BoHerfVJrEsq

OK. VAERS just sounds the alarm, at which point we have to investigate further. Peter Schirmacher apparently did autopsies and established a lower bound that about 30% of the victims died due to the vaccines. D-dimer tests have apparently shown clotting. Troponin levels are apparently indicating heart damage. Is the system not working exactly as intended, except that the inconvenient results are being suppressed?

I'm sorry in advance if I'm not understanding again, but is the suggestion that we normally get however many cases of e.g. aphasia, but we just didn't know in 2019 because there was no vaccine push? What then is VAERS for? If there was an alarming situation that VAERS would help us see, what would it look like?

Edit: this has been unjustly flagged.

1) OK, but is it your suggestion that it's just uneducated people swept up in a craze who are flooding VAERS with valid-looking reports about e.g., pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, intracranial hemorrhage, and aphasia?

2) I think that's valid, we would expect reports to go up. But Kirsch limited his search to ages 20-60, I think to alleviate one of your concerns. We're seeing e.g. 3000x normal, 1900x normal occurrences even when filtering like that. Does that not seem alarming?

The headline is wrong to call it "misinformation", at least in something that's supposed to be a news report. Calling it misinformation is just expressing an opinion, which makes this an opinion piece, but this is not marked as such. That's expected from the BBC, which is an unabashed propaganda outlet.

It's censorship, it's dangerous, it's wrong, and it's not being done by the good guys. It's evil.

It doesn't look as if the filtering can be on attachment filename.

Well, I regret how I phrased my answer. I read a lot of books about Buddhism and listen to a lot of monks explain things about Buddhism, and I really meant "all that stuff", i.e., tens of thousands of books and uncountable hours of dhamma talks about how to practice, what results to expect, etc.

To me the question was kind of like "is there really any evidence that this 'exercise' stuff is useful at all?" And the answer would be "yes... all the thousands of books about exercise and all the people who exercise regularly."

If you're completely content with how things are already, you're one of the rare individuals who has no need for meditation.

I am not advocating wanting to be happy, I'm advocating cultivating happiness that does not depend on circumstances. There's a parable called "who knows what's good or bad?" that addresses why it doesn't make sense to assign "good" or "bad" to the events that happen to us.

> Happiness is what happens when I get what I want.

Well, that's how it seems at first. But even though you were overjoyed at the presents you got on your 10th birthday, that happiness did not last. After seeing enough ups and downs, the mind might get tired of being endlessly pushed around by wanting or aversion. It might prefer to just be still, unmoved. Meditation helps develop this kind of stability.

> So, an appeal to tradition is all you have?

Hmm, no, sorry if that's how it seemed. I mean the tens of thousands of books, talks, testimonials, etc, that make specific claims like attaining freedom from suffering using various specific strategies and meditation practices.

> You need reasons actually grounded in preferably personal practice.

My personal practice is a few thousand hours of meditation. It's obvious to me that the practice is working, but I can't say exactly what it's doing to my brain, and I can't prove it to anyone else (unless I would already appear odd on a brain scan)

I agree, enlightenment can happen many different ways. I see Buddhism as just one collection of strategies to achieve it. But I don't agree that it's obvious. It's so non-obvious that people have been trying to teach it to everyone without charge for 26 centuries without much luck.

The basic problem of life is that by default, happiness depends on circumstances that you don't control. Meditation helps cultivate a kind of happiness that does not depend on getting what you like or avoiding what you dislike. It also helps people behave like saints, i.e., kind, compassionate, joyful about the successes of others, equanimous, generous, fearless, etc.

Well, I think it's pretty easy to see differences between, say, Christianity and Buddhism. Do you know of any Christians who claim to have had some breakthrough in prayer after which they experienced no suffering? I don't. But it's normal for Buddhist meditators to report things like that, or to report that happiness flows to them automatically. Ecstatic experiences are sometimes reported in Christianity, but I and many other Buddhist meditators have ecstatic experiences every day. How many hundreds of thousands of people reporting things like this over 26 centuries does it take before it starts being considered evidence? Edit: don't be shy about hitting the "reply" and typing your thoughts if you disagree with something I said.

Well, suppose your best friend told you that he did some practice for a while, and gradually got rid of what he estimated to be 99% of the suffering he'd had before. What form do you think evidence of that could take? Brain scans of some kind? They have apparently been done, and they apparently really do look odd. https://www.lionsroar.com/how-meditation-changes-your-brain-...

> Is there any evidence mindfulness as taught and practiced by, well, those who teach and practice it, is good for anything?

Well, the 26 centuries of Buddhism, and all those monks and laypeople. I'm not sure if you consider all that they've said and written to be evidence, but I think you should.

This is also a confession by the CCP that the Canadians were being held as hostages.

> That's quite the claim to make.

Is it? What do you imagine would prevent it from happening just like I suggested? Can PCR tell the difference between live virus that's causing illness and dead virus fragments? Do the mRNA vaccines cause spike proteins to protrude out from the normally smooth walls of blood vessels, causing clotting as confirmed by D-dimer tests? Does it take 14 days for a person to be considered vaccinated after getting the jab?

Suppose I go to the hospital with a stubbed toe. They test me with PCR and the test detects fragments of dead inactive virus from a month ago when my immune system defeated it. I therefore test "positive" for COVID. They give me the vaccine, which promptly kills me from a combination of stroke, heart attack, and multiple organ failure. This would be recorded as a COVID death, and I would be considered "unvaccinated". Cheating like this is a big part of why the COVID death toll is as high as it is. It's fiction.

Eh, do you think I could make some statement of yours sound weird if I were to substitute "ebola" for some other word you used? Is this useful?