Goddess

Typo. Sorry.

The red arrow is the introduction of the vax. The disease was trending down.

"User has a bed-wetting problem and has to wear diapers at night." It's a fact. 😉

Just because you say something, doesn't make it a fact.

Don't forget the almost a billion dollar trip for a meeting he wasn't invited to when he had to rent a private jumbo jet. No planes available: PM Carney charters private jet to Egypt for historic Mideast peace summit

Well, they all stood up in court, so..... I provided all the facts and the links to all the literature to prove them. You refute with a bunch of propaganda statements. It's ok if you don't want to accept the facts and links, but I think that says more about you than me.

He reminds me of Mr. Burns, from the Simpsons.

POLIO The only disease for which a vaccine was introduced in the 1950's. Every other disease had sharp declines in mortality before & after 1900, but polio had almost no deaths in 1900. It was fairly innocuous until 1890, then gradually increasing rates of mortality until a few years before 1952, when there was a sharp increase in morality. It then declined sharply ON ITS OWN in the few years before a vaccine was introduced in 1955 (the Salk polio vax) and in 1961 (the Sabin polio vax). Experts believe there was one or more outside factors that made the polio virus more lethal in the first half of the 1900's and as those outside factors declined, so did the mortality of polio. However, talk of polio generally elicits extremely strong emotional responses and conjure up images of children in iron lungs, paralyzed children, which makes it hard to discuss the topic of polio objectively. The popular belief is that millions would have been paralyzed with polio, but the truth is, it was already in steep decline before the vaccine was introduced. Even paralytic polio was considered so rare that the efficacy trials for it in 1954 required over 1 million children to determine efficacy. Medical researchers at the time even complained about the attention being given to polio, since many of them were working on solutions for other diseases that, while also rare, were far more prevalent than polio. The polio virus had been endemic and benign for millennia, infecting generation after generation of humans and causing almost no harm with the exception of a few, very rare cases. The epidemiology of poliomyelitis; problems at home and among the Armed Forces abroad - PubMed Sabin, in 1947, explained "paralytic polio became an epidemic disease only about 50 years ago, and the epidemic outbursts in the last 30-40 years are events that could NOT have been readily missed in the past." Polio, like many other viruses, silently circulated for millennia, causing only rare individual harm. Until 1890. For a few decades, polio cases increased, accelerating in the 19040's, peaking around 1952, with around 3000 deaths and an estimated multiple of that number paralyzed. While almost every other disease was becoming LESS harmful around this time, polio was moving in the opposite direction. Researchers at the time could not explain this, and it was unique to industrialized nations with no outbreaks in developing nations. Sabin explained, "One of the problems with the epidemiology of polio is determination of the factors related to the virus, host and environment. Large cities (NYC, Chicago, Denver, LA) have histories of large outbreaks, while bigger cities in China on the same latitude experience only rare, sporadic cases." As you can see from the study above, there were outbreaks amongst US military stationed overseas, while no cases in the surrounding population. Further details in the above paper. Another puzzle was - why polio cases clustered in the summer months, dormant during about 2/3 of each year. What exposure or differential was causing an otherwise innocuous virus to only harm individuals in developed nations and only during the summer months? Another oddity - The only natural hosts for the polio virus are humans. Not animals. Yet domestic animals experienced the same outbreaks, at the same time as their human counterparts in developed countries. Medical Times 1912-05: Vol 40 Iss 5 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Why would animals who cannot be infected with the po9lio virus become paralyzed? Was there a common exposure? These facts all point to a potential unknown factor or factors. The virus appeared to be lethal only when this unknown factor or factors was present. Scientists, including Sabin, were at a loss. Improved hygiene theory was examined and rejected. Even Sabin called the theory "untenable." Following the Salk vaccine, the definition of what constituted a case of paralytic polio was changed to a more strict criteria. But if the same criteria was used for both before (1953, 1954) & after (1955-1959) the vaccine, the data shows that the Salk vaccine had a negligible impact on the disease. (Confirmed by experts later on. Keep reading before you react emotionally to that statement.) In what would be considered blasphemy today, but were uncontested facts in 1960: "The low incidence of disease complicates evaluation of the vaccine.....Because of the low incidence of polio, neither the private, nor local public health physician is in a position to judge the value of the vaccine." You should really read his reasoning in the below paper. True in 1950 and still true today, vaccine believers will credit the vaccine when cases decline and when they increase, will blame those who did not get vaccinated, even when the overall vaccination rate increased. This illogical belief has long been the lore of vaccine mythology, but at least in the 1950's, respected academics were willing and able to chastise such false beliefs. Professor Greenberg explains the reduction in polio cases as mostly an artifact of: changing the definition of what constituted a case the post-1955 requirement of lab confirmation of a case, which resulted in identification of other conditions that cause paralysis (Coxsackie, ECHO viruses, meningitis, etc.) the lack of incentive to the patient to be diagnosed post-1955 and a strong bias to not find polio among the vaccinated The PRESENT status of polio vaccine - PubMed Thus, according to respected researchers of the day, the significant decline in paralytic polio was an artifact of these factors and not the result of an effective vaccine. In addition, countries that only used the Salk vaccine - Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands - which did not stop transmission, polio still disappeared nonetheless, even amongst the unvaccinated. Dr. Kleinman, epidemiologist from the Minnesota Department of Health and US Public Health Service delegate concurred: "If polio antibodies mean anything in relation to protection, then I am forced to conclude that much of the Salk vaccine we have been using is useless. for 2 years now we have done antibody titrations on vaccinated children (3 or more doses). These titrations show 50% do not have antibodies. That is a very disturbing fact." Dr. Cox: "Type II polio represents only 3% of paralytic cases throughout the world. The Salk vaccine does a poor job on Type I which is 85% of paralytic cases and Type III, which is 12% of cases. In other words, the vaccine is doing its best job against the least important type of polio. With low concentrates of antigen, you may do more harm than good." Professor Meier, biostatistician from the U of Chicago: "How is that today we hear from the members of this panel that the Salk vaccine questions are confused, and yet what everybody knows from the newspapers is that the situation was and is marvelous? The reason for this discrepancy lies, I think, in the attitudes of many public health and publicity men. It's hard to convince the public that something is good, so the best way to push forward a new program is to decide what you think is best and then not question it thereafter and not raise questions before the public or openly discuss the issues.....the attitude that dissent and public discussion are unwelcome." Sound familiar? Dr. Ratner, Director of Public Health & Professor of Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the Stritch School of medicine in Chicago, addressed the question of whether a state health department would recommend against children getting the Salk vaccine: "They would be in a position of opposing mass propaganda and the public opinion formed by it." Sound familiar? Dr. Meier agreed, stating: "The great pressure of publicity has been exerted. It would be a health officer of great self-confidence that would be prepared to make a judgement different than that of the USPHS. On the other hand, I don't consider it convincing evidence of the efficacy of the Salk vaccine that all, or almost all, health officers have gone along with it." Dr Ratner then concludes: "It should also be stressed that safety testing was inadequate with the Salk vaccine." The objective facts are: something made the innocuous polio virus pathogenic in 1890 paralysis was relatively rare, even at its peak in the US the vaccine had very limited efficacy the number of cases dropped precipitously due to factors other than the vaccine's effectiveness Misinformation drove a fearful public to rally around the vaccine individuals were "clinging" to the vaccine for "sentimental or personal reasons" ThePresentStatusOfPolioVaccines-1960-Chicago.pdf This is just a small sample of the facts from 1890-1960, which likely differs greatly from what you've heard about polio mythology. That "fake controversy" - there is now a black box warning on covid vaccines for myocarditis.

You did. I posted that before you did.

I wonder who will have the biggest meltdown over Poilievre doing Rogan? I think it will be LinkSoul. 🤣

You just repeated everything I just posted. Why? What did you do about it? I'm not anti-vax. Please provide the cite where I said I think kids should still be living in iron lungs. I feel like you're getting getting emotional and it's making you irrational. Maybe have a cup of tea? I don't have to be. I'm good at doing actual research.

Poilievre did Rogan while he was in Texas 😀 Everyone was saying he should do Rogan while there. CBC can't ban this!

Maybe educate yourself on what IFR is. That's the metric used, not the 98% you say. Check out Case Fatality Rate, too. IFR is what is used during ebola outbreaks. Any outbreak. The IFR of covid was "modeled" at the beginning as being like 3.2 or something. It turned out to be just over 1 IFR. Which is high, yes. And that was at the beginning. It very quickly became 0.04 IFR, comparable to the flu. Yes, let's look at polio. Tomorrow. I'll post here on it. No. I said every child death is tragic. So are the ones who died from the covid jab, but none of you are concerned about them. Of course. There has been a lot of suffering, not health related, to covid mandates and restrictions, too. But again, none of you care about that. I have always said that suffering counted, but you all disagreed with me. You can take it however you want. I don't much care. You actually haven't. You're just good at googling opposite views and posting the first thing that pops up.

You're not saying anything I don't know. I've covered all this. It's boring to me. It's common knowledge. What you can't seem to extrapolate from the info is that, if it had a high survival rate and was only dangerous to a certain portion of the population - why mandate it for everybody. Why force people to choose between their jobs and careers? If it only had a (you say) 98% survival rate for certain elderly/obese people, then mandating it for children means it should have had a 100% safety rate. You are unable to reason critically on information. Yes it is. That's why we go by IFR. The IFR of covid was slightly higher that the seasonal flu and affects the same demographic. Yet we don't shut down society and close business and crash the economy for the flu every year. You can take your seatbelt off when you're not driving. You can never un-vaccinate yourself. Do you expect to go through life never getting any disease? Is that the goal here? Do you know how many children died of childhood diseases before vaccines? Here's a chart for you (US CDC data): About what......5000 children? Tragic yes, every child death is tragic. But that was the problem vaccines were going to solve. Over 70 shots per year now, given to newborn babies. To prevent 5000 deaths. More children die from other causes per year. I know that since covid you think you're entitled to everyone else's private medical data and what they believe or don't believe, but you're not. Educate yourself and make up your own mind. I would challenge you to read the book I recommended.

Everything you say is based on what the TV tells you and when you get here, you quickly google something to support the TV narrative. But you don't understand what you're googling. I can tell. I ignore a lot of what you say because it's a deep subject and I don't feel you're particularly interested in it, you just want to be right. No, I made a good argument but you don't like it so you quickly googled something opposite. Yes, you don't understand what you are arguing SO PASSIONATELY about. That's what brainwashing does to a person. Let's face it, for years you lapped up whatever was fed to you on TV without giving it any critical thought and now you're being challenged and you don't like it. I provided my refutation. My confounding factors are better than yours. And they're based on science. Suck it up and educate yourself.

Duh. And covid-19 had a 99%+ survival rate even before the jab rollout. A metric f&*kton of people got it before the rollout and had natural immunity. Yes, we all know you can still get it after natural immunity, but you can also get it after 47 jabs, so...... respiratory viruses mutate in ways others don't. Once you've had chicken pox, measles, mumps, etc ...... it's done. You're good for life.

I've explained ad nauseum why some people don't. And why some people do, but you keep insisting that since it didn't happen to you, it doesn't exist. I'll take "Things That Never Happened" for $800, Alex. But on the off-chance you did ask, if your cardiologist hasn't read the numerous myocarditis from the shot studies, there's a problem. He really should. Also, myocarditis from the shot affects mainly young people. Not that you care about young people.

There is so much illogic in this. You don't understand so much and that is what makes you susceptible to whatever the TV tells you. And it's not just that you are uninformed and misinformed about immunology and epidemiology, it's the whole process - how Big Pharma works, how vaccine trials work, how to analyze statistics and data and see where the gaps are, there's so much you're ignorant of. So you don't even understand how this all ties together. You're so focused on validating whatever you're told on TV that you just quickly google something that agrees with that narrative and that's your source of truth.

Closer to 10 % and almost everybody has had covid. ** sigh ** We're talking US numbers. It's not. For the reasons above. There are also people like me - not jabbed and never got covid, in spite of being exposed to it repeatedly. Studies have asked why people like me exist. They believe that we have immunity based on a prior coronavirus infection or some combination of coronavirus infections that have provided natural immunity. I know you don't believe in natural immunity because you believe all unvaccinated people who got covid, are infectious. I can assure you, natural immunity is a thing and was widely accepted for centuries before covid. I am still waiting for your data and stats that show your claim that the majority of people dying of covid now are unvaccinated.

I'm going to end this now, since you reject all the confounders accepted by science and believe that excess deaths are now all caused by the unvaccinated and that it's mainly unvaccinated dying, although you cannot produce any evidence that this is so. You believe deaths in a particular disease can and should go UP after mass vaccinating and that this is normal. No reason. Just your belief. Anyone reading this can judge for themselves, I think we've both presented our case.

Nope, seems to me it's you that disregards the experts. All of the confounding factors I mentioned are used by experts to explain why deaths should go DOWN. You are saying they are illogical factors. And that your confounding factors explain why we should expect deaths to go UP. I'm saying flat out - you are wrong. No. Not all arguments carry the same weight.

Ya, I get it. A tiny number of unvaccinated who likely have natural immunity are causing millions of deaths and the millions of excess deaths are all in the unvaccinated. This is logical to you? But mass vaxxing, most people having natural or vaccine-induced immunity by now and the early die off of the dry tinder......that's all ILLOGICAL to you? Makes no sense to you? At all? Totally illogical to you. Hmmmm. Very odd beliefs you have. Because all of those confounders are considered in determining excess deaths by expert vaccinologist, epidemiologists, immunologist and biologists. But you're saying they are all ILLOGICAL factors that mean nothing. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I'm gonna go with the experts on this one. No offense.

I'm not ignoring it. I've asked you repeatedly to show HOW your confounders above (how deadly, how many infected) impact excess deaths and WHY those confounders override mine (mass vaxxing, natural immunity achievement, dry tinder dying off). Why are my confounders completely Illogical and yours are logical? Because you say so? I'm just supposed to accept that? Who are you? A secret epidemiological expert? A closet immunologist? Seriously, you need to inform the CDC at once. They are losing cases to Mr. Siri at an astonishing rate.

And I posted the studies that show it's happening and more studies that show the mechanism for how it happens. If you want to reject science, that's fine. If you want to ignore all the studies of what the jabs are doing to people - cardio, neuro, hema, etc., that's fine, too. But you don't get to then accuse anyone else of being in the Dark Ages.

Ooooh, another Dark Ages belief - the vaccinated NEVER infect anyone else with covid. Hahahahha, that was a good one, too.