121
Comments (40)
sorted by:
14
clemaneuverers 14 points ago +14 / -0

For when this gets deleted from youtube:

https://files.catbox.moe/eevbpd.mkv

4
SuicideTruthbomber 4 points ago +4 / -0

Youtube: This video is unavailable.

Good call on backing this up.

4
Dorktron4Runner [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thank you!

11
clemaneuverers 11 points ago +11 / -0

catbox seems to have suspended direct playing :(

So I put it on my odysee channel:

https://odysee.com/@clemaneuverers:a/Doc-calls-out-CDC-NIH:a

My first upload!

4
Dorktron4Runner [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thanks, patriot.

2
Merkava_4 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you clemaneuverers for the video link. I appreciate it very much.

2
dukey 2 points ago +2 / -0

Probably because you are using the matroska container (mkv) try banging the video in mp4

2
axolotl_peyotl 2 points ago +3 / -1

...and it's gone

1
Dorktron4Runner [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Poof! Was viewed 4 million times before those fuckers took it down though.

7
clemaneuverers 7 points ago +7 / -0

Really inspiring short speech!

3
clemaneuverers 3 points ago +3 / -0

The studies he mentions that he gave to the board are all linked here:

https://hancockcountypatriots.blogspot.com/2021/08/dr-dan-stocks-presentation-to-mt-vernon.html

1
Delphi373 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank you!!!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-5
SuicideTruthbomber -5 points ago +1 / -6

This is a very good video, but the title of this post is quite misleading. Please show me where Dr. Stock "calls BS on this whole plandemic."

3
Dorktron4Runner [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Really?

-3
SuicideTruthbomber -3 points ago +1 / -4

I don't think you will be able to do it, so yes, really.

2
Dorktron4Runner [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Huh? If you can’t connect the dots, then you are an idiot.

-3
SuicideTruthbomber -3 points ago +1 / -4

You're dodging. You can't do it.

3
Dorktron4Runner [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’m still not sure what your point there is. You are pissed I mis-labeled the subject line? Is that it?

0
SuicideTruthbomber 0 points ago +1 / -1

No, not pissed. I don't think what I wrote sounds that way.

My point is that this doctor is explaining the consequences of bad medical advice during a real pandemic. He is not saying it is a hoax.

1
Delphi373 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well if you’ve been paying attention it goes beyond bad medical advice. For example in 2008 the WHO changing the definition of a pandemic from deaths to cases. Then the new concept in 2020 of mislabeling a case as someone who is sick. And then using a test which was never intended for clinical diagnosis to be used just as that - and here I’m referring to the PCR test. And to make matters worse, using a PCR test beyond 20 cycles which gives you about 50% false positives on up. We also have the CDC initially counting cases among both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and then on May 15 they again change their guidance to count all cases among unvaccinated and only hospitalized among vaccinated- again skewing the numbers. You can connect your own dot...

2
Blackbeans 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would agree with you in that the whole thing is based on the cold getting a media makeover.

-2
SuicideTruthbomber -2 points ago +1 / -3

Please do not put words into my mouth. The common cold is obviously distinct from COVID-19.

1
1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

The article you linked is clear that the COVID-19 Delta variant is not the common cold.

1
Resolute_Action 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's not, but if you experience cold symptoms it's prob Delta and not the cold

0
SuicideTruthbomber 0 points ago +1 / -1

That is unknown until you get tested.

1
Resolute_Action 1 point ago +1 / -0

The tests are faulty too.... “CDC has just announced they will revoke the emergency use authorization of the RT-PCR tests first introduced in 2/20,” reads a July 25 post, which goes on to quote from the agency’s lab directive: “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS CoV-2 and influenza viruses.” It continues: “Translation: They’ve been adding flu cases to COVID cases when using that test.”

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-8
the-new-style -8 points ago +3 / -11

I'm going to devil's advocate against his position:

You're right, mRNA treatments are not traditional vaccines and work against repository infections in a novel way. We would not expect the same patterns of infection as with smallpox or mumps.

This paper suggests ADE does not occur in CoVs because it infects respiratory epithelium, not macrophages.

The mRNA data demonstrates efficacy. Of 44,486 evaluable participants (50% in each cohort), irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 81 COVID-19 cases were observed among vaccine and 873 among placebo recipients.

--

I'll stop there. I'm not trying to personally argue against the venerable doctor - I am in agreement with him, but I am just constructing the sort of rebuttal he is up against by trying to use facts and logic.

12
Homopratensis2 12 points ago +12 / -0

That article's abstract you cite specifically warns again VAH (vaccine hypersensitivity reactions). Sort of similar concern as ADE. There are plenty of papers that cite ADE as a valid concern, including those reposed at the NIH! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/

And establishing efficacy that way is most shady. Unless you have a well conducted blind trial where a ten thousand are given the vax and ten thousand are giving saline of the exact same population and you look back six months later I'm not buying it. Too much shady stuff with data manipulation and whatnot to believe anything taken from population data at this point.

4
verum_malleo 4 points ago +4 / -0

Well the one link you posted talks about dengue but there were specific animal trials on SARS vaccines and they all lead to ADE/pathogenic priming that caused severe disease and death when the animals were challenged with the wild virus post vaccination.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589909020300186 (Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382 (Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus)

https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/123158 (Anti–spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection, pathogenic priming)

There’s also this major vaccine shill/doc/“expert” talking about the ADE that happened with the SARS vaccine trials in animals: https://www.bitchute.com/video/fmOV0vQcK6NJ (DR. PETER HOTEZ ON WHY EARLIER DEVELOPMENT OF CORONAVIRUS VACCINES WAS STOPPED)

2
Delphi373 2 points ago +2 / -0

The efficacy of the vaccines is skewed - for relative risk reduction you may have the 90-95% effectiveness they claim (and one could argue against that based on how they tracked efficacy - only 8 weeks were patients followed remember), however absolute risk reduction in sars-COV-2 is less then 1%.

-2
SuicideTruthbomber -2 points ago +1 / -3

I agree with much of what the doctor said, but I think the risk of a very deadly variant emerging from the "vaccinated" population far outweighs the concern of worse symptoms in a "vaccinated" individual as a result of ADE.

The following link is supposedly a rebuttal by an aspiring physician (assuming the blog is actually real). The first 14 blog posts appear to have been on November 1, 2020 and the blogger seems too prolific to be one individual out to "deplatform" viruses. To be frank, that blog looks to me like pro-vaccine propaganda for educated people and gets higher google placement than one would expect.

Addressing Dr. Daniel Stock’s Claims https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-dr-daniel-stock-claims

5
the-new-style 5 points ago +5 / -0

I have no biological expertise to draw this conclusion but for

He then argues that masks don’t work because viruses are small enough to pass through them. The problem with this reasoning is viruses do not travel as individual viral particles- they are inside the aerosols and droplets. That’s what the masks block.

"Aerosol droplet lands on mask, dries, virus gets inhaled"

sounds plausible to me

His source for mask efficacy has multiple sources which conclude single digit % reductions. And the only one with a blind test concluded "no effect".

If we take the vx vs palcebo study I linked then maximally reduces the transmission chance from 4% to 3.6%.

It's all so tiresome

3
SuicideTruthbomber 3 points ago +3 / -0

The effectiveness of masks is vastly overstated in the mass media in order to get people to wear them. I'll take a couple of percentage points.

Also, I think the idea is reduce the spread from the wearer.

-4
KoofNoof -4 points ago +2 / -6

This sort of comment is so important. We need to constantly "check" ourselves and eachother whenever we can, otherwise we risk falling into an echo chamber. I don't know anything that you just said, but it shows me theres a TON more I need to educate myself on

6
jc99ta 6 points ago +7 / -1

We get enough of the propaganda from the MSM