Quite likely. But no one lives forever. My dad died aged 56, so Chomsky has certainly had a good innings.
The longevity of anyone is not the issue. The issue is the cause of death (regardless of someoneās age at passing).
If he had valuable contributions to make to public discourse (e.g. Israel-Gaza), then itās a tragedy (e.g. for Gazans) that he did not continue for another decade - perfectly possible in his pre-covid-jabs state of health.
One upside now, though, is that he is no longer fit to continue pushing covid propaganda. He himself must recognise that a plausible cause for his stroke is what anti-jabbers had been warning him all along. At least he will probably now keep his stupid poisonous mouth shut on the subject of covid.
I myself warned him that he could be put in the dock (even after his passing) for his contribution to the covid-propaganda crime against humanity.
He became, on covid, what Christopher Hitchens became on Iraq: an ostensible anti-establishment leftie who degenerated into a useful idiot and lackey for establishment power and propaganda.
And what exactly is the cause of death?
Dad had motor neurone disease. Mum said he choked to death. Caught her out, as he used to make similar noises with no issue.
Doctor said it was pneumonia. Who is going to argue with the expert? (He was a good doctor).
I agree with your post, but reality is that you reach an age and you just become vulnerable. Youāre most likely correct that it was the shots, butā¦
I remember the extracts from emails that you posted here. Like so many on the āLeftā (as Darren Allenās SubStack elucidates) NC opted for Terror Derangement. It casts a pall over his lifetimeās achievements but he pulled many punches during that time. Not on Palestine, though.
I believe that he is alive, still, as at 14:10 UTC but the ācauseā, when/if publicised, will be a compromise of some kind. 95 is not a bad score.
What caused all the strokes that people had before the covid vaccination? Unpopular take, I know, but I think youāre stretching here.
My understanding is that strokes have increased substantially post covid-jab rollout.
You are right of course Jackie, though I would point out that this consideration was not recognized by those in another place (and indeed Oliver Kamm, who Rhis had happily goaded on social media) trying to attach Rhisiartās stroke to his reported (was it certain?) covid status.
There are certainly some signs of an increase in strokes following the covid jabs; higher shortly afterwards. The number of US VAERS reports of stroke following covid shots have been 20 times those for other vaccines (along with many other conditions).
This big Norwegian study claimed to be negative:
" Conclusions:
We did not find increased risk of stroke during the first 28 days after an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine."
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.040430
but this kind of misrepresents the data. The breakdowns given for different stroke types (and vaccine dose) suggest itās at best a very near miss. Strangely they donāt give an overall figure. By the looks of it this would have reached significance. Iād say a 10% increase looks likely, despite the conclusion.
This study didnāt give a breakdown for age, so the data could be masking a bigger effect in the elderly.
This study from Georgia US found a strong increase in stroke in the first 3 weeks after the first dose.
Could be this is lower if taken over a longer time period. If time is a relevant factor then to assess the chances for an individual, you would need to know the individualās vaccination status.
If it does boil down to about 10% overall then it would follow that about 1 in ten strokes (first ones, presumably) would be vaccine-related. Though his will be a very large number of people, it doesnāt allow us to make particular claims for individuals with any confidence.
But both sides play that game though!
Iād prefer to see more studies not just registry studies from Scandinavia - a place known for burying health risks from mobile phones in big data sets; the propaganda from such studies has lasted in the mainstream (including mainstream āscienceā) for at least two decades!
Cheers
Stretching? See if you can find the Bitchute video of Matt leTissier (an ex professional footballer), talking about collapses on the field. Then look at the stats for myocarditis on those below 50 (there are lots of reputable sources for these). IMHO, @rippon has been nothing but constrained and very careful with wording.
Hi @JackieL Iāll save you the trouble of the search. I didnāt realise that there were so many so hereās an easy watch.
I understand that a lot of people are saying that the mrna vaccine causes increased stroke risk. Iām not following it so canāt comment on that. My point is that ascribing a very elderly personās stroke to the covid shot is a stretch because elderly people have always suffered from, and often die from, strokes.
Thanks, Pat. Iāve seen this argument around.
Perhaps I havenāt made my point about Chomsky sufficiently clear.
His position in essence is that people should not be allowed not to ascribe strokes to the covid jab.
He advocated mandatory covid shots. People objected on the grounds, āI choose not because alternative experts warn of the risk of adverse reactions (e.g. stroke).ā
Of course one can only theorise a causal connection between his covid jabs and stroke.
But Chomskyās position - completely unscientific and a complete betrayal of his professed principles of freedom, democracy, free-thinking and free-speech - was that the competing theory about covid-jabs (very dangerous) should be ditched and the idiots who believed that nonsense should be separated (apartheid) from mainstream society.
On covid (and vaccines generally), then, he was essentially a fascist.
Noted. Thanks.
His position on the Convid jabs bears out two things. First, those that were more likely to succumb to the lockdown, dangerous virus, social distancing scam were more likely to be from the upper echelons of society. Us hoy poloy from the working class had much better insight or were less easily ānudgedā, or both.
Second is his attitude to Convid that reinforces my view held for some time, that Chomsky, for all his works, was nothing but a gatekeeper.
Wikipedia (but seemingly no one else) are stating date of death as 18 June, and Jacobin magazine have published an obituary prematurely, which seems to have had a couple of paragraphs edited out, presumably jumping the gun.
Itās all a bit gross.
NCs stance on cronyvirus was unforgiveable. Plenty of other people joined the pile-in, for sure, but the complete suspension of critical thought from such a towering intellect was egregious.
He did the same on 9/11 and JFK - game changing events which would have benefitted from his ability to see through the BS to the important elements.
For all that who can throw the first stone.
My thoughts go out to his relatives and friends, he certainly changed my outlook and I am sure thousands more.
cheers
PS latest from Brazil says Noam is still with us:
Thanks all for these efforts.
Thatās good, after all.
Might as well discuss him anywayā¦
Because of his position in MIT and his (for him) incongrous view on the covid vaccines, Iād been wondering if there was any Gates influence (BG seems, for example, to āownā Washington), so I went looking and found a link to this discussion, which I canāt verify, but looks well-informed:
Iām not well up on Sorosās activities so I found it very useful, with its reluctantly released revelations - the best kind, I reckon 
ED