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

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

In terms of Death or Hospitalization. 

Both. Its not like kids were being hospitalized more than old people nor were they dying more than old people. The increases were just relative to their own age groups with comparison to different waves. 

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Vaccinating people last Summer was a net benefit to people, especially in Ontario. Canada (except for obstinate Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan)  were spared the worst of the Delta wave. 

You might be able to say that for hospitalizations but not for deaths when you look at the broader picture. The overall death rate for Ontario is 84 and for Alberta is 88. Quebec was about the same or even better than Ontario for vaccinations and their rate is much higher at 162. Manitoba is also much higher than Alberta/Sask and they had a better vaccination rate too. 

Although I concede the hospitalizations rates in Alberta exceed other provinces, it is of interest to note that BC is at about 352/100k compared with Alberta at 474/100k. Ontario is at 284 even though BC had similar if not better vaccination rates.  Point being that vaccination is one factor but other factors need to be considered especially with hospitalizations which are now being looked at retrospectively to see which cases were admitted because of Covid versus cases with Covid. 

 

22 hours ago, Boges said:

The important metrics are all different now that we've moved to a more contagious but less severe version of the virus.

Yes and no.  Deaths are still deaths so those would be equal however hospitalizations may be viewed differently as the duration and severity of hospital stays may differ with these new versions of the virus. 

I am looking forward to seeing future studies that should be able to look back on all the data and see what was done right and not so well. 

[taxesanddeath]

Absolutely no idea how can this thread go beyond a page in 2020. First of all, the facts are the following;
- C19 vaxx will not stop you from getting or spreading C19

- C19 vaxx makes it less likely that you will develop C19 serious symptoms. With that, vaxxed has less chance to die from covid.

All the other stuff are options, just old man yells at cloud。

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

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.

Where's that?  

Where are you going to "fact check" your way out of the "fact" that the clinical trials expert BMJ quoted is dismissing your conclusions, directly?  ?

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Where's that?  

Where are you going to "fact check" your way out of the "fact" that the clinical trials expert BMJ quoted is dismissing your conclusions, directly?  ?

There's more going on than just that one article.  That's the part you're not getting and not interested in finding out.

Why not just admit that you couldn't care less that Pfizer commits fraud in clinical trials?

[Moonbox]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

There's more going on than just that one article.  That's the part you're not getting and not interested in finding out.

So post something.  If you have anything that refutes that the expert BMJ quoted directly dismissed your conclusion when asked, let's see it.  Otherwise, you're once again demonstrating your habits of citing articles that don't even support what you're saying.  ?

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So post something.  If you have anything that refutes that the expert BMJ quoted directly dismissed your conclusion when asked, let's see it.  Otherwise, you're once again demonstrating your habits of citing articles that don't even support what you're saying.  ?

Look, the BMJ article was to get you started.  That article kicked off a string of events - more whistleblowers coming forward, more investigations, more doctors and scientists chiming in, and now with the trial documentation coming in (which Pfizer wanted hidden - you don't think that raised eyebrows?) there is a lot more to it and I can't sum up months of research for you in 2 paragraphs.  #1 - you are unable to comprehend what you read and #2 - you have no interest in understanding how Pfizer committed frauds throughout the trials.  You don't care about it, your'e fine doing whatever you're told to do, no questions asked.  So take your boosters - all 10 that Trudeau has planned for you.

See you on the other side.  Or  not. If you take all 10. And however many else he is planning for you.

Good luck.  Haha, your'e gonna need it.

[Moonbox]

So...you have nothing, as usual.  You're just nattering and pulling stuff out of your butt.  Got it.  

 

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So...you have nothing, as usual.  You're just nattering and pulling stuff out of your butt.  Got it.  

 

Nope. I'm saying you're going to have to do some digging on your own, if you're interested in the topic.  Because IMO, you are in no way interested in knowing about the fraud.

[WestCanMan]

44 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Nope. I'm saying you're going to have to do some digging on your own, if you're interested in the topic.  Because IMO, you are in no way interested in knowing about the fraud.

Mark Twain: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled."

The last thing those guys wanna do is admit that they were sucked in.

Whether it's part of a vast conspiracy theory, a big pharma scam that they've been planning for a long time, a placebo to calm the masses, or a mixture of stupidity & hubris, the 'vax' clearly isn't a vaccine, but it takes a big person to admit that they were wrong and you're not dealing with that kind of person right now. 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Nope. I'm saying you're going to have to do some digging on your own, if you're interested in the topic.  Because IMO, you are in no way interested in knowing about the fraud.

I'm not interested in investigating far-fetched theories or doing your work for you.  Your theories are yours to support with evidence and arguments, and you've not been able to demonstrate that you're capable of it.  Rather, you continue to link us garbage that either doesn't say what you pretend it does, or outright contradicts you. 

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'm not interested in investigating far-fetched theories or doing your work for you. 

You're not interested in taking stock of how many times you had to lower your standards to consider the jab a vax, or considering how much closer the jab is to saline than it is to actual vaccines, like the polio vaccine. 

Quote

Your theories are yours to support with evidence and arguments, and you've not been able to demonstrate that you're capable of it. 

All of the facts that we, as peons, have access to, support what Goddess is saying. You don't have any stats that show us that vaccine mandates are reasonable. You have nothing but your opinion and that of other known liars. Thanks but no thanks.

FYI the stats are the final judge of the jabs' effectiveness. Not Dr Fauci, not Bonnie Henry, not Dr Tam, not Justin Trudeau. 

If the stats told us that the vaccines were safe, necessary and effective then our government wouldn't have to resort to hate mongering, slander, threats, ostracism and serious punishments to get us to take them.

Why don't you try to demonstrate that you're capable of thinking fo yourself? We all know that you can make snotty insults, we just wanna see some reasons why we should value your opinions. So far you've given us nothing. 

Quote

Rather, you continue to link us garbage that either doesn't say what you pretend it does, or outright contradicts you. 

Where's the link that shows us why children need to be vaccinated? Or why anyone under 40 who's healthy needs to be vaccinated? 

Where's the link that shows us that "the thousands of fully pfizered covid deaths in Canada since mid-December occurred mostly among people above 80, but that wasn't the case in the unvaccinated"? 

Where's there any stat at all that tells us that we should vaccinate if we're not extremely old or if we don't have serious co-morbidities? 

You're on the side that needs proof of something Moonbox. Day after day as stats roll in we just get more and more reason to doubt the jabs' effectiveness, and therefor, the justification for forcing them on people. 

Instead of providing proof of anything you run your mouth. You yap like a little dog without ever adding anything to the discussion. 

[West]

New Pfizer dump today. 9 pages of side effects. Yet you have no choice. If you want a job, take the risk

[Boges]

19 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Yes and no.  Deaths are still deaths so those would be equal however hospitalizations may be viewed differently as the duration and severity of hospital stays may differ with these new versions of the virus. 

I know you're going to groan at this, but the "with" not "because" of metric comes into play here. 

Please are just dying with Omicron, and not because of it. Ontario has 55% of people Hospitalized with COVID, not because of it. 20% in the ICU are not in there because of COVID, but have it. 

Now you could say that this was the same dynamic that has COVID deaths in the US approaching 1 million. Do a COVID test on someone that died of a heart attack to juice the numbers. 

But with Omicron, it seems that the "with" not "because of" is a very relevant. 

This guy has become popular on the Youtubes recently, Apparently he also entertains Ivermectin so he's certainly not a vaccine/lockdown apologist. In this video he looks at deaths in Denmark. They've recently lifted ALL restrictions and have seen a spike in COVID "deaths". He digs a bit deeper to see that the "With" vs "Because" debate is relevant in Denmark. 

The relevant portion starts at 4:30

He highlights that in previous waves, COVID was certainly the most relevant factor in deaths where the person dies "with" COVID. Now, not so much. 

[West]

[West]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I know you're going to groan at this, but the "with" not "because" of metric comes into play here. 

Please are just dying with Omicron, and not because of it. Ontario has 55% of people Hospitalized with COVID, not because of it. 20% in the ICU are not in there because of COVID, but have it. 

Now you could say that this was the same dynamic that has COVID deaths in the US approaching 1 million. Do a COVID test on someone that died of a heart attack to juice the numbers. 

But with Omicron, it seems that the "with" not "because of" is a very relevant. 

This guy has become popular on the Youtubes recently, Apparently he also entertains Ivermectin so he's certainly not a vaccine/lockdown apologist. In this video he looks at deaths in Denmark. They've recently lifted ALL restrictions and have seen a spike in COVID "deaths". He digs a bit deeper to see that the "With" vs "Because" debate is relevant in Denmark. 

The relevant portion starts at 4:30

He highlights that in previous waves, COVID was certainly the most relevant factor in deaths where the person dies "with" COVID. Now, not so much. 

The US did count people who rolled into the hospital with covid as covid hospitalizations. Dr. Birx even admitted as such. 

The us numbers are very likely grossly overinflated

[DogOnPorch]

9 minutes ago, West said:

The US did count people who rolled into the hospital with covid as covid hospitalizations. Dr. Birx even admitted as such. 

The us numbers are very likely grossly overinflated

 

Pretend you have a barrel full of golf balls...say 10,000. A duplicate empty barrel is 10 feet away. Start picking out golf balls and tossing them as accurately as possible into the empty barrel. Try to get them in. Aim for it.

How many golf balls do you get into the barrel? All of them? Possible...but that's highly, highly unlikely.

Some golf balls clipped the edge and flew across the room. Some you just under threw slightly no matter aiming. Some you found under the sofa later. One somehow ended-up on the lawn outside. The cat? Perhaps! Or maybe it rolled there.

I hope you get the point.

Edited March 2, 2022 by DogOnPorch

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Instead of providing proof of anything you run your mouth. You yap like a little dog without ever adding anything to the discussion. 

I don't believe he read the BMJ article.  All he did was google a "factcheck" on it.  The "factcheck" was conducted by CBS. ? I highly doubt they know more than the BMJ about how ALL the trial fraud affected the results.  And given that the EUA was BASED on these fraudulent trials, it's more than just "no big deal."

Quote

 

told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. 

In a recording of a meeting in late September2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. “In my mind, it’s something new every day,” a Ventavia executive says. “We know that it’s significant.”

In Pfizer’s briefing document submitted to an FDA advisory committee meeting held on 10 December 2020 to discuss Pfizer’s application for emergency use authorisation of its covid-19 vaccine, the company made no mention of problems at the Ventavia site. The next day the FDA issued the authorisation of the vaccine.8

In recent months Jackson has reconnected with several former Ventavia employees who all left or were fired from the company. One of them was one of the officials who had taken part in the late September meeting. In a text message sent in June the former official apologised, saying that “everything that you complained about was spot on.”

Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for fear of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research community. Both confirmed broad aspects of Jackson’s complaint. One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a “helter skelter” work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial.

 

 

[Goddess]

11 hours ago, West said:

New Pfizer dump today. 9 pages of side effects. Yet you have no choice. If you want a job, take the risk

When Pfizer advised its shareholders (In a footnote buried in the information) about loss of stock value due to revelations of fraudulent clinical trials, they weren't kidding.

No wonder they wanted this information hidden for over half a century.

[Goddess]

Here is the document - list of adverse events starts on page 30 and goes to page 38.

5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf (phmpt.org)

[Goddess]

I didn't recognize the first item in the list: 1p36 deletion syndrome. Had to google it.

It involves the actual deletion of chromosomes. Yikes.

I know the second item hydroxygluteric aciduria is progressive brain damage.

From page 31 - mostly autoimmune damages.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Here is the document - list of adverse events starts on page 30 and goes to page 38.

5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf (phmpt.org)

So are you supposing that "Hantavirus pulmonary infection" or dozens of "herpes" complications are side-effects of the vaccine, or...what exactly? ?
 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. 

In a recording of a meeting in late September2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. “In my mind, it’s something new every day,” a Ventavia executive says. “We know that it’s significant.”

CNN: "Sounds pretty minor, otherwise they woulda said 'existential threat', or 'bigger than Watergate'."

[Goddess]

From page 7, table 1

1223 vaccine deaths in this 3 month reporting period.  Out of 42,000 injections, that's almost a 3% death rate.

The majority of the reactions, by far, were in the 31-50 age group, which is your working class.  Coincides with the reports of a 40% increase in deaths of working age people cited by insurance companies.

Edit:  Interesting to see the Recovered with sequelae (permanent injury) and not recovered are quite high at almost 12,000. 

9400 "unknown"?  Did they just lose track of these people, like they did in the trials?

Edited March 2, 2022 by Goddess

[WestCanMan]

36 minutes ago, Goddess said:

From page 7, table 1

1223 vaccine deaths in this 3 month reporting period.  Out of 42,000 injections, that's almost a 3% death rate.

The majority of the reactions, by far, were in the 31-50 age group, which is your working class.  Coincides with the reports of a 40% increase in deaths of working age people cited by insurance companies.

Edit:  Interesting to see the Recovered with sequelae (permanent injury) and not recovered are quite high at almost 12,000. 

9400 "unknown"?  Did they just lose track of these people, like they did in the trials?

Why do we, as citizens, have to navigate this shit ourselves?

Shouldn't there be a health professional talking about this on CTV or Global? Even if they tried to discredit it. Just something. They NEVER address side effects. 

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Why do we, as citizens, have to navigate this shit ourselves?

Shouldn't there be a health professional talking about this on CTV or Global? Even if they tried to discredit it. Just something. They NEVER address side effects. 

I know.  With a vaccine injured sister, it seems to me, too - they  just want them to shut up and die quickly so no one ever knows about them.

I feel like I read more of these studies and trials than Tam or any of the public health officials do.  They certainly never comment on them, and all of them have repeatedly refused to share the studies or trials they are following to base restrictions and lockdowns and mandates on.

I'm just looking at page 12, the pregnancy and lactation adverse events.  Right off the bat, I see the number of cases is 1%.  That means 1 out of every 100 pregnant women will experience an AE.  WHY are they not telling women this?  Then they go through all the AE's and at the bottom PFIZER concludes: "There are no safety signals that emerged from a review of these cases."

Nothing to see here.  Look away, look away.