World Health Organization Appeals to World Leaders: STOP USING LOCKDOWNS- MAKES POOR PEOPLE POORER

Let's dig deeper into this wrote:

Furthermore, Gupta doesn't have a "single opinion." She's one of the framers of the "Great Barrington Declaration" that has been acknowledged & signed by many other top scientists. I would suggest you read it and get a different view on an alternative strategy (other than lockdowns, restrictions, masks, etc) to combat the virus:

Was this intended to be a selling point?

I read it, and I read the reactions to it.

This strategy sounds dangerous and short sighted.

rekrunner wrote:

The mask mandate language is irrelevant if she was arrested for trespassing and resisting arrest. A policeman is not a lawyer. A lawyer might get her off later, but that is for the courts to decide, not a policeman at that moment. The fact is that she was asked to leave, refused to leave, and then resisted arrest. It is not very smart to resist the direction of a police officer. She deserved to be tased and handcuffed and arrested for her failure to respect authority.

There's something seriously wrong with you.

dunes runner wrote:

Wearing a mask is harmful to health, is dangerous, and is child abuse and abuse to the elderly.

https://thehighwire.com/videos/mask-whistleblowers-tell-all/

I saw several issues in this video. Here are two:

1) Del's experiment with CO2 levels inside of masks (was that child abuse?), is directly contradicted by the WHO "FACT: The prolonged use of medical masks* when properly worn, DOES NOT cause CO2 intoxication nor oxygen deficiency"

2) Much of the video, and the science they show, is concerned with protecting the mask wearer, whereas the recommendation for wearing masks is to prevent the infected mask wearer from spreading the virus.

I feel sorry for Michiganders that these women lobbied so hard to remove protections for its citizens, while putting nothing else in place to protect Michiganders. But the real tragedy in the USA is that the governors should not have been the ones declaring state emergencies. What was missing was a lack of national coordination -- the CDC and the Presidential COVID-19 Task Force should have come up with clear guidelines at the federal level.

Lots of fluff Rekrunner, but you will vote for Biden. Team Donkey owns you. LMFAOO

Allen53 wrote:

https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3/status/1317614599919853569

Great explanation on that thread.

rekrunner wrote:

contradicted by the WHO

Looks like you're still mindlessly relying on the WHO, even after you denied that you were.

One of the major problems with the WHO is that they're owned by and work for Toxic Pharma.

Lockdows are evil because they are seriosuly, or even gravely injurious to the lives of the individuals being locked down. THOSE WHO ARE VULNARABLE MUST PROTECT THEMSELVES, NOT DEMAND PROTECTION AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

Government agencies like WHO, CDC, and FDA aren't owned by "Big Pharma," they ARE it.

Government-regulated health = Big Pharma

A lack of common sense and compassion. wrote:

Looks like you're still mindlessly relying on the WHO, even after you denied that you were.

One of the major problems with the WHO is that they're owned by and work for Toxic Pharma.

Why would you say "mindless"?

The WHO is an international organization which is part of the United Nations.

It would be quite an achievement if this were owned by Toxic Pharma.

Did I deny relying on the WHO? It recall at one point the topic was the recommendations from organizations like the WHO and the CDC, such as their stance on not using lockdowns as a primary means of controlling the spread -- something everyone seems to be in agreement with despite presenting it as some kind of conflict.

I have seen nothing in this thread or others, that have given me any reason to doubt that the recommendations from the CDC and from the WHO are the best science based recommendations to date.

Once again, since we are in a global pandemic, we can see what has worked in other countries by comparison. Arguing against masks seems to be an attribute of countries failing to contain the spread.

Allen53 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The mask mandate language is irrelevant if she was arrested for trespassing and resisting arrest. A policeman is not a lawyer. A lawyer might get her off later, but that is for the courts to decide, not a policeman at that moment. The fact is that she was asked to leave, refused to leave, and then resisted arrest. It is not very smart to resist the direction of a police officer. She deserved to be tased and handcuffed and arrested for her failure to respect authority.

Let's apply your logic to slavery and civil rights.

It's not very smart to resist the whippin's o' massa'....

Law is the law, now get to the back o' the bus Rosa...

Let's not compare institutional racism with protecting public safety.

Civil disobedience and protests are an important part of our history to reverse longstanding injustices and work towards reform.

These non-violent protestors know they run the risk of being arrested and detained.

No one should be surprised when that happens.

During the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King used a strategy of non-violent, peaceful protest. These peaceful protestors were often beaten by police, attacked by mobs, received death threats, etc., and they remained non-violent in order to avoid escalation of violence and delegitimizing the movement.

By stark contrast, this women refused to comply with the clear instructions from law enforcement officers, and vocally and physically resisted arrest, requiring escalation in order for the police to regain control of the situation. This display of resistance against law enforcement officers might be common in lawless societies, but should not be considered acceptable in societies based on law and order.

A lack of common sense and compassion. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The mask mandate language is irrelevant if she was arrested for trespassing and resisting arrest. A policeman is not a lawyer. A lawyer might get her off later, but that is for the courts to decide, not a policeman at that moment. The fact is that she was asked to leave, refused to leave, and then resisted arrest. It is not very smart to resist the direction of a police officer. She deserved to be tased and handcuffed and arrested for her failure to respect authority.

There's something seriously wrong with you.

Maybe.

That doesn't change the fact that she was resisting arrest. She forced the escalation.

stanky legs wrote:

Lots of fluff Rekrunner, but you will vote for Biden. Team Donkey owns you. LMFAOO

This isn't really about the presidential vote is it?

When I was a young engineer working in an aerospace company, I admired the Republican party for its stance on things like fiscal responsibility and national defense (Reagan's Star Wars was great for employment).

Over the decades, the Republican party I knew has decayed, and the party today is nothing like that party from decades ago.

The weakness of the Republican party became most evident when an outsider was able to upset all of the strongest Republican candidates and hijack the party winning the Republican nomination.

Biden didn't excite me all that much during the primaries -- I liked much of what the other presidential candidates were saying, and would have preferred moving forward with some progressive reform, rather than electing a candidate we essentially already had. The choice now is not to go forward, but do we go back to the times of 10 years ago, or to the times of 50-70 years ago?

It's a quirk of American politics and a de-facto 2-party system, that we often chose against the candidate we want least, rather than the candidate we want most.

But it appears fundamentally Americans have to chose between a candidate that cares about Americans, and a president who cares about himself.

rekrunner wrote:

A lack of common sense and compassion. wrote:

There's something seriously wrong with you.

Maybe.

That doesn't change the fact that she was resisting arrest. She forced the escalation.

This is particularly bad because rekrunner IS Rojo. That's not unfounded speculation, there was a thread from a few years ago where Rojo was responding to comments, and then rekrunner randomly responded to a comment addressed to Rojo, exactly as though Rojo would respond. It was obvious Rojo had forgotten to change his handle, and was called out by numerous people on this, without responding.

Great to see what a site owner believes.

HM guy wrote:

This is particularly bad because rekrunner IS Rojo. That's not unfounded speculation, there was a thread from a few years ago where Rojo was responding to comments, and then rekrunner randomly responded to a comment addressed to Rojo, exactly as though Rojo would respond. It was obvious Rojo had forgotten to change his handle, and was called out by numerous people on this, without responding.

Great to see what a site owner believes.

That is a new one.

The proof of "not unfoundation speculation" is "there was that one thread one time a few years ago ..."

How long can the media convince people that there is an incredibly infectious and deadly disease among us?

Indefinitely?

I guess you can feel some of the people all of the time.