- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 37% of placentas from jabbed mothers contain spike protein
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:59 am to Night Vision
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:59 am to Night Vision
The bad data for the COVID response just keeps rolling in
0
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:03 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Out of curiosity, what would rebuilding that trust actually look like from your perspective?
1. Stop pretending you know things you don't
2. Stop treating the nation like children and shielding us from info you don't think we should have
I think that would be an infinitely better approach than the one they took with covid.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:09 am to Night Vision
But doctor biden said it was safe
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:24 am to Flats
That boils down to intellectual honesty and respecting citizens agency & I think those are pretty good principles. Institutions probably do need to get more comfortable saying “here’s what we know and here’s what we don’t know yet” and treating the public like adults.
The hard part is that pandemics are wicked problems and it's difficult to apply them considering how humans actually react to uncertainty in a crisis - uncertainty and mass-comm mix poorly. If officials say “we’re still figuring this out” a lot of people hear that as “they have no idea what they’re doing”. Harm does come from this too.
So what tends to happen in crises is that messy scientific debates get flattened into simple directives. The upside is it can coordinate behavior quickly. The downside is exactly what you’re describing - once the evidence evolves later it makes the earlier messaging look arrogant or dishonest.
The real challenge going forward is in applying your principles in practice - figuring out how to communicate uncertainty honestly without losing the ability to act quickly when something genuinely dangerous is unfolding.
The hard part is that pandemics are wicked problems and it's difficult to apply them considering how humans actually react to uncertainty in a crisis - uncertainty and mass-comm mix poorly. If officials say “we’re still figuring this out” a lot of people hear that as “they have no idea what they’re doing”. Harm does come from this too.
So what tends to happen in crises is that messy scientific debates get flattened into simple directives. The upside is it can coordinate behavior quickly. The downside is exactly what you’re describing - once the evidence evolves later it makes the earlier messaging look arrogant or dishonest.
The real challenge going forward is in applying your principles in practice - figuring out how to communicate uncertainty honestly without losing the ability to act quickly when something genuinely dangerous is unfolding.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:28 am to TigerDoc
quote:
- once the evidence evolves later it makes the earlier messaging look arrogant or dishonest.
Because it was arrogant and dishonest.
And yes, there are downsides to my approach, there are downsides to any approach. After trying the covid method that flushed decades of built up trust down the toilet I think they're worth trying.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:33 am to SallysHuman
quote:
The science is settled. The science is evolving. We didn't know what we didn’t know. Abundance of Caution. No one made you. Feel free to add
Never forget the unending cycle of “14 days to slow the spread”
For all of the hoopla about how it was killing everyone, I don’t know a single person who died of COVID
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:45 am to Flats
I think there are definitely moments that made things worse than they needed to be. The “I am the science” comment you mentioned earlier is a really good example - that kind of rhetoric feeds exactly the perception you’re describing.
The part I’m still trying to sort out is proportionality. Were those kinds of moments representative of the whole response, or were they highly visible missteps that ended up shaping people’s perception of everything else?
You generally evaluate the response negatively. I generally evaluate it as mixed. Out of curiosity, we might want to get into specifics again - what examples made you most confident it was deliberate deception rather than overconfidence or bad crisis messaging? The trust problem you’re describing is real. If institutions want to rebuild credibility, understanding exactly where people think the line was crossed probably matters a lot.
The part I’m still trying to sort out is proportionality. Were those kinds of moments representative of the whole response, or were they highly visible missteps that ended up shaping people’s perception of everything else?
You generally evaluate the response negatively. I generally evaluate it as mixed. Out of curiosity, we might want to get into specifics again - what examples made you most confident it was deliberate deception rather than overconfidence or bad crisis messaging? The trust problem you’re describing is real. If institutions want to rebuild credibility, understanding exactly where people think the line was crossed probably matters a lot.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:53 am to TigerDoc
quote:
what examples made you most confident it was deliberate deception rather than overconfidence or bad crisis messaging?
It's easier to list examples that didn't. The shutdowns that were blatantly ignored by leadership, Telling people their mask was mandatory but you could take it off to eat and drink. The clamp down on ivermectin, Fauci lying about masks, pretty much anything they used to exert control. Natural immunity doesn't matter, keep getting your booster, no you can't sue any of the manufacturers of the vaccine that we're damn near forcing you to take.
The honest mistakes were things like the panic over respirators, the EARLY shutdowns before we knew what it was and wasn't, staging hospital ships. I get all that stuff.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:08 am to Flats
That’s a pretty good snapshot of the kinds of things people point to when they say the response damaged trust.
One thing I’ve wondered is whether the only way to rebuild trust after something like that is a serious after-action review - the kind of independent commission that tries to sort out what actually happened and what lessons to take forward. We've done that after other major national failures (the 9/11 Commission is the obvious example). It reconstructs the timeline, identifies mistakes, recommends changes, etc.
Of course the problem today is that it would require a level of political cooperation that feels almost quaint at the moment. Imagining a COVID commission that everyone trusted might be the hardest part of the whole exercise.
One thing I’ve wondered is whether the only way to rebuild trust after something like that is a serious after-action review - the kind of independent commission that tries to sort out what actually happened and what lessons to take forward. We've done that after other major national failures (the 9/11 Commission is the obvious example). It reconstructs the timeline, identifies mistakes, recommends changes, etc.
Of course the problem today is that it would require a level of political cooperation that feels almost quaint at the moment. Imagining a COVID commission that everyone trusted might be the hardest part of the whole exercise.
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 10:14 am
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:33 am to TigerDoc
quote:
That’s a pretty good snapshot of the kinds of things people point to
Responses like this (and others of yours) do nothing to help the situation. You give no validity to the list, you just think it's representative. They made mistakes but they were honest mistakes. They weren't arrogant, it just looked that way.
A majority of the general public doesn't see it your way. So you can continue to tell us you know better and we're actually wrong, but if your goal is to regain trust I don't think that's going work all that well.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:42 am to Flats
I didn't mean to convey that at all. I should've responded by asking you to choose which you most wanted to discuss, because it came off as too much too address in a single post (a bit gish-gallopy). There's complexity to each one and they're each different.
Does one of those bother you more than the others?
Does one of those bother you more than the others?
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 10:44 am
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:50 am to TigerDoc
quote:
I didn't mean to convey that at all.
You do it unconsciously? Look, you're polite and enjoy the discourse but this is typically just how you respond to this subject and it's all throughout this particular topic. You rarely if ever admit anything aside from 'it wasn't handled perfectly'.
Again, you can do that but I don't think you'll find it very effective if the goal is to restore trust.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:54 am to Night Vision
Multiple studies have shown that there is a damaging spike protein that shows up in the placenta as a result of COVID infection. Plenty of women were vaxxed after being infected or even after. This is misinformation.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:05 am to Flats
That’s useful feedback. If it’s coming across that way, that’s probably something about how I’m framing things rather than what I actually think. I won't rule out the unconscious.
For what it’s worth, there are a number of things from the pandemic response that I think were handled badly - the early messaging about masks to protect supply is one of them. The “I am the science” comment you mentioned earlier was another example of rhetoric that made things worse. There are many more that I don't bring up because they trigger more heat from identity-defense than light, but I can trust you with these if you want to hear them.
One reason I may sound different in these threads is that I tend to look at the whole episode in what I guess you could call a more tragic frame. Not tragic in the melodramatic sense, but in the sense historians sometimes use the word - situations where imperfect institutions and imperfect people are trying to act under uncertainty and end up creating consequences they didn’t fully anticipate.
When I look back at the pandemic I see a lot of things that went wrong, but they usually look to me like a mix of overconfidence, bad incentives, political pressure, and genuine uncertainty rather than a coordinated attempt to mislead people. That doesn’t mean I don't think malicious deception couldn't have been part of the picture, but I just don't see much evidence for it. Note that doesn't make the trust problem any less real - it just makes the diagnosis a little different.
For what it’s worth, there are a number of things from the pandemic response that I think were handled badly - the early messaging about masks to protect supply is one of them. The “I am the science” comment you mentioned earlier was another example of rhetoric that made things worse. There are many more that I don't bring up because they trigger more heat from identity-defense than light, but I can trust you with these if you want to hear them.
One reason I may sound different in these threads is that I tend to look at the whole episode in what I guess you could call a more tragic frame. Not tragic in the melodramatic sense, but in the sense historians sometimes use the word - situations where imperfect institutions and imperfect people are trying to act under uncertainty and end up creating consequences they didn’t fully anticipate.
When I look back at the pandemic I see a lot of things that went wrong, but they usually look to me like a mix of overconfidence, bad incentives, political pressure, and genuine uncertainty rather than a coordinated attempt to mislead people. That doesn’t mean I don't think malicious deception couldn't have been part of the picture, but I just don't see much evidence for it. Note that doesn't make the trust problem any less real - it just makes the diagnosis a little different.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:12 am to BrodyDad
quote:
Multiple studies have shown that there is a damaging spike protein that shows up in the placenta as a result of COVID infection. Plenty of women were vaxxed after being infected or even after. This is misinformation.
This is a great post to show how complex misinfo is. This paper shows there is damaging spike protein as a result of COVID infection:
31 placentas were spike-positive overall. Among those, 3 placentas were from non-vaccinated women who had symptomatic COVID-19 during pregnancy.
Note, that there is true information in here and there is nothing frankly false - spike protein in vaccinated women's placentas too. Misinfo often works by including accurate info and misrepresenting it and excluding or burying important info, leading to misunderstanding in the audience.
Let's get to the more important question - what is the significance of spike protein in women's placentas? The researchers in this paper say they don't know. Why should we?
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 11:20 am
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:31 am to TigerDoc
quote:
When I look back at the pandemic I see a lot of things that went wrong, but they usually look to me like a mix of overconfidence, bad incentives, political pressure, and genuine uncertainty rather than a coordinated attempt to mislead people.
I see some of that. I see more "this store can be open but yours can't" control freak stuff that really destroyed some peoples' lives. Restaurants & other small businesses that took a lifetime to build were wiped out in a few months while Walmart just soldiered on. It was so nonsensical I can't attribute it to a well meaning mistake.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:37 am to Night Vision
quote:
37% of placentas from jabbed mothers contain spike protein
You left a MAJOR part of the article out
It was in vaccinated AND/OR sarscov2 infected mothers
So if you had covid the same thing happens. Which at this point who hasn’t gotten it?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:38 am to TigerDoc
“That doesn’t mean I don’t think malicious deception couldn’t have been part of the picture,but I just don’t see much evidence for it”
Apparently you haven’t read the Pfizer Papers.The FDA wanted to withhold all the data that went into the studies on the Covid MRNA shot for 75 years.Some Drs.filed a lawsuit and a federal judge ruled they had to release it much sooner.
After it was released it was crystal clear why they wanted to withhold it for 75 years.
An analysis of the data revealed that after 3 months it was clear the shot wasn’t stopping infections or transmission of the virus.After 4 months it was revealed they knew younger people,esp.younger men,were suffering from heart damage.
Yet the powers to be continued with the vax mandates,public health messaging was that the “vaccine” was safe and effective.
It s particularly disgusting that it was mandated for the military which is primarily made up of young healthy men.Some 8000+ were summarily dismissed for refusing the vax.
I know one,spent 10 years,fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and he was thrown out like a piece of trash.
I know another young soldier that took it and last time I talked to him he was on 4 heart medications.
The whole reason the vax was forced was for the money that could be made and billions were made.
Another thing that was revealed was that there was significant DNA contamination which was a charge that had been made and the FDA/Pfizer vehemently denied.
So,if you haven’t seen any malicious deception it’s because you haven’t looked for it.Likely you didn’t want to see it.
Apparently you haven’t read the Pfizer Papers.The FDA wanted to withhold all the data that went into the studies on the Covid MRNA shot for 75 years.Some Drs.filed a lawsuit and a federal judge ruled they had to release it much sooner.
After it was released it was crystal clear why they wanted to withhold it for 75 years.
An analysis of the data revealed that after 3 months it was clear the shot wasn’t stopping infections or transmission of the virus.After 4 months it was revealed they knew younger people,esp.younger men,were suffering from heart damage.
Yet the powers to be continued with the vax mandates,public health messaging was that the “vaccine” was safe and effective.
It s particularly disgusting that it was mandated for the military which is primarily made up of young healthy men.Some 8000+ were summarily dismissed for refusing the vax.
I know one,spent 10 years,fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and he was thrown out like a piece of trash.
I know another young soldier that took it and last time I talked to him he was on 4 heart medications.
The whole reason the vax was forced was for the money that could be made and billions were made.
Another thing that was revealed was that there was significant DNA contamination which was a charge that had been made and the FDA/Pfizer vehemently denied.
So,if you haven’t seen any malicious deception it’s because you haven’t looked for it.Likely you didn’t want to see it.
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 11:40 am
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:42 am to Flats
That's fair. One thing that’s stuck with me about the whole period is how many things still don’t fit into a neat story even a few years later. Some decisions were clearly mistakes, some probably made sense given what people thought they knew at the time, and some are still hard to sort out - as I said, I don't rule out malicious deception. That uncertainty is uncomfortable, but it’s also probably the honest place to start if we want to learn from it. Without a commission, it'll come down to the long judgement of history and that takes decades really (and never really ends).
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:50 am to Adam Banks
quote:
You left a MAJOR part of the article out It was in vaccinated AND/OR sarscov2 infected mothers So if you had covid the same thing happens. Which at this point who hasn’t gotten it?
Based on recent research, there is no evidence that spike protein levels are higher now (long-term) in vaccinated women compared to previous periods. Studies indicate that while the spike protein, often from mRNA vaccines, can be detected in certain tissues (like placentas) following vaccination or infection, its presence does not significantly differ based on vaccination status alone.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
Key findings from research, such as from the National Institutes of Health (.gov), show:
Spike protein was detected in some placenta samples, but with no significant difference in staining patterns between vaccinated and unvaccinated women who were infected with COVID-19.
Vaccine-induced spike protein is generally transient and does not persist at high levels long after vaccination.
The study found similar levels of spike protein in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals who had contracted COVID-19.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News