Goddess

This guy: Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia This guy: Nir Shaviv - Wikipedia This guy: William Happer - Wikipedia This guy: Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia This guy: Dr. Matthew M. WielickiDr. Matthew M. Wielicki's home page (matthewwielicki.com) This guy: Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia This guy: Ross McKitrick - Ross McKitrick Research Archive This guy: Willie Soon - Wikipedia This guy: Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com) This guy: Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia This guy: Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science This guy (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022): John Clauser - Wikipedia Here's my prediction for where this post goes - MH will quickly google one or two of these people, find an article that calls them "climate deniers" or some such and immediately dismiss them without even hearing what they have to say. MH, if you have an hour, most of these people express their views and reasonings in this video: (But I know it's YouTube, and you've already said you dismiss anybody who posts anything on YouTube. You've made your mind up already and anything that points to a different analysis will not be something you check out.)

It looks to me like something created by a 4-year-old in Minecraft.

Dr. Vinay Prasad recently provided an analysis in his substack, of the paper with the 99 million cohort. He breaks down the flaws in the study. This was the study - which I think EX-F was talking about as showing the vaccines to be a miracle life-saver with no issues. It's important to note that this study identifies quite a few more adverse events that can happen, than the CDC recognizing only 4. From the substack: First, let us be clear, the benefit of COVID vaccination is small, uncertain or not present in several populations. For instance, there is no reliable evidence anyone who had COVID previously had a further reduction in severe disease from getting a dose (or 7 doses) of vaccine. The theoretical absolute benefit of vaccination depends on the baseline risk so the *upper bound* absolute benefits to healthy people under 20, 30 or 40 were always minuscule— bordering on zero— and possibly, not present. Available data lacks power to show a benefit in 20 year olds. Worse, there is not even one reliable study that shows a benefit in children. This means- that for these populations- even rare safety signals can tilt the entire balance. We have previously shown that boosters and dose 2 of mRNA vaccines were, on balance, harmful to young men because the risk of myocarditis was greater than the further upper bound absolute risk reduction in severe COVID19 outcomes. Many other researchers have gotten this question wrong because they use *EHR documented COVID19 infections* as the denominator for COVID19 bad outcomes, which misses the vast denominator of asymptomatic infections and infection that don’t prompt EHR visit. Eating at McDonalds looks deadly if your denominator is all the people who ate there and ended up in the ICU with food poisoning. If your denominator is all people who ate there, and never went to the hospital, food poisoning is rare. Most COVID19 papers use the first denominator for COVID19 infection. Now let us look at the paper. It has 2 huge limitations. While the denominator (vaccination) is solid, the numerator is weak. It is EHR detected cases of these clinical outcomes across different systems. The biggest problem is that MANY cases of adverse events are likely NOT TO BE CODED. The authors will argue that not coding these events should occur both before and after vaccination and ergo there is no bias (the method looks only at the relative change), but this is incorrect. It is likely there is differential missing data. That some of these events are missed much more often after vaccination. For instance, the myocarditis due to vaccination is different than myocarditis after a cold. Doctors may not recognize it as such, and be more dismissive. Some diagnoses— like splanchnic vein thrombus— may be increased in populations where you are less likely to consider that diagnosis (young healthy people) and rates of angiography and imaging (needed to diagnose it) may occur less likely. In other words, vaccination could cause a huge increase in abdominal pain from clot in a group of people in whom you would not normally suspect that in— and this analysis assumes doctor’s work it up with the same vigor as they would do for an older, frailer population pre vaccination, and they code it the same. Ergo, all the signals here are, in my view, LOWER bound estimates. I think the truth will be worse. Second, this analysis does not stratify by demographic group. The increased risk of myocarditis you will see is ACROSS ALL AGES AND GENDERS. That is a big error, when we know it is a problem that plagues young men. Doing this will mask the harm signal. If the increased risk is 3 fold, it may be 100 fold in the demographic that is facing the harm. This is a classic mistake in the field that we have published on. For this reason, every time we see a signal, we should assume it will be worse. And we should think that it doesn’t take much harm to tip the benefit-harm balance in young people, or people who already had COVID. Increases in cerebral vein clot were known and I wrote about them at the time Now, we see concerning signals for Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) Febrile seizures Myocarditis/ pericarditis Racing heart - SVT Bells palsy (facial paralysis) Pulmonary embolism Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and more My overall thoughts. A few years ago a vaccine safety researcher told me she worried tinnitus was linked to COVID19 vaccination. Yet, she had to abandon the project because the political pressure to not find safety signals was too high. We repeatedly see researchers saying that COVID19 is still worse than vaccination, but this is dishonest. Vaccination was worse for young men, and that can be easily shown mathematically. Imagine a 20 year old man who had covid and was doing fine, and then their college forced them to get the shot, and they suffered bell’s palsy or myocarditis. This man suffered net harm. The mistake was known not in retrospect but at the time. I know because I published a paper saying so in the summer 2021 (before mandates). Public health should be ashamed of itself for harming people in pursuit of a misguided policy goal, and worse, for obfuscating the data, and not admitting error. With time and distance, I suspect most academics will see the wisdom of my argument. I encourage everyone to read my comprehensive paper.

I also died 3 years ago.

You can download or order a copy of the Australian Covid Commission's Inquiry into Excess Deaths, here: Too Many Dead 2023 (redunion.com.au) Australia, being an island, was an interesting case study - they had NO covid cases or deaths until the rollout of the jabs. IT MAY AT FIRST SEEM AN EXTRAORDINARY THING TO SAY, BUT THE FACT IS THAT AUSTRALIA IS CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING A PROLONGED ELEVATED RATE OF DEATH ACROSS ALL AGE GROUPS. AN EXAMINATION OF THE OFFICIAL FIGURES SHOWS RATES IN THE VICINITY OF 12-17% ABOVE BASELINE AVERAGES, RATES NEVER SEEN SINCE WARTIME. THEY LEAPT UP IN EARLY 2021 AND CONTINUE AT UNUSUAL LEVELS TO THIS DAY. In response to the globally declared COVID-19 pandemic, Australian medical and political authorities enforced unscientific and profoundly unethical public health measures such as extended lockdowns, border closures, school closures, forced masking and mandated novel vaccines still clearly in the experimental phase of development. There is no credible evidence that the non-pharmaceutical or pharmaceutical public health interventions enforced reduced mortality and kept people “safe”. The unprecedented excess deaths being seen in Australia are also being seen globally, with many countries witnessing disturbing trends in death from all causes, the majority of which are not attributable to COVID-19. The scale of death suggests we are in the midst of an actual disaster. The fact that it appears silent alters nothing. Too many extra Australians are dying and yet almost none of our public health officials, politicians or medical colleges and associations seem interested in finding out why. We seem to be confronted by administrative wilful blindness. Failure of the authorities to seek answers in fact shows a reckless disregard for the lives of Australians. It is past time for us to demand an answer to what is causing these deaths and how to stop them. If the government really cares about keeping people “safe” why is there such a refusal to inquire? Senator Ralph Babet put forward two motions in the Senate seeking acknowledgement and an investigation into Australia’s concerning excess death data. On March 23rd, 2023 he proposed a select committee of inquiry. Senator Babet pursuant to notice of motion not objected to as a formal motion, moved a general business notice of motion no. 194 - That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Australia’s Excess Mortality, be established to inquire into and report on (this issue)…. But the motion was defeated 35 to 4. Then again, regarding the Australian Bureau of Statistics Mortality date, on March 24th, 2023, a motion was moved by Senator Babet asking that the Senate acknowledge: There has been a concerning number of excess deaths in Australia in 2021 and 2022, as evidenced by recent all-cause provisional mortality data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and There is a need for further inquiry and scrutiny as to the reasons for these excess deaths, including why dementia and diabetes have seen significant increases in recent years. The motion was defeated 30 to 29. Since it appears those who have been entrusted to serve and protect the people refuse to fulfil their duty to seek answers, the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society will do so. AMPS, as an association of medical professionals dedicated to ethical evidence-based healthcare, is undertaking an inquiry that no one else will address. It is our duty as health professionals to make our patient’s health and safety our first priority. AMPS will be holding an inquiry into Australia’s excess mortality on Wednesday, October 18th in Parliament House, Canberra. We have called for submissions from national and international experts as well as from the TGA, ATAGI and the Department of Health. The number of dying Australians constitutes an unfolding catastrophe and we owe it to all those dead Australians and their grieving families and friends to investigate what is killing people at such an alarming rate. Failing to seek answers is negligent and far beyond disrespectful.

This is probably the most infantile view of a complicated issue that I've ever encountered. Not only are the figures incorrect but It takes absolutely nothing else that is implicit in virology or vaccinology, into account. Now I see why any more in-depth facts or discussion enrages you.

You have a remarkable eye for the obvious. It's about risk/benefit analysis. In my traveling years, I took a few vax or meds for diseases common to the countries I was travelling to. The side effect risks were lower compared to my chances of contracting the illness, so it was worth it for me. The mRNA shots - not so much. Early on, even before the jabs, it was obvious who was at risk. I was not high risk. My risk of dying from covid was less than 1/4 of a percent. The risk of taking an experimental shot that had no long-term studies, using not one, but TWO novel platforms was not worth it for me. I realize this kind of reasoning is beyond your comprehension, as you were very easily manipulated into believing covid was a terrifying life or death scenario for every human being, no matter age or health. It's hard to reason things out calmly when you're pissing your pants in manufactured terror.

Ya, you've been spouting this as a talking point lately, but we already talked about this many times over the covid years. In fact, IT WAS ME who brought it up, that vaccines have side effects and I used that point to argue why people should not be forced. I should be able to reject any injection that has DEATH as a side effect.

Which experts? What are their names? Which studies are they basing their views on? The rest of your post is shite and you know it. The excavator story has long been debunked. The Great Barrington Declaration came out around that same time.

During covid, 92% of deaths were in the hospital. Now, all the "died suddenlies" are dying at home. Or on sports fields.

You're an id-ee-ot. Why is there no in between with you? We could have protected the vulnerable, let everyone else know it was over 99% survivable and allowed the "peeing my pants in terror" people like you make their own choice. There would have been no economic devastation, no loss of education for children, no loss of career opportunities for young people, no one would have had to lose their job, no societal hatred, no increases in domestic violence or suicides. THEN we could've saved millions. Fuque, you're stupid.

There are already signs that the Overton window is shifting. Yesterday (albeit on News Nation), in a followup to the Times’ story, former CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo revealed — I believe for the first time, and without details — that he was also injured by the covid vaccines. “People like Shawn, and me, and millions of others who still have weird stuff with their bloodwork and their lives and their feelings, you know, physically, are not going away.” It’s significant that Chris felt safe enough to publicly claim his own vaccine injury. Toward the end of the clip, Cuomo offered to help Shawn (mentioned in the Times’ article) get connected with Cuomo’s doctors, suggesting to viewers a much wider population of the injured and the existence of courageous independent doctors trying to help them: I can’t help but wonder whether Cuomo’s hasty departure from CNN in December 2021 might have somehow been related to his vaccine injury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/health/covid-vaccines-side-effects.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email "Even the best vaccines,” the New York Times somberly informed its readers, “produce rare but serious side effects.” Now they tell us. Following the classic journalistic formula, the article began with a human interest anecdote, a vaccine-injured scientist, Michelle Zimmerman: The Times rounded up a large group of pro-jab medical professionals, who are now vaccine injured, which the Times insisted it has been following for over a year now: One standout example is Dr. Gregory Poland, 68, the editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, who can’t shake a continuous loud whooshing sound in his ears from the moments after his first shot. He’s getting no help from the medical establishment. In despair that he might “never hear silence again,” Dr. Poland has “sought solace in meditation and his religious faith.” Why have we never heard from Dr. Poland before? For Heaven’s sake, he runs the most prominent vaccine-related journal in the world. If even Dr. Poland, surely one of the world’s chief vaccine advocates, feel stifled, dismissed, and suppressed, what hope can regular folks have to be heard? Even Dr. Poland stands alone on Gaslighting Island. As the Times accurately reported, the CDC admits only four serious “but rare” side effects, and two of those are related to the now-recalled Johnson & Johnson jab. It wasn’t just Dr. Poland either. Among others, the article also mentioned Dr. Ilka Warshawsky, a 58-year-old pathologist, who said she lost all hearing in her right ear after a Covid booster shot. It sounded worse than unilateral hearing loss. One of her therapists recently told her she might never be able to live independently again. But hearing loss is not any recognized side effect of Covid vaccination. Dr. Warshawsky remains ineligible for compensation under the CDC’s list of recognized injuries. Just like Dr. Poland. But … what about the cumulative effect of all these ‘rare’ injuries? When you start to add up all these various rare adverse events, the overall picture starts to look a lot more concerning. If there are a wide range of potential side effects, each affecting a small slice of the population, the aggregate number of impacted individuals could be quite significant. And not rare. "Safe and effective, everybody!"

I needed to take some time off from here and the presence of SV40 news came out during that time. I've looked into it extensively. Even Health Canada confirmed its presence. Simian virus 40 - is a known cancer promoter and didn't get into the jabs by accident.

Everything I've posted - I've given the name of the experts, their qualifications, the studies that validate their views and I try to put the findings into layman's language. I expect the same from you. Ya, my sister was told to not take any more either. By her doctor.

Which experts? What are their names? What studies are they basing their views on?

How 'bout this? I promise to give your post the same thoughtful consideration you give mine. 🙂 I'm sure. Did you know that 92% of the 1 million covid deaths in the US occurred in hospitals? Think on that a bit.

Which experts? What are their names? What studies are they basing their views on?

Which experts? What are their names? What studies are they basing their views on? You keep saying there is VAST numbers of them, yet every time I ask you to name some, you can't even name ONE.

Which experts? what are their names? What studies are they basing their views on?

Good Gawd, this was all revealed in 2021! The man has been lying his face off: In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan | Vanity Fair Fauci and U.S. Funding for the Wuhan Lab - WSJ Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials (yahoo.com) Fauci Was 'Untruthful' to Congress About Wuhan Lab Research, New Documents Appear To Show (newsweek.com) Anthony Fauci Knew NIH Funded Wuhan's Gain-of-Function Research as Covid Pandemic Began | National Review NIH admits US funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan (nypost.com) Dr Anthony Fauci accused of lying about gain-of-function Wuhan research | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site FBI found it ‘alarming’ that Fauci-funded virus research at Wuhan lab would leave no trace of ‘human manipulation’ (msn.com)

Give up, man. Neither of these two have the brain capacity to understand anything beyond a CBC headline. Give up, man. Neither of these two have the brain capacity to understand anything beyond a CBC headline.

Seriously, something is wrong with you. You are totally incapable of assimilating information. THE US SENATE & CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS PROVED FAUCI WAS FUNDING THE BAT CORONAVIRUS GoF RESEARCH AT THE WUHAN INSTITUTE. HE TRIED TO COVER IT UP AND WAS PROVEN TO BE A LIAR TO THE POINT THAT THEY MADE HIM COME BACK AND TESTIFY AGAIN. HE HAD TO TURN OVER EMAILS THAT PROVED ALL THIS. HE ADMITTED TO RECEIVING MONEY BUT REFUSED TO DIVULGE HOW MUCH. HE OWNS SHARES OF MODERNA. This is all in the MSM news and has been covered here with links, over and over and over and over again. These are FACTS. They cannot even be disputed. So why are you disputing them AGAIN??

I feel like there's something wrong with your intelligence capabilities. We're posting actual studies and datasets and you guys have posted nothing but nonsense.

I did respond to it and you rejected my response. 🤷‍♂️