Goddess

It's already been proved. The inoculations do nothing they were touted to do. They don't stop infection, they don't stop transmission, they don't stop death or hospitalization. Deny it all you want. Those are facts.

Mind boggling. I'm calling it on that one - Time of brain death: about 2 years ago. Repeated attempts to resuscitate were unsuccessful.

Well that's where we differ. Do you agree then that if a man says to a woman, "Let me rape you or else I'm going to stab you" then it is her "choice" to be raped and the man should not be charged because she "willingly" chose to be raped? That's what you're saying.

WTF? ??

I don't know the history of utility bills on my house, as I just moved in this summer, but the carbon tax thing on my September bill was $1.50 and in December it was $21.50. On the neighbourhood Facebook page, people are talking about the increases. Everyone is showing at least a 40% increase in cost. One posted pics of his bill for first week in Jan 2022 and first week in Jan 2023. He used 6% LESS natural gas than the same time last year (perhaps it's been warmer this year than last year, I don't know) and it cost 63% MORE money. I don't believe any of this money flooding out of our wallets and into government coffers is doing one thing to combat climate change. Not one bit.

The 6 Most Shocking Recent Revelations of Government Censorship - UncoverDC This is regarding the Missouri trial over internet censorship. #2 on the list: "They ensured that the vaccine injured were ripped from their support groups."

He must have backing from the Saudi Royal Family to say this. You can’t go against official narratives in Saudi without royal backing without being buried in the desert the next day.

They're lying. Obviously. I just posted many of the large studies. And the smaller studies. And the first hand reports from doctors and victims. I've posted letters from doctors to the CDC from more than 2 years ago, telling them this is a problem. It required more investigation a year ago, when the studies started to came out. It required more investigation when scientists and doctors TOLD them this would happen BEFORE the inoculations came out. This is what they do every time. Ignore the safety signal until it becomes so obvious everyone's talking about it, wait a few more months and THEN announce there's a signal. The signal for anything cardiovascular has been ringing louder and louder for the last year. And many have pointed it out in VAERS for the last year. They're lying. In the meantime, they badmouth and censor everyone who studies it and posts their findings or tries to have a discussion about it. And you, madam, are 100% complicit in the lies and badmouthing and censoring. This reminds me of when we were Dubbies and people would ask how we knew the bible was true and we would say "Because the bible says itself that its true!" and couldn't figure out why that explanation wasn't acceptable to people. You hang on every utterance of the CDC and when confronted with lies and deception, your argument is basically, "Well they're telling the truth because they told us they are!" Oh....and also....."the jabs are safe and effective because the manufacturer says they are." Uh-huh. You're letting the dumbest kid in the class grade his own homework and you're id-iot enough to believe he actually got 100% and stubborn enough to refuse to see any evidence otherwise.

In reality, the people who are crying about mis- and dis-information are the people who have been spreading it. The rest of us are just trying to have a conversation. Which ironically, is how real science works.

Not as many as you think. What they DO need is people like you, who question nothing.

Prior to covid, no one trusted Big Pharma and no one trusted the Chinese. In my opinion the organizations we should be keeping an eye on right now are the WEF, the UN and the WHO. Last week the WHO presented their pandemic plan and most countries will sign on. Everyone would do well to find out what new powers they just gave themselves. It's rather frightening.

That is the #1 question, isn't it.

I don't like being lied to. And it was obvious we were all being lied to, right from the beginning. I had more than the average medical knowledge before covid happened, so maybe I recognized we were being lied to before the average person. When they announced mRNA shots would be used, I was genuinely just curious about what they were, so I researched the technology. Everyone was saying "mRNA tech has been around for 20 years, so therefore SAFE." So I wondered, "If it's been around for 20 years, why hasn't it been used before?" I found out why - because it was never perfected, there were certain hurdles they could never overcome, namely - in spite of an initial "success" the shots resulted in reinfections that were worse and lab animals kept dying upon reinfection. Also, when finding out the tech was invented for diseases that involve genetic damage, it made no sense to me that they would be used for a respiratory illness, which does not involve any DNA issues. As far as platforms go, prior to covid, doctors and scientists often used YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc to announce papers or have discussions of new papers that came out. Links are always given to the papers and studies and anyone can read them for themselves. I have always been someone who researches health issues, it's always been an interest of mine. When I was travelling a lot, I had all kinds of vaccines but I did always research to see long-term side effects and make decisions from there. Although the media and governments were fear-mongering from the start, it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention that we did NOT all share the same risk. "One size fits all" medicine was viewed as "bad medicine, bad science" prior to covid. It's odd to me that at the beginning, "one death from covid" was too many and unacceptable, no matter what the person's age or health status was. But now, no amount of vaccine deaths or injuries is unacceptable to people. It was obvious to me that there was some "agenda" happening. Normally, in natural disasters or times of social unrest, government officials would try to calm and reassure the public. But with covid, they ramped up the fear to panic the public. None of this has made any sense to me from the beginning. I understand that the average person is not like me. They don't question, they don't have any curiosity. I am, normally, in real life the kind of person who remains calm and collected, in situations where others panic. So maybe that's the difference. Is following scientists who are tops in their fields of study to see what they're working on and what their finding are and what other scientists and doctors think on social media, RISKIER than unquestioningly signing up for human experimentation and going along with injecting yourself and your children multiple times with an experimental product with NO long-term studies that couldn't pass muster enough to be brought to market prior to this time period, for an illness with an over 99% survival rate for the majority of people? I guess we all choose our own risks.

As usual, about 6 months too late and only because people are talking about it and refusing to STFU, the CDC finally admits there MAY be a problem with strokes......like when they finally admitted there MAY be a problem with myocarditis and when they finally admitted there MAY be a problem with menstrual issues, etc. CDC & FDA Identify Preliminary COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signal for Persons Aged 65 Years and Older | CDC In case you were wondering, the answer is YES, it's the bivalent inoculation that was tested on 8 mice. ?

He is one of the few people I know who is still sticking to the lies from 2020 in spite of mounds of evidence. Brain too small, cannot assimilate new information.

The numbers were taken from the UK's Office for National Statistics and graphed by a doctor who writes a substack. He had the link for the table page and I verified it from the ONS website. Home - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

Exactly. Which is why the world's pandemic plan, which everyone threw out the window except Sweden, called for data and stat brianiacs. Instead, we got a public health official in each province, some of whom cannot tell the difference between a child who died of terminal brain cancer and one who died of covid.

FDA vaccine advisers 'disappointed' and 'angry' that early data about new Covid-19 booster shot wasn't presented for review last year | CNN A few words on this article I posted previously. The FDA is upset that the company and the White House withheld information that suggested that Moderna's bivalent booster may actually be associated with increased infections. Eric Rubin, NEJM editor says, “It’s not a group of children. We understand how to interpret these results.” At the end of last year, Pfizer was required to complete the post-marketing commitment to report subclinical myocarditis. That means how many kids have troponin rise without symptoms. These are your "dropping dead on the football field" kids. Myocarditis, but no symptoms until too late. That should have been submitted to the FDA. Those results are not yet given. This is a failure of government. Ultimately, the people who made this decision, chose to debut bivalent boosters in all populations, including young men and children, without evidence that that was a wise decision. They did not demand appropriate randomized trials from Pfizer. They did not distinguish an 85 year old from a 5 year old. They do not appear to be knowledgeable in the principles of evidence-based medicine, or even basic common sense. Maybe they are aspiring for future jobs at Pfizer. There is precedent for it. The recent FDA commish Scott Gottlieb is now on the Pfizer Board of Directors. More than anything, these people are practicing like bad doctors. They are indifferent to absolute risks, and they continue to trivialize harms to healthy young men. Fundamentalism is always wrong, and it's hard to make a healthy person better off. These are lessons that any wise doctor knows. None of them seem to be employed by the White House, the FDA or the CDC.

Jan 3, 2023 A pre-print article, being so new. Data from Israel. Effectiveness of the Bivalent mRNA Vaccine in Preventing Severe COVID-19 Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study by Ronen Arbel, Alon Peretz, Ruslan Sergienko, Michael Friger, Tanya Beckenstein, Shlomit Yaron, Ariel Hammerman, Natalya Bilenko, Doron Netzer :: SSRN Shows the risk of hospitalization from Covid for someone who didn't get a bivalent booster is abysmally low (prob = 0.0005), and this came from an elderly population. I'm setting aside the causal claims of the study which are entirely unreliable. Just looking at absolute risk in the control arm. Consider, the risk is far lower in a younger population, and lower still in someone who had COVID.

Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccines — A Cautionary Tale | NEJM Jan. 11, 2023 Why did the strategy for significantly increasing BA.4 and BA.5 neutralizing antibodies using a bivalent vaccine fail? The most likely explanation is imprinting. The immune systems of people immunized with the bivalent vaccine, all of whom had previously been vaccinated, were primed to respond to the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2. They therefore probably responded to epitopes shared by BA.4 and BA.5 and the ancestral strain, rather than to new epitopes on BA.4 and BA.5. What lessons can be learned from our experience with bivalent vaccines? Fortunately, SARS-CoV-2 variants haven’t evolved to resist the protection against severe disease offered by vaccination or previous infection. If that happens, we will need to create a variant-specific vaccine. Although boosting with a bivalent vaccine is likely to have a similar effect as boosting with a monovalent vaccine, booster dosing is probably best reserved for the people most likely to need protection against severe disease — specifically, older adults, people with multiple coexisting conditions that put them at high risk for serious illness, and those who are immunocompromised. In the meantime, I believe we should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.

I am getting annoyed with the whole "base rate fallacy" argument, coming from people who have NO CLUE what they're talking about. Because this argument only came into vogue when authorities stopped publishing stats by vax status, due to increasing numbers of fully vaxxed/boosted getting numerous reinfections and the data started going the OTHER way. This reason for pulling the data is a cop-out and it's misleading. This is what base rate fallacy is: occurs when categories with different population sizes are compared. YOU CAN'T CLAIM "BASE RATE FALLACY!!!!!" when the stats are given by per 100,000. For example, if there are 10x as many Americans as Canadians, comparing deaths needs to be done per 100,000 people to show a rate rather than the base numbers, wherein American death totals will be higher because of their larger population alone. Ontario COVID death rate among vaccinated and boosted surpasses unvaccinated - The Counter Signal In Ontario, by April 5, those who had not received two doses of the COVID vaccine have a COVID death rate of 0.02 per capita, as did the fully vaccinated. However, those who had received booster shots had a COVID death rate of 0.03 per capita. Additionally, those with a booster dose were also more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than any other group. Those with booster doses had 22.35 cases per capita, fully vaccinated had 15.47 cases per capita, and partially vaccinated or unvaccinated had 12.75 cases per capita. As for Canada more broadly, during the week of April 10-17 - 222 fully vaccinated individuals died from COVID compared to only one unvaccinated person (among the eligible population). 99% of COVID deaths were in vaccinated persons that week, a higher percentage than the 85-90% of eligible Canadians who’d been fully vaccinated. That’s beyond base rate fallacy. Moreover, between May 8-22 in Canada, the vaccinated with at least one booster population accounted for 82 per cent of new COVID deaths — despite making up only 48.6 per cent of the population. The following two weeks were similar. Between May 22-June 5, the unvaccinated population in Canada (at 5+ years old and the vast majority of children being unvaccinated) made up 10.7% of the eligible population in Canada yet only accounted for 8% of COVID deaths. We’ve gone from trusting the science to hiding it. FIRST, it should be noted that the Ontario government has begun conflating those who are unvaccinated with those who’ve received one dose in certain statistics. Thus, many rates pertaining to the unvaccinated should be proportionally lower. As of April 5, those who have not received two doses of the COVID vaccine have a COVID death rate of 0.02 per capita, as do the fully vaccinated. However, those who have received booster shots have a COVID death rate of 0.03 per capita. All figures are extremely low. The purported death rates had practically flatlined at that point in time. And the moderate difference in death rates would likely be considered negligible if supposed vaccine efficacy hadn’t been politicized to justify keeping vaccine and mask mandates in place. Also, those with a booster dose are also more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than any other group. Today, those with booster doses have 22.35 cases per capita, fully vaccinated have 15.47 cases per capita, and partially vaccinated or unvaccinated have 12.75 cases per capita. Perhaps more alarming and statistically significant are the hospitalizations and ICU visits in the province. There were 184 unvaccinated patients in the hospital but not in the ICU. However, there are 671 fully vaccinated patients and 32 partially vaccinated patients. Unfortunately, the data does not distinguish how many fully vaccinated patients have received a booster dose. Similarly, there are 33 unvaccinated patients and 68 fully vaccinated patients in the ICU. By all metrics, those who are unvaccinated appear to be better off, at least in Ontario. However, it’s worth repeating that these figures are extremely low, and the overall death rate of those who contracted covid, indiscriminate of age, was only 0.0993 per cent, slightly worse than the annual flu.

Freeland is off the the WEF Davos super-party - Canadian taxpayers are likely paying for it, I doubt she's going on her own dime. This is the information they get there. This is Yuval Harari - basically Klaus Schwab's #1. He's talking about YOU. World Economic Forum Adviser Claims the Planet No Longer Needs the ‘Vast Majority’ of the Population - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization YOU better start paying attention to this group. Because our government is.

18-year-old Sask athlete ‘unexpectedly’ died | News | westernstandard.news Theo Gibbs, 18, died suddenly in his sleep at his family’s Regina home on December 30.