COVID-19 Viruses and Vaccines

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, shrader said:

When you say X cited on page Y, is X a count of miscarriages? I’m on a phone so I can pull a document that size (or don’t know how to anyway). Is there any chance there’s overlap between those pages, they’re referring to the same person multiple times? I ask because those number you listed add up to 31, and that doesn’t include pages 3536-3538. 

 

I didn't do all the pages, just trying to point out to Canada that it wasn't just two cases and yes, those account for individual miscarriages. Each one is referenced as an individual subject number, number of doses, reactions to the doses, etc. It's literally a Pfizer doc titled  "Listing of Severe and Grade 54 Local Reactions - Subjects Enrolled in Multiple Sites" (all subjects greater than/equal to 16 years of age, etc. "

 

It was released via FOIA, and the woman cited hired people to break down all the data from the pages.

 

I understand a lot of people just look at posts skeptically, particularly if it doesn't align with their personal views or desires, so what I suggest is you look it over on something other than a phone so you can transcribe it yourself. This isn't some fake headline or title like "Inflation Reduction Act."

 

[SackMan518]

COVID’s second death toll damns our ‘experts’

 

Wow! What a kick in the gonads by Markowicz of the New York Post: "Too little, too late: Disband the CDC now"; read this, the CDC said what we said over one year now “CDC’s COVID-19 prevention...
recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur.” And it’s admitted that “persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.”

 

The CDC is now saying this? Let me get back on my chair for I fell out of it! Cities across the country fired teachers, firefighters, health care staffers, police officers, sanitation workers and so many others because they refused to get vaccinated. Many of these people had worked through the early days of the pandemic — and contracted COVID many times over — while we baked banana bread and patted ourselves on the back for ordering from Uber Eats. Now the CDC acknowledges this was the wrong thing to do. Whoopsie!’

 

This CDC with it’s pseudo-scientific nonsense garbage MMWR reports, devastated us societally with the failed lockdowns and school closures. The MMWR reports were always fraud. They told me at HHS that the CDC 6 foot rule was ‘made up’. No science. I heard it from Redfield himself! I have told you before, every single aspect of the pandemic was a fake and fraud, all of it! The COVID gene injections topped the fraud off, as I said, we jail many, many of these people. We allow them to put on a show as to how they arrived at their conclusions, then we jail them!

[shrader]

7 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I didn't do all the pages, just trying to point out to Canada that it wasn't just two cases and yes, those account for individual miscarriages. Each one is referenced as an individual subject number, number of doses, reactions to the doses, etc. It's literally a Pfizer doc titled  "Listing of Severe and Grade 54 Local Reactions - Subjects Enrolled in Multiple Sites" (all subjects greater than/equal to 16 years of age, etc. "

 

It was released via FOIA, and the woman cited hired people to break down all the data from the pages.

 

I understand a lot of people just look at posts skeptically, particularly if it doesn't align with their personal views or desires, so what I suggest is you look it over on something other than a phone so you can transcribe it yourself. This isn't some fake headline or title like "Inflation Reduction Act."

 

Im not trying to be skeptical about anything you said, just trying to get a better understanding. I do plan on checking it out. 

[Koko]

On 8/16/2022 at 3:14 PM, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

A $10.3 million class action lawsuit?  So they're each getting a fraction of a penny?

 

At least we can all rest easy that the true heroes here are getting ~$4,000,000 of that settlement.

[Nouseforaname]

21 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I didn't do all the pages, just trying to point out to Canada that it wasn't just two cases and yes, those account for individual miscarriages. Each one is referenced as an individual subject number, number of doses, reactions to the doses, etc. It's literally a Pfizer doc titled  "Listing of Severe and Grade 54 Local Reactions - Subjects Enrolled in Multiple Sites" (all subjects greater than/equal to 16 years of age, etc. "

 

It was released via FOIA, and the woman cited hired people to break down all the data from the pages.

 

I understand a lot of people just look at posts skeptically, particularly if it doesn't align with their personal views or desires, so what I suggest is you look it over on something other than a phone so you can transcribe it yourself. This isn't some fake headline or title like "Inflation Reduction Act."

 

 

In what ways does pregnant women and the vaccine reflect my political views Idaho-california-new York? 
 

Have I pushed for people to be vaccinated, specifically pregnant women ?

[devnull]

22 minutes ago, shrader said:

Im not trying to be skeptical about anything you said, just trying to get a better understanding. 

 

That's kinda like saying

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shrader]

6 minutes ago, devnull said:

 

That's kinda like saying

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asking someone for clarification on something they said? Yeah, that’s some truly awful stuff. 
 

But hey, I’ve got the document open now and I’m slightly freaked out by a 62 year old getting pregnant. 

[Nouseforaname]

5 minutes ago, shrader said:

Asking someone for clarification on something they said? Yeah, that’s some truly awful stuff. 
 

But hey, I’ve got the document open now and I’m slightly freaked out by a 62 year old getting pregnant. 

You know what they say. 62 is the new 25.

[shrader]

59 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I didn't do all the pages, just trying to point out to Canada that it wasn't just two cases and yes, those account for individual miscarriages. Each one is referenced as an individual subject number, number of doses, reactions to the doses, etc. It's literally a Pfizer doc titled  "Listing of Severe and Grade 54 Local Reactions - Subjects Enrolled in Multiple Sites" (all subjects greater than/equal to 16 years of age, etc. "

 

It was released via FOIA, and the woman cited hired people to break down all the data from the pages.

 

I understand a lot of people just look at posts skeptically, particularly if it doesn't align with their personal views or desires, so what I suggest is you look it over on something other than a phone so you can transcribe it yourself. This isn't some fake headline or title like "Inflation Reduction Act."

 

So I’ve been able to look through this a bit. The first miscarriage Oates in yo link earlier from page 219 was subject number 10131255. That subject does not appear in the list of 50 at the end who reported pregnancy after their first dose.

 

So that’s at least one miscarriage among someone who was pregnant before receiving the dose Assuming that count of 22 total is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt that, it includes more than just the 50 people listed at the end of the document. So that 44% rate is not correct. 
 

Please double check me on that, but I’ve gone back and forth between those pages multiple times and I don’t see that subject number. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, Nouseforaname said:

 

In what ways does pregnant women and the vaccine reflect my political views Idaho-california-new York? 
 

Have I pushed for people to be vaccinated, specifically pregnant women ?

 

No. You just like to take issue with everything people say here because it's low-hanging fruit, and it's kind of your calling card. You mock Zerohedge posts, and that gets you general agreement because, again, it's low hanging fruit.  You constantly make the same stupid arguments against DR without ever really diving into the  substance of what you critique.

 

Nothing personal. But in the end, you never contribute. You just snipe from the cheap seats. It gets buried ATOP these days, but it gets play here, so if that works for you, that's cool.

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

50 minutes ago, shrader said:

So I’ve been able to look through this a bit. The first miscarriage Oates in yo link earlier from page 219 was subject number 10131255. That subject does not appear in the list of 50 at the end who reported pregnancy after their first dose.

 

So that’s at least one miscarriage among someone who was pregnant before receiving the dose Assuming that count of 22 total is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt that, it includes more than just the 50 people listed at the end of the document. So that 44% rate is not correct. 
 

Please double check me on that, but I’ve gone back and forth between those pages multiple times and I don’t see that subject number. 

 

I will absolutely look into it when I'm not drinking and hanging with my family.

[Nouseforaname]

5 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

No. You just like to take issue with everything people say here because it's low-hanging fruit, and it's kind of your calling card. You mock Zerohedge posts, and that gets you general agreement because, again, it's low hanging fruit.  You constantly make the same stupid arguments against DR without ever really diving into the  substance of what you critique.

 

Nothing personal. But in the end, you never contribute. You just snipe from the cheap seats. It gets buried ATOP these days, but it gets play here, so if that works for you, that's cool.

 

 

General agreement from who? 
 

And if by never contribute, you mean I don’t post links that generally favor the views of most of the forum, sorry but if that’s what you’re looking for then that’s not me and that’s never who I was.

 

And if you think I really take anything personal from someone I’ve never met 2500 miles away from me, then you really don’t know me.

[shrader]

22 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I will absolutely look into it when I'm not drinking and hanging with my family.

Are you spying on me? Baby’s sleeping and the bourbon’s pouring. I can’t complain. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

5 hours ago, Nouseforaname said:

It’s 31% here first 6 weeks.

 

So if an outcome has a 31% - or 25% - chance of occurring, does anyone want to tell me what the probability is of getting 22 such outcomes in a random sampling of 50 events?

Edited August 18, 2022 by Crap Throwing Clavin

[shrader]

24 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

So if an outcome has a 31% - or 25% - chance of occurring, does anyone want to tell me what the probability is of getting 22 such outcomes in a random sampling of 50 events?

Exactly 22 or >=22?😀

[Spartacus]

hey-

here's some more percentages you guys can debunk

 

maybe opine on the probability of the CDC using them to trigger another nationwide shut down

 

 

 

There’s good news in the crowded field of Omicron subvariants: ‘Bad Ned’ is (nearly) dead—but ‘Aeterna’ and ‘Centaurus’ are on the rise (msn.com)

 

Last week, a new subvariant called BA.4.6—dubbed “Aeterna” by health care experts on Twitter—compromised 5.1% of sequenced COVID infections in the U.S., up from 4.6% the week prior. It’s been steadily rising, albeit slowly, since late May, when it comprised one tenth of 1% of infections, according to data released Tuesday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

The variant is more prevalent in specific areas of the country like the Midwest. Last week it comprised nearly 13% of cases in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri, putting it in the number two spot behind BA.5, which comprised more than 80% of cases in that region, and nearly 89% of cases nationally.

[shrader]

Is there a point in there somewhere?

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

39 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

hey-

here's some more percentages you guys can debunk

 

maybe opine on the probability of the CDC using them to trigger another nationwide shut down

 

 

 

There’s good news in the crowded field of Omicron subvariants: ‘Bad Ned’ is (nearly) dead—but ‘Aeterna’ and ‘Centaurus’ are on the rise (msn.com)

 

Last week, a new subvariant called BA.4.6—dubbed “Aeterna” by health care experts on Twitter—compromised 5.1% of sequenced COVID infections in the U.S., up from 4.6% the week prior. It’s been steadily rising, albeit slowly, since late May, when it comprised one tenth of 1% of infections, according to data released Tuesday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

The variant is more prevalent in specific areas of the country like the Midwest. Last week it comprised nearly 13% of cases in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri, putting it in the number two spot behind BA.5, which comprised more than 80% of cases in that region, and nearly 89% of cases nationally.

 

You want me to debunk this?  Okay...

 

 

COVID ended in 2020.  

[devnull]

10 hours ago, shrader said:

Exactly 22 or >=22?😀

22LR or 22 Magnum?

[Spartacus]

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/deeper-dive-cdc-reversal

 

It was a good but bizarre day when the CDC finally reversed itself fundamentally on its messaging for two-and-a-half years.

 

n English: 

everyone can pretty much go back to normal.

Focus on illness that is medically significant. Stop worrying about positive cases because nothing is going to stop them. Think about the bigger picture of overall social health. End the compulsion. Thank you. It’s only two and a half years late. 

What about mass testing?

Forget it:

“All persons should seek testing for active infection when they are symptomatic or if they have a known or suspected exposure to someone with COVID-19.”

Oh. 

What about the magic of track and trace?

“CDC now recommends case investigation and contact tracing only in health care settings and certain high-risk congregate settings.”

Oh. 

What about the unvaccinated who were so demonized throughout the last year? 

“CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild, and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.”

 

 

When the Great Barrington Declaration appeared on October 4, 2020, it caused a global frenzy of fury not because it said anything new. It was merely a pithy restatement of basic public-health principles, which pretty much instantly became verboten on March 16, 2020, when Fauci/Birx announced their grand scheme. 

 

So finally, nearly two years later the CDC has embraced the Great Barrington Declaration rather than doing a “quick and devastating takedown” as Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci called for the day after its release

 

 

 

 

 

All of this gives rise to the great question: what was the point? 

 

How many people on the planet have now been acculturated to top-down control, socialized to live in fear, accept whatever comes down from above, never to question an edict, and expect to live in a world of rolling man-made disasters? And was that the point after all, to cultivate low expectations for life on earth and relinquish the soul’s desire for a full and free life?