Goddess

When you've read up on ADE and OAS and understand the difference between sterilizing and non-sterilizing vaccines and have some knowledge of the how, when & why (and why not) of mass vaccinations during a pandemic, I'd be happy to discuss with you. The information is all in this thread. Although I suspect with a bit more knowledge in these areas, you'll understand why your questions are a bit ridiculous.

This is what I'm talking about. You've already decided to reject any studies or datasets that disagree with your pre-set views. You've already decided you're going to argue against anything I post. The problem is - you don't have the knowledge to do so. What I post is not mine. You want to argue against ME. But you're actually arguing against established science because CBC. I don't respect that. Sorrynotsorry.

I think you can ask anyone here - I have definitely not been vague. And I'm the most prolific at backing up what I say. This thread alone has probably hundreds of articles, studies and datasets. You're just late to the party and demanding that I catch you up on everything I've posted for the last few years. No offense, but I don't get the impression you have enough knowledge of the subject to understand what you read or argue against it. How much have you looked into: ADE OAS SV40 Why the vax is "non-sterilizing" and what that means What proteins does the vax produce in a body and what proteins does the virus produce when infected naturally What are the mechanisms for myocarditis, neurological issues, etc as adverse events of the jabs How does basic immunology work - what is the vax doing to people's immune systems Basic virology - how vaccines are supposed to work What is the science that lockdowns were based on I've talked extensively on all these subjects in this thread. You seem to be exactly like eyeball - just follow me around the board, attacking me personally, repeating whatever you heard in the media, contributing nothing in the way of discussion, studies or datasets. I've posted many studies, datasets and discussions on IVM but you heard in the media it was "horsepaste" and there are no amount of studies, datasets or discussion that will change your mind because CBC....... You don't want to learn anything, you don't want to discuss. You just want to follow me around making personal attacks and repeating 4 year old MSM talking points that have long since been de-bunked. Science hasn't changed. You were lied to. And you seem quite content to remain ignorant of the above topics and why they are important to the discussion of vaccines. It's like talking to a child. Extremely simple explanations are all you can handle. And that's fine. But usually as a child grows in knowledge, you can explain further the science behind why the sky is blue. Your knowledge and understanding very lacking so it's difficult to have discussion on these topics with you. If you don't understand OAS or ADE, you're not going to understand why mass vaccination with a non-sterilizing vaccine has long been known to be very bad. I don't have time to do your homework. I've done mine and it's all here if you care to look at it.

Why? Would it change your mind?

I've done that for years.

At last! A paper looking at cardiac disease by vaccination status! Association of SARS-CoV-2 immunoserology and vaccination status with myocardial infarction severity and outcome - PubMed (nih.gov) New article in Vaccine shows that patients with hybrid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection AND COVID vaccination have increased 6-month risk post-acute myocardial infraction, for major adverse cardiac event or heart failure & cardiogenic shock. Hybrid exposure causes very high levels of spike antibodies - basically, spike protein overload. My thoughts - possible that the vax may generate much higher levels of spike because, unlike natural infection, the vax is a much shorter RNA sequence, which could make it possible for each ribosome to generate spike at a much higher rate than the complete virus. REMINDER: N-antigens are what your body produces in response to getting covid naturally and are not produced by the bodies of vaccinated individuals. It's why you have better future immunity by getting covid naturally, than the immunity produced by the injections. Findings: Younger vaccinated patients (<65 years) faced a higher risk of severe outcomes compared to older patients. People who had a covid vaccine up to 30 days before a heart attack showed a higher likelihood of experiencing a major cardiac event (MACE) in the following 6 months (not significant after adjustments). Previous infection (indicated by N-antibodies) did not have a significant effect on MACE risk. (So those claiming heart issues are more common from the virus than from the injection are again....lying.) Risk of severe heart failure was higher in vaccinated individuals, with the greatest risk observed in those who had both vaccination and prior infection. There were no major differences in underlying risk factors (such as hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidemia) between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, except for smoking, which was more common in the unvaccinated group. This was evident anecdotally in December 2020. High risk seniors were jabbed without any screening for possible current infection. Then presenting with massive strokes or MI’s within 3-5 days of jab, with subsequent positive test. Of course, the virus was blamed at the time, but it's increasingly looking like it was really from the jabs. I think it's a shame this study couldn't be a bit more granular about timing of vaccination, particularly with second dose with respect to first dose and the initial infection. The data must be there........🤔 This (below) study also reports a relative risk increase, but not an absolute risk increase. Of course, this is a retrospective single center review. The cohort is people who ALREADY had heart issues prior to injection. I don't really like it, it is really just a review of case reports and case series that examines which type of vaccine is associated with several CV complications. BUT!!! It features a reassuring conclusion about risk-benefit balance, based upon virtually no data at all. YAY! Risk of Worsening Heart Failure and All-Cause Mortality Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Heart Failure: A Nationwide Real-World Safety Study - PubMed (nih.gov) This was another study showing the same thing: Association of SARS-CoV-2 immunoserology and vaccination status with myocardial infarction severity and outcome - PubMed (nih.gov) It was lunacy/malpractice to force people that already had acquired immunity to take an experimental jab. The medical complex lost all credibility when they participated in that ridiculous agenda.

LOL One thing I have NOT done here is beat around the bush. I'm sorry you're late to the party, but I'm not summarizing 4 years of research into one sentence just for you. There's 2 main threads with lots of me NOT beating around the bush. And lots of threads sprinkled with my posts on the subject. I haven't hidden what I think or why I've come to those conclusions.

Weird. I actually quoted the pertinent parts of the study. Try reading again, maybe?

Read the 87 studies that say otherwise and get back to me. There's lots in this thread. Late to the party again.

I don't agree with forced vaccination, but I know some feel that anything goes and the end justifies the means. If we fight against anything - it should be lockdowns. They should NEVER be allowed to happen again. Lockdowns were NOT common sense measures. They were hysterical reactions out of fear. Here are 15 of just some of the reasons why it was not common sense. (I’m not including all the reasons we have NOW to see they were a bad idea.) 1. Evidence was poor that COVID19 was doomsday in the first place. ~ Low IFR https://cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/… ~ R0 around 2.3 https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32097725 ~ Age distribution similar to flu https://x.com/jamestodaromd//JamesTodaroMD/status/1254475378795651072?s=20… ~ Hits those with significant morbidities. ~ Safer for the young than flu 2. Literature review prior to COVID19 had little good to say about shutdowns https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf 3. Almost no awareness of the impact on civil rights, as if emergency declaration suspension of rights, house arrest, mass unemployment and business shutdowns is just something democratic governments sometimes do. 4. There was no historical precedent for putting the entire healthy population in "quarantine". Never. Before. This was common sense. 5. There are broad classes of physical distancing & other measures that can slow down infection spread, including organic responses from governmental urgings, shopping times for those with comorbidities, greater cleaning, etc. And nothing is obvious about which one works best. 6. Even if lockdowns in principle work, do real humans follow them sufficiently well that it remains better than other measures? Even our own "leaders" did not follow them. Almost half our Canadian parliament went on tropical holidays after locking down the rest of us. Boris Johnson, Neil Ferguson - the godfather of covid lockdowns, the recent news of Jay Varma of NYC having sex parties...... 7. Was the infection even discovered early enough that lockdowns would make much of a difference? 8. Might lockdowns handicap society on reaching herd immunity? Is this good, or bad? 9. Nor is it common sense that lockdowns, even if they handled the infection risks better than other measures, are best when the economic consequences are included. The economic consequences are not common sense. They are devastating, including health and quality of life. 10. Lockdowns can lead to people not seeking medical attention, raising mortality in other areas of medicine. 11. Lockdowns and the resultant economic downturn and loneliness can lead to depression, greater domestic abuse, alcoholism. Is it common sense that these are worth it? Nothing obvious about it. 12. Lockdowns lower everyone’s immune system. Does this make everyone more prone to ANY infection once they come out? 13. Lockdowns confine people together, and nearly all infections happen in such situations, not from grocery stores, restaurants, parks, etc. The mean reproduction number in such situations can be much higher. 14. Members of extended families tend to interact even during lockdowns. But because extended families overlap other extended families in a network, infection continues to spread. This could mean lockdowns worsened things. Common sense doesn’t tell us whether it’s faster or not. 15. The greatest low-risk black swan dangers for humans are the stuff other humans do. Riots, revolutions, wars, human-induced famine, and so on. Playing with civil rights en masse while devastating the economy -- what could go wrong? DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN.

Infection fatality rates for Covid for which we violated civil liberties en masse: 0.0003% at 0–19 years 0.002% at 20–29 0.011% 30–39 0.035% 40–49 0.123% 50–59 0.506% 60–69 0.506% Overall: 0–69 years 0.063–0.082% Or, around 0.07%.

Shouldn't this be going the OTHER way?

I very highly recommend EVERYONE watch the Green Slush Fund (SDTC) whistleblower testimony from Committee this last week. There is no way you can come away from that thinking anything other than this is the most corrupt government Canada has ever seen. I like the Northern Perspective channel, because while they do have a Conservative slant, they call out BS on all sides. They also use their channel to inform on how government works. (1036) Northern Perspective - YouTube Their coverage of the SDTC scandal has been outstanding. The whistleblower testimony is......seriously, this is THE scandal Canadians should be paying attention to. Hundreds of millions handed over to Liberal insiders and he names names. He has audio recordings and provided 300 pages of what he's seen, of which the Liberals redacted all but 7 pages.

No you don't.

87 studies and datasets from all over the world say otherwise. I'm going to go with science on this one. Personally I wouldn't see any doctor who didn't keep up with the latest studies or gave me false information. But you do you, boo.

Sounds like he doesn't keep up with medical science. It won a Nobel Prize in medicine for humans in 2015 and is on the Who's list of essential medicines for humans. I'm not sure why that's a "plus" in choosing a doctor for you.

Selective memory or purposely trying to rewrite history because you fell for the lies?

Still doesn't explain your rejection of over 80 studies on ivermectin use in humans for covid or your insistance that's it's nothing but horsepaste.

He was quoting the CDC. It was the whole reason for mandates and medical segregation. Only the vaxxed were allowed in restaurants because they couldn't get or give covid. Remember now?

For sheer memorability, I think Trump's "They're eating the dawgs. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people who live there." Makes him win the debate. 🤣 Did Harris say anything of importance that anyone remembers?

MP Mark Gerretson named names of those influencers accused of receiving money (in a now deleted tweet) and at least one of them is suing him for it.

You might want to check into that.

No one ever claimed the flu shots would cure or prevent the flu. The flu shot is not mRNA, it doesn't make your body continually create flu virus. Have you conveniently forgotten the claims that if you got the covid jabs, you'd never get covid or transmit it to others? I mean, that was the whole point of mandates.

I'm not sure what my claim that people have died from the jab has to do with ivermectin use. Or why my claim prevents you from admitting you're wrong.

And they come for the delicious felines 🤣