Dbl- And Triple-Jabbed Deaths Vastly Outnumber Unvaxed Deaths Since Dec 2021.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, West said:

Just yell and scream and demand people go along with it or take away their jobs eh ?.. and you are the sane ones

No one took my job away in fact I got a raise plus I raised the rate I charge for my own business. The future's so bright...?

Notwithstanding any nearby 50 megaton explosions of course. ☠️

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

It's not me "tossing out results."

Well the results are compromised.  You have to toss them out.  They can't be relied on.  

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

It's the scientific community saying the results are fraudulent, due to many things that happened or didn't happen during the trials. 

No, there's allegations that a tiny part of the trial process was compromised.  They still have 98% of the trial that wasn't compromised or fraudulent.  

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

When there is this much fraud going on in the trials, then there is a huge "problem".  Even Pfizer told their shareholders that stocks are likely to plummet after the trial data comes out.  They know the shizzy's gonna hit the fizzy soon.

Pfizer told shareholders stock may go down because this wasn't good news and it was clear to even the dumbest ape that the conspiracy clowns would take this story and fantasize it into the next smoking gun.  

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I've already posted the BMJ article here, not sure what your excuse is for rejecting their information - other than it doesn't agree with your views.  What are your credentials?  Are you saying you understand more about how to read data than the BMJ?

I'm saying that you know absolutely nothing about it, just like you know absolutely nothing about the Law which you so often refer to, or how to provide intelligence evidence to the dumb claims you make.  I didn't deny anything from the BMJ article. I am contesting the foolish claims YOU are making about it.  One questionable subcontractor (2% of the Pfizer trials) does not make the other 98% of the trial data fraudulent, especially when the safety and efficacy studies were done all over the world and involved tens of thousands of people.  That you somehow think it does is positive proof you're unbelievably clueless on the matter.  

Edited February 28, 2022 by Moonbox

[West]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Well the results are compromised.  You have to toss them out.  They can't be relied on.  

No, there's allegations that a tiny part of the trial process was compromised.  They still have 98% of the trial that wasn't compromised or fraudulent.  

Pfizer told shareholders stock may go down because this wasn't good news and it was clear to even the dumbest ape that the conspiracy clowns would take this story and fantasize it into the next smoking gun.  

I'm saying that you know absolutely nothing about it, just like you know absolutely nothing about the Law which you so often refer to, or how to provide intelligence evidence to the dumb claims you make.  I didn't deny anything from the BMJ article. I am contesting the foolish claims YOU are making about it.  One questionable subcontractor (2% of the Pfizer trials) does not make the other 98% of the trial data fraudulent, especially when the safety and efficacy studies were done all over the world and involved tens of thousands of people.  That you somehow think it does is positive proof you're unbelievably clueless on the matter.  

Well at least not that we know. Then again we were told a bunch of nonsense about the vaccine that was false so why should we stop asking questions?

As the old saying goes "where there's smoke there's fire"

Edited February 28, 2022 by West

[WestCanMan]

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, I don't think you're capable of coining much if anything.  I know damn well you also didn't come up with 'Big Pharma' or 'MSM' or any of the other retarded memes you babble in...it's the same lying pompously smug groupthink you see on Fox News every night.

Angry much?

FYI the term Big Pharma pre-dates internet memes. It's been kicking around since at least the '80s, probably much earlier. I have no idea. 

'MSM' isn't some new term that I'm claiming credit for either. People have said mainstream media for decades. 

Maybe you're just a low info guy, I dunno, but it's not my problem. 

FYI you used the word 'retarded' incorrectly. It's used exclusively with the word 'liberal' or 'leftist', like neither goes with nor. It's usually an adjective right ahead of liberal, but it can also be used to describe liberal policies, ideas or comments. Look up AOC in the dictionary, or "paper uh plastic cardboard uh water box kinda thingy". 

And you still have to at least mention how far you're willing to move the goalposts on the 'vax' thing. Like I said, if you loosen the definition of vaccine any more to conform to the Pfizer jab's performance then saline almost qualifies. 

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

And you still have to at least mention how far you're willing to move the goalposts on the 'vax' thing. Like I said, if you loosen the definition of vaccine any more to conform to the Pfizer jab's performance then saline almost qualifies. 

From vaccine to saline in a single breath...talk about moving a goalpost.  You almost like...teleported it.

Quote

And you still have to at least mention how far you're willing to move the goalposts on the 'vax' thing.

Back at least as far as you teleport them.

[West]

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

From vaccine to saline in a single breath...talk about moving a goalpost.  You almost like...teleported it.

No, not a single breath sweetums, it was more like this list that I ran past you twice, but you declined to comment on it:

Quote

1) The vaccines will get us to herd immunity

2) the vaccines are safe

3) vaxed people don't get sick from covid 

4) vaxed people don't get as sick from covid 

5) vaxed people don't spread covid 

6) vaxed people get sick enough to spread a bit of covid but they don't die from covid

7) some dbl-vaxed people die from covid but there's a booster coming which will keep them safe

? some dbl-vaxed & boosted people die, ok hundreds per week in Canada alone - it's a lot, but the majority of deaths are in people over 80, and that's not the case with the unvaxed  

That was an 8-step drop from "vaccine" to "definitely not a vaccine, more akin to saline". 

[West]

 

Reminds me of repolitics ?

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That was an 8-step drop from "vaccine" to "definitely not a vaccine, more akin to saline". 

Only retards are saying it isn't a vaccine.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, West said:

Reminds me of repolitics ?

Retards...repolitics...yeah I can see it.

[OftenWrong]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Only retards are saying it isn't a vaccine.

It's not like any vaccine ever invented. It's more like a computer program written in the language of DNA... and your ass is the CPU.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's not like any vaccine ever invented. It's more like a computer program written in the language of DNA... and your ass is the CPU.

I get what you're saying, that it's still a vaccine and I'll just as happily take my jabs in each cheek next time too.

[WestCanMan]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Only retards are saying it isn't a vaccine.

Hmmmm

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

....it isn't a vaccine.

For your edification:

 

Quote

 

vac·cine

/vakˈsēn/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

 

The Pfizer jab doesn't give immunity, at all. People who are dbl-jabbed and boosted get just as sick as everyone else. 

 

Last time I checked, there weren't 100 people a day dying from polio after they got 3 doses of the polio vaccine. 

 

Can you name another "vaccine" that doesn't stop anyone from getting sick, has serious side-effects, is administered to millions of people who don't need it at all, and which only reduces the fatality rate "somewhere between marginally & moderately, among people over 50, with co-morbidities"? 

 

Try to modify the definition of a "vaccine" until it encompasses something as weaksauce as the Pfizer jab and I promise you buddy, the definition no longer pertains to other "vaccines". 

 

It's like calling Halley's Comet a planet. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The Pfizer jab doesn't give immunity, at all. 

Neither do flu shots, at all. But we still call flu shots vaccines.

Oh the humanity.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Neither do flu shots, at all. But we still call flu shots vaccines.

Oh the humanity.

You call them vaccines. Good for you. You can call a canoe a dreadnought if you want. Count me out.

I call them flu shots. 

[WestCanMan]

@eyeball

@Aristides

How far are you willing to move the goalposts? 

Quote

1) The vaccines will get us to herd immunity

2) the vaccines are safe

3) vaxed people don't get sick from covid 

4) vaxed people don't get as sick from covid 

5) vaxed people don't spread covid 

6) vaxed people get sick enough to spread a bit of covid but they don't die from covid

7) some dbl-vaxed people die from covid but there's a booster coming which will keep them safe

? some dbl-vaxed & boosted people die, ok hundreds per week in Canada alone - it's a lot, but the majority of deaths are in people over 80, and that's not the case with the unvaxed  

How many times can the vax Nazis be wrong and still have your full support? 

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

They still have 98% of the trial that wasn't compromised or fraudulent.  

No, they don't.

You haven't read it, nor do you have any interest in informing yourself, so I'm not sure why you're arguing, when you have zero knowledge.  It makes you look foolish.

[Moonbox]

16 hours ago, West said:

Well at least not that we know. Then again we were told a bunch of nonsense about the vaccine that was false so why should we stop asking questions?

What we know is what's important, not the gaping holes of logic and evidence you use to conjure up your conclusions.  

16 hours ago, West said:

As the old saying goes "where there's smoke there's fire"

Except you're more like, "Where there's smoke, you have ironclad proof of a world-spanning network of conspiracies bent to take away your freeeeedom."

[Moonbox]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No, they don't.

You haven't read it, nor do you have any interest in informing yourself, so I'm not sure why you're arguing, when you have zero knowledge.  It makes you look foolish.

I did read it, because it was the BMJ.  I also read a bunch of other articles that discussed this publication and the overall Pfizer trial numbers. That's why I know that the BMJ is talking about a single sub-contractor conducting a small part of the Pfizer trials, and that they have nothing to do whatsoever with the other 98% of the trials. 

You've demonstrated a consistent habit of not even reading your own sources beyond their hot-take headlines, so you telling anyone on this forum to "inform yourself" gives me a mighty chuckle.  

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I did read it, because it was the BMJ.  I also read a bunch of other articles that discussed this publication and the overall Pfizer trial numbers. That's why I know that the BMJ is talking about a single sub-contractor conducting a small part of the Pfizer trials, and that they have nothing to do whatsoever with the other 98% of the trials. 

You've demonstrated a consistent habit of not even reading your own sources beyond their hot-take headlines, so you telling anyone on this forum to "inform yourself" gives me a mighty chuckle.  

I'm glad you sorta read the article.

May I ask you - if what the whistleblower(s) are saying has zero effect on the trial results(as you say), why would the BMJ even bother looking into the claims?  Why are they not saying "no big deal"?

I've been following the whistleblowers and the effects of the frauds on the studies for months now. You (barely) read one article, disagree with the BMJ that it is important and don't follow up with any research, but you're going to preach to me?

Maybe go back to your CBC articles.....it seems to be all you can handle intellectually.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Goddess

[Moonbox]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

May I ask you - if what the whistleblower(s) are saying has zero effect on the trial results(as you say), why would the BMJ even bother looking into the claims?  Why are they not saying "no big deal"?

The backwards logic.  If this is such a sensational story, then surely they'd be interested in following it up with further investigation and post additional findings/conclusions?  Except they don't.  Why?  Because the basic facts from the article don't support the conclusions that YOU and others draw from them.  

Here are a couple of follow-up quotes for you:

Even Thacker acknowledged that “people are going to use this to push a political position because that’s what they’re interested in.”

So the journalist who wrote the article (a provocateur and 5G conspiracy theorist with limited credibility himself) is warning us about people like you - folks who take the basic facts posted and twist it into something more than it is.  The best part is that one of the sources Thackner used (PhD and clinical trial expert Jill Fisher) dismisses the exact conclusions you're attempting to draw:

But Fisher — who has authored books on the subject of clinical trials and was quoted in Thacker’s story — says that’s the wrong takeaway.

“I think that’s definitely a narrative that’s out there,” she said. “And I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair narrative.”

The article explains that: 

The Pfizer Phase III trial involved 44,000 people and 153 locations. From August 2020 through Sept. 17, 2020 — when she was fired — Jackson told CBS 17 that Ventavia accounted for at least 1,200 of those people and accounted for three sites.

“If all of the clinical trial data were dependent on one particular site, and that site’s data were called into question, I think it would be a much bigger concern,” Fisher said.

https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/fact-check-report-questioning-pfizer-trial-shouldnt-undermine-confidence-in-vaccines/

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I've been following the whistleblowers and the effects of the frauds on the studies for months now. You (barely) read one article, disagree with the BMJ that it is important and don't follow up with any research, but you're going to preach to me?

If you spent months following this and the best citations you can provide demonstrably don't support what you're saying (with the experts quoted flatly dismissing your conclusions), that's a pretty damning testament to your reasoning skills.  Time and time again you've proven you don't (or can't) even review your own sources beyond the provocative headline you pull from trawling garbage conspiracy sites.  ?

[Goddess]

20 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Except they don't. 

Except they are.

[Goddess]

 

Quote

https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/fact-check-report-questioning-pfizer-trial-shouldnt-undermine-confidence-in-vaccines/

UMMMM...... your "factcheckers" tried to factcheck the BMJ article and the BMJ fought back....and won.

This is why you shouldn't just quickly google an opinion that matches your own and post it.

[West]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

What we know is what's important, not the gaping holes of logic and evidence you use to conjure up your conclusions.  

Except you're more like, "Where there's smoke, you have ironclad proof of a world-spanning network of conspiracies bent to take away your freeeeedom."

What we know is there was fraud in the studies. Doesn't exactly strike confidence in the results. 

[Goddess]

28 minutes ago, West said:

What we know is there was fraud in the studies. Doesn't exactly strike confidence in the results. 

Fraud by a company that is well known for.....fraud.