Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians are considered part of Western society, you moron. LOL! Are you sincerely this dense? Your examples are examples of Western culture developing faster than other civilizations. I mean, come on, man, the breadbasket is located in Egypt, for crying out loud.

For other non-Western civilizations, think of the indigenous tribes of the Americas or Sub-Saharan Africa.

I have to admit; your self-own is pretty darn funny.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

If you enjoyed 1491, you will equally like titles like Collapse, or Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

The basic premise that most scholars who study the effects of geography and environment on the development of civilizations is that Western culture and society dominated more due to the fate of the location of our origins rather than a superior moral system or intellect. No one is saying that non-Western societies were not advanced in many ways, but overall, they lagged behind Western societies in commerce, organization, and technology. Of course, the disease differential was also significant, but as you pointed out, most likely caused by zoonotic viruses Westerners developed due to animal husbandry. In the Americas, there were no large mammals that were easily domesticated or that would have created enough resources to warrant the effort.

Here are some of my top favorite non-fiction books from over the years:

Blood and Thunder - Basically a history of the settlement of the western United States, but Kit Carson plays such a significant role it is almost a biography of him.

The River of Doubt - After Teddy Roosevelt's losses in the 1912 election, he went on an expedition down the River of Doubt, a tributary of the Amazon. It tells a story of carelessness, ineptitude, and survival that is almost impossible to believe.

Undaunted Courage - The Lewis and Clark expedition. Trust me; almost everything you think you know about the trip is wrong. The story was so embellished and popularized by later generations with an axe to grind so that most of what we think we know about it is either wrong or misleading. Trust me. You do not know what happened to the expedition members after returning. They do not teach it in primary education, for sure.

Hero of the Empire - The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill. It's about Churchhill's involvement in the Boer War of South Africa. Still, it is so instrumental to the outcome of what we think of as modern-day South Africa that it explains why South Africa ended up with apartheid.

Mayflower - A Story of Courage, Community, and War. Most of us are taught about Plymouth Rock and then history fast-forwards to the American revolution. But there is a bunch of stuff that happened in between that this book covers extensively. For example, we are all familiar with the struggles of Indians in the Central part of the US and the West with European colonialism. But there were many Indians on the east Coast in the beginning, and their story is often overlooked or forgotten. 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

What the shot consisted of was a therapeutic which lessened the severity of the symptoms of Covid.  

You're free to refer to that shot as a vaccine.  I guess I'm just realistic.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

They weren't even close.  

Virtually everyone got the virus.  Just a guess that maybe 2 out of 10 who got the vaccine didn't get the virus.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I'm no doctor, but I would consider a "therapeutic" to be a drug administered after infection,

semantic nit-picking

Semantics and nit picking?  

 I've heard at least 4 or 5 doctors now speak about it and they referred to the "vaccine" as just that a "therapeutic".

One an epidemiologist.  I'd suggest you take it up with them.

P.S. When those who want to control other groups of people so badly they'll actually change the 100+ year definition of what a vaccine is, in order to fit the narrative they want to push on society and the public that's shocking to me.

You're free to go along to get along.  I understand that's probably easier than questioning authority.  I'll choose the latter, thank you.  

Then again I'm not a gov't following sheep accepting any BS they want to shove down my throat or in my body.   

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

How many deaths and long term health problems did the vaccines cause?  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Then again I'm not a gov't following sheep accepting any BS they want to shove down my throat or in my body.   

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You stated:   

Thank you for regurgitating what you call the 100 year old definition (which is not). 

That is the NEW Webster definition.  Here is proof that it is their NEW definition:  

https://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/webster-dictionary-changes-defenition-of-vaccine

I just proved you wrong in what you said above.  

Gosh you are wrong above, so will you admit it?? 

JB above:  "Of course you will not.  You are unable to admit that you are wrong"

So then I'll say to you:  

Of course you will not. You are unable to admit that you are wrong.   LOL  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Any evidence to back that up?  Show me numbers because when you just spout "It is miniscule", then unless you  can show numbers to compare side by side, your statement is a guessing game at best.  

You have no idea whether the difference is miniscule.  

So what you are arguing is whatever pops into your head  

Originally Posted by James Brown

I see, the old definition has been broadened to include a new technology.  i.e. any substance that promotes an immune response is now defined as a vaccine, (not just dead or living organics or parts).  This sort of definition broadening happens every day in view of new tech.  Would you also deny that an LED array packaged in an A-19 housing is in fact a "light bulb"?

The key here is that a vaccine is and always has been a substance administered in advance of infection to provoke an immune response.  This is true under the original and broadened definition, Right? 

Is your only argument that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines because they are new technology?  I had no idea you were so fearful of new tech.  

But, let's have it your way.  Do you deny or agree that mRNA compositions are administered before an infection to promote an immune response?