Doakes

Why the fascination with mRNA? It's something that has been getting studied for over 60 years, it's not some new phenomenon that they just found and developed after covid. Why would you not be cautious of a new biotechnology that’s been granted emergency use authorisation to be injected into every human on the planet? Why would you not be concerned that you’ll need to “show your papers” to enter a venue? It concerns me how easily some of you are prepared to hand over your basic freedoms. If the vaccine is so great, why is there so much fear of the unvaccinated? It’s all got very dystopian.

Aye so, to get back on topic - one of the emerging technologies connected to this blueprint for the future / window of opportunity is MRNA vaccination. I can't pretend to be a virologist, but the technology is essentially a "smart" version of vaccination that gives your immune system instructions based on the latest variant. As I said before, a bit like anti-virus software getting regular updates. I'd be curious to know why the media/government aren't being transparent with the public about the full extent of booster jabs. How often will the public be expected to get them? Will they be mandatory? My hunch is that explaining that to the public now - would risk resistance to the initial 2 jabs, but I do think they are setting themselves up for a lot more resistance later, due to a lack of transparency. They might very well be right and this technology might be the only way to stop the virus running out of control, but it's all a bit teacher - pupil, as far as I can tell.

If Robert Grieve has quoted the figure of 200k, that figure has came from someone at the club. Perhaps McCarthy has asked the club to consider offers?

You referring to that Q pish where Trump is secretly about to save the world from the illuminati? Nah, nothing like that, it's not a conspiracy. It's not hidden and you can buy the books on Amazon for about £15. It's all very open and there's loads of info online about it The Great Reset | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

On the bit in red, you sort of answered your own question. At development stage, yes they make losses, but they will fully expect a return on that later. A lot less work required once the vaccine is developed. They know will make $$$ on the boosters. That’s why we are now using MRNA technology instead of traditional vaccines. They can edit it depending on what risks we are facing, bit like updating anti-virus software on a PC. If you read Klaus Scwab’s books, his point is basically that Stakeholder Capitalism should replace Shareholder Capitalism. There will be less focus on profit and more focus on societal issues. He did also predict that populations would become more and more resistant, and measures would need to be taken to counter that.

I love a good conspiracy, but you do get some ridiculous ones. That being said, there are many conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true over the years. Was covid released by a shady elite in a bid to restructure society? Probably not. But it is plausible that certain individuals, corporations and governments are gaining from the pandemic. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" - Winston Churchill Was Covid released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology? It could have been. I'm not sure that we will ever know for sure... If that was true, the evidence is long gone by now The way I see it, the most likely conspiracy that could arise, would be linked to the massive deals that have been made between governments and corporations to deal with the pandemic. Especially where politicians or their family/friends can make money from owning shares in the company. I remember watching an episode of Dragons Den where someone had made an almost indestructible cable to plug in to an electric guitar. The dragons declined him, as the item was too good - it could only be sold once to a customer and there would be no future potential for profit. I'm pretty sure Apple could make a far sturdier charging cable for their iPhone's, but they choose not to, due to $$$ Where am I going with this? With MRNA technology, the company making the vaccine knows that as long as Covid exists, they will continue to make $$$ from booster jabs If for example - Pfizer, make too good a vaccine, straight off the bat - no further boosters would be required, and their profits would dry up... If I was to bet money on a theory that turns out to be true, it would be that the vaccines will be manufactured in such a way that covid continues to exist in a manageable way - which would also allow governments to maintain restrictions... to deal with climate change / achieve target of net zero by 2030 by restricting international travel. Which all falls under the blueprint for Klaus Schwab's "Great Reset" and the "Build Back Better" campaign, which almost every government worldwide is using as a campaign slogan.

He usually wins when he is British tbf

It’s literally how the technology works. If you imagine antivirus software on a PC, you download updates to protect your PC against the latest viruses. MRNA technology is designed to allow booster jabs, to protect against the latest variant. My understanding is that in layman’s terms, it gives instructions for your cells to make a spike protein, capable of fighting the latest variant So should Bob lose his job if he doesn’t accept the latest booster? Think of it as a moral dilemma…

So lets concede that you are right and the vaccine MRNA technology is working as it should be. 3 years from now. Bob is scheduled in for booster jab number 5, his work has a policy of mandatory vaccination. He doesn’t really care about going to the pub and international travel is a thing of the past. He decides he’s had enough, has been feeling a lot of side effects and just doesn’t see the benefit as the previous 4 jabs still haven’t erradicated Covid, he has caught the virus twice despite being up to date with his vaccines, but the science claims that it does reduce the chance of people dying from the latest variant. Should Bob be forced into having the latest booster jab? What happens if he doesn’t? Should he lose his job?

I don’t have a lack of consideration for older folk. I think that we should protect everyone if that is at all possible. It’s just a statistical fact that the older you are, the more likely you are to accept the vaccine. Been quite widely reported that the uptake has been very low in the youngest age categories. There is unrest coming if vaccines do become mandatory for someone to be permitted to work, so it’s probably the most important debate that exists at the moment.

I’m glad you brought this up. Would it be safe to agree that the term for this would usually be “collectivism”? Prioritising the needs of society over the self? I get that, and I’d agree that there’s a place for it. However, would urge you read this book by Klaus Schwab, (Founder of the World Economic Forum) “Stakeholder Capitalism, a global economy that works for progress, people and the planet” It’s the theory that companies/governments should be accountable to stakeholders, rather than shareholders. So the emphasis is on “society”, rather than profit. A merging of corporation and state. Those at the top will be able to engineer society based upon their vision for the world. People have been talking about a New World Order for years, being a conspiracy theory, but it’s rapidly becoming our reality. Schwab makes the point that people should strive to be “global citizens”. Using vaccination as the example: if you don’t accept the latest regular booster jab, you’re not a global citizen and you’ll lose your rights and privileges. There’s a few books on it, “The Great Reset” and “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”. IMO, it’s leading us down a path where any resistance to the acceptable global view will be hastily clamped down upon. A bit like a modern form of communism. Some might like the concept, but it’s certainly not like our old version of normality.

Ok. Lets concede that unvaccinated individuals should be banned from travel and leisure, such as pubs, restaurants, shopping centres and entertainment venues until they are fully vaccinated. 3 years from now. We’re up to booster jab 5, there’s still positive cases and sporadic outbreaks. Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca etc. all have a financial interest in creating more and more booster jabs. People will become weary of booster jabs and their side effects, the numbers will start to drop off. Some will still be resisting the initial vaccine. Do you get a certain amount of time to take the latest booster before you are also restricted from travel and leisure? At what point do we say enough? The companies making the vaccines certainly won’t want it to end, and neither will their stakeholders who tend to be in positions of power

The restrictions I can understand, in order to protect the NHS. I do believe that at some point, we need to open up fully. The governments half in, half out policy really hasn't done us any favours. For me, being an island nation, we either had to go full New Zealand - or fully commit to seeking herd immunity. So many mistakes made, been quite embarrassing to watch. Really don't agree with creating a heavily restricted underclass of people who refuse to be vaccinated. We are going to hit a point (fairly soon, from what I can tell) where enough people are vaccinated to allow a return to something like normality. People are going to continue to get sick to some extent - a high percentage of positive cases have been double jabbed so that trend would suggest jabs 3, 4, 5. 6... won't completely remove the risk either. This MRNA technology is designed to allow booster jabs dependent on new strains, which people will be expected to take whenever it is mandated by the government (or more accurately, by the scientists advising them) The appetite for booster jabs will likely fall off if people don't see the benefit. The government will be in an awkward position if there's still people kicking around in a few years time who refuse to commit to MRNA vaccines - that's why I reckon it will become compulsory further down the line, which sounds a bit too fascist for my liking. I guess it'll be down to company to decide who's money they want to accept. If you want to travel with other vaccinated travellers, certain companies will likely specialise in providing that service if there's a demand for it. That's how capitalism works, unless you desire an alternative system...

The real question here is whether the government has the right to forcibly stick a needle into someone's arm and inject them? Regarding the line in bold. How far are we prepared to go? What happens if someone declines the injection until they are blue in the face. Should they be kept away from society? Moved into prison camps? Right now it's all quite cuddly and the government are trying to tempt people into taking the jab - but that approach only works for so long. Some people will outright refuse the vaccine - regardless of incentive or punishment Moving towards some black mirror type shit No one will ever convince me that a government should be given that power, over individual choice. As I have said - I'm not against vaccination in general, but while the MRNA technology is still at experimental stage, people should have the right to say no.

While the vaccine is still at the experimental stage, it's a huge risk to vaccinate an entire population. Flipping it round, what happens if we find out 10 years from now that fertility rates have decreased by 90%? While the vaccine is relatively untested - and hasn't been around for long - it's important to leave a section of the population (preferably the ones youngest and least at risk) - unvaccinated - unless of course they are in a vulnerable category. The inventor of the MRNA technology being used, was saying exactly this on his Twitter feed the other day