Jump to content

Arielle Popstar

Resident
  • Content Count

    1,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,267 Excellent

About Arielle Popstar

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

749 profile views
  1. Right, note the word "development" rather than repurpose existing antiviral agents of which there are a number that have shown efficacy for reducing the severity and mortality of the Covid19 virus. Problem is the Government agencies made billions of dollars of promises to vaccine makers right from the start whereas they didn't start looking at treatments, new or repurposed until October of last year. Even then, they chose to study a couple of candidates that had little data to show any real benefit and passed over a number of anti-viral agents that already had plenty of safety data fo
  2. Of course it matters where it came from. Gain of function research speeds up the natural process to a much greater degree and is focused on being more infectious as well as cause much greater harm to the intended hosts then would happen through a natural evolution. The potential for accidental release is much too great to allow this sort of research to be going on which is maybe why the NIH had previously stopped funding it until Fauci found a loophole to continue it in Wuhan. We are all paying for that.
  3. The solutions presented in your linked paper suggest nothing that was not already done but just posits it should have been done faster. It is this focus on a vaccine solution where the WHO, CDC, FDA and all the other health governing bodies went off the rails. Probably because Big Pharma and the health industry is corrupt all the way through and looked how to best profit from the pandemic rather than nip it in the bud with a broad spectrum anti-viral agent or treatment. Something of that nature is the only real solution to another potential pandemic because even with these mRNA's there is stil
  4. Probably just an accident or would think that the country behind an intentional release would have been more prepared for the outcome. Just from what I am hearing it sounds like the NIH was funding the project and so now both China and the USA are trying to cover it up between them. China having that knowledge has something over the USA and is using that to become increasingly belligerent to further its own interests knowing the US can't afford to rock the boat too much.
  5. Or maybe it is that people know that politicians lie, Big Pharma lies and that the bureaucrats behind them both are less than trustworthy and now are looking for the answers they are not getting from official channels. This is what happens when there is a lack of transparency and a history of being shafted by the ones who are supposed to be working in their best interests.
  6. People like her because she deals with much more then just covid and started her channel before the pandemic. She is personable, does her research and networks with other professionals for the topics she discusses. Your guy OTOH seems to hunt around and cherry pick 6 month old videos to debunk and then get bent out of shape because she doesn't respond to him specifically. His channel is not about helping people but just being disagreeable with ulterior motives. For that matter, I did not post the PCR video. That was you cherry picking what you thought was low hanging fruit and to try canc
  7. The Covid modeling aside, I thought the capabilities of this Nanomi was rather interesting. Philip Rosedale seems to be involved with it too.
  8. Oh a ban or suspension on the forums results in an inworld ban too?
  9. Or maybe it is an indication of how many older Canadians are on blood thinners and baby aspirin.
  10. Yah, I figured the odds were pretty good I was getting it wrong but my head was starting to hurt figuring it out!
  11. Your debunking guy's channel is quite hilarious actually. He is accused many times on his own "factchecking" videos by commenters and subscribers as being misleading or outright lying in the way he tries to falsify different studies on PCR, Ivermectin, etc. Wonder if he is one of those paid fact checking shills since his whole channel is dedicated to it. He is not very good but it is entertaining to read the comments at least. Thanks for pointing him out! Dr Sam Bailey put out a PCR Factchecking the Factcheckers video out months ago already so maybe have a look.
  12. Every time I see the clotting odds, they are lower then the last figure I seen. In the Star this morning one article mentioned it was down to 1 in 60,000, so this 1 in 55,000 is lower again. Makes one wonder how low it really is. 1 in 20,000? Considering it started at 1 in a million when the clotting was first discovered and called "rare" by all the medias, it has then quickly dropped to 3 in a million, 1 in 100,000 and now 1 in 55,000 and still being called "rare". The way the Star article read, the willingness to admit the odds was dependent on them having sufficient Pfizer and Modena vaccin
×
×
  • Create New...