hopkins or Worldometer site?

I also personally have a hard time on social interactions. Christmas cookie parties? The gym? Skiing? A surgery that's not urgent? I would really like to hear what other people think on every day things.

I also personally have a hard time on social interactions. Christmas cookie parties? The gym? Skiing? A surgery that's not urgent? I would really like to hear what other people think on every day things.

I dont understand the question.

Are you asking if people like those things?

Or the importance of them.

Want2B, I caught this and feel this has been overlooked.

I have family members who had life altering adverse reactions to the vaccine.

What life altering adverse reactions have they had?

DragnHeart,

I also personally have a hard time on social interactions. Christmas cookie parties? The gym? Skiing? A surgery that's not urgent? I would really like to hear what other people think on every day things.

I dont understand the question.

Are you asking if people like those things?

Or the importance of them.

I am saying that I personally have a hard time deciding the importance, or maybe the priority, to give social interactions. I would like feedback.

I really enjoy participating in all of these things I mentioned, yet I hesitate due to Covid. And it's not just for my concern over my personal health, but also for those around me.

There's the social invitations and things like the gym. In general, all those areas and persons I interact with can make their own decision on those interactions. Yet I'm still interacting with others on a secondary basis that don't make those daily decisions.

My husband had an exploratory hand surgery in summer 2020. He now has complications (scarring, pins moving, etc.) . Is it more responsible for him to put off procedures or not? What are his risks?

Just a reminder…

NO POLITICS: We have zero tolerance of discussing politics. There is to be NO mention of political names, and absolutely no political topic content in any context. Violation of this guideline results in losing your posting privileges.