Jump to content

First a trickle....Now a flood


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Reading is one thing, comprehension another.

Yes, I assumed people would read the article if they wanted, and I didn't have to put every detail of it in my comment.

Of course, Moonpie and his merry band of cheerleaders would miss the obvious point - boosters for under 50 will not be offered in the UK any more.  For a reason.

Those two just like to follow me around the board, find some point to nitpick and seem incapable of comprehending the actual point of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Pfizer exec got caught on video discussing how they are planning on "directing evolution" by mutating the virus on their own to predict what the next strain will be.  It's not gain-of-function, but it's pretty damn close.  When he realized he was being filmed, he went ape-shit and threw a fit in the restaurant, broke an iPad and called the police reporting that white people were threatening him.

His Pfizer credentials were wiped from the internet the second the video hit the sites.

Rubio Sends Letter to Pfizer CEO on Alleged Gain-of-Function Research - Press Releases - U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio (senate.gov)

An investigative report suggests that Pfizer may be conducting gain-of-function research, which it dubs “directed evolution” research to mutate the SARS-CoV-2 virus to create additional, more potent variants and vaccines to combat future variants. This type of research, similar to gain-of-function research, has long been controversial, and is suspected to be the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) sent a letter to Albert Bourla, the President and CEO of Pfizer, following the release of a video showing Pfizer’s director of research and development casually discussing the company’s manipulation of the SARS-Cov-2 virus for company profit.

 

  • “Whether it’s gain of function research, or selected structure mutations through directed evolution, as Mr. Walker claimed would occur, any effort to make a virus more transmittable and deadlier is careless and dangerous. Further, Mr. Walker stated that Pfizer is willing to engage in this dangerous research because COVID and its variants are ‘a cash cow’ for the company and regulators will go easy on their efforts because a significant percentage of government officials aim to work for Pfizer and other biopharmaceutical companies and do not want to compromise their future job prospects.”
  • In a video released by Project Veritas on January 25, 2023, Mr. Walker laid out Pfizer’s plans to develop new vaccines for future variants of COVID by mutating the virus through directed evolution, a process that uses protein engineering to impose natural selection on a living organism or other biological materials, including viruses. Though he claimed the research is currently “exploratory,” he detailed how the research would proceed, such as how scientists would inject the mutated viruses into monkeys and collect serial samples from other monkeys who are infected. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the number needed to vaccinate and why does it matter?

To understand the benefit of a drug, the simplest way to present the data is to figure out how many people need to be treated for one (1) person to have the desired outcome.  This is known as "Number Needed to Vaccinate" (NNV).

The UK government has finally done the only calculation that matters to patients regarding vaccination (on Nov. 8, 2022) and the answer is not pretty.

NNV3.thumb.JPG.2ad28353525a77d2427d065afd79a41f.JPG

 

Appendix 1: estimation of number needed to vaccinate to prevent a COVID-19 hospitalisation for primary vaccination, booster vaccination (3rd dose), autumn 2022 and spring 2023 booster for those newly in a risk group (publishing.service.gov.uk)

For the covid vaccines, for healthy people aged 40-49 - 932,500 people would need an autumn booster in order to prevent a single ICU admission.  That means:  Chances of preventing an ICU admission is almost 1 in a million.

NNV.thumb.JPG.c44dee30f5055ac6b2e38340f16b7969.JPG

For over 70 y.o., 2,500 need to be vaccinated to prevent a single ICU admission.

For some reason, data for older age groups is sparse in this table.

NNV2.thumb.JPG.e6cbc0756159e59dd63334b5c3c31fa8.JPG

When discussing adverse events connected with a drug, these are the terms used in medical to describe how frequently they occur:

975073878_rarencommon.thumb.jpg.22d21f2157d1b346b428819443734430.jpg

Using these terms, the chance of a benefit (avoiding ICU) from taking the drug in terms of an over 70 y.o. is *rare*.

The chance for anyone under 60 was *very rare*. 
 
Critically, the number needed to harm from injection is considerably higher than the number needed to benefit, about 1 in 800 currently require hospitalization.
 
The UK gov't has now said that for 12-15 y.o., 162,600 would need to be injected to avoid a single ICU admission.

In the meantime, the risk for young boys is at least 1 in 10,000 for myocarditis - and that is just one type of adverse event.
 
Notably, both Dr. Aseem Malhotra (this was part of the research he conducted which made him reverse his views on the vaccines) and the UK's The Hart Group published these figures in Sept. 2022:
 
 
 
Questions:
1) Why was that Cost/Benefit ratio not monitored?

2) Why was it 'first discovered' by independent analysis?

3) Why did they then censor it, when alerted?

4) Why no immediate stop?

And yes, these are rhetorical questions.

If you take away nothing else, I hope you understand now that when the CDC describes myocarditis or menstrual issues or any other adverse event as "rare", the ratio could be as high as 1 out of 1000.  This is medical jargon "rare", not average person "rare".  Every time I see people dismiss data by arguing "Oh, the CDC says it's RARE!!", I think the average person is thinking like 1 in a million, not 1 in a 1000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Guess who's children are NOT "dying suddenly"? We can all learn something from these people.

3e3d571604840a4e.png

The Hutterites around where I am also refuse vaccines.  There was some outbreaks of covid in a couple colonies early on, but they also seem to have come out of the pandemic relatively unscathed.  I wonder if the Amish, Hutterites and other groups would be wiling to contribute data as a control group?  Seeing as we don't really have a control group anymore due to forced vaccination.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The Hutterites around where I am also refuse vaccines.  There was some outbreaks of covid in a couple colonies early on, but they also seem to have come out of the pandemic relatively unscathed.  I wonder if the Amish, Hutterites and other groups would be wiling to contribute data as a control group?  Seeing as we don't really have a control group anymore due to forced vaccination.

 

I will add that the Hutterites also refused masking, which INFURIATED the mask-Nazis around here, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctors trying to determine why many young people are suddenly dying | Daily Mail Online

People aged under 40 are being urged to have their hearts checked because they may potentially be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. 

The syndrome, known as SADS, has been fatal for all kinds of people regardless of whether they maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Perfect thread for this meme:

1850471564_ScreenShot2023-01-28at6_25_37PM.thumb.png.a26b8112d617d0b00ea2a985a5b6ac95.png

It's baffling to me that after 2 years of people saying "Follow the science!" that when the science starts coming out, they suddenly don't want to follow the science.

I notice that none of the ones arguing with me have any science to offer.  It's not in their favour.  It never was.

Their arguments are all based on emotion.  And they keep repeating untruths that were drilled into their heads for 2 years.

This product should have pulled from the market shortly after it was forced on the public.

Canada is, I think, the worst country right now.  Still pushing the jabs indiscriminately and recklessly.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ciac262.pdf (nih.gov)

Results.

SARS-CoV-2-naive vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.08–21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to unvaccinated-previously-infected individuals, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time between March 2020 and February 2021, evidence of waning naturally acquired immunity was demonstrated, although SARS-CoV-2 naive vaccinees still had a 5.96-fold (95% CI: 4.85–7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI: 5.51–9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease.

Conclusions.

Naturally acquired immunity confers stronger protection against infection and symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 2-dose vaccine-indued immunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

I notice that none of the ones arguing with me have any science to offer.  It's not in their favour.  It never was.

You could provide National Geographic with your email address to access the article I offered in the convoy thread and then cancel your temporary subscription. 

I posted a link to the same article way back in 2020 and got much the same lame paywall excuse for ignoring it then.

Horses and water as they say.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

It's baffling to me that after 2 years of people saying "Follow the science!" that when the science starts coming out, they suddenly don't want to follow the science.

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

No one wants to admit that they were duped, especially after they spent a year trash talking the people who were actually correct.

Just remember, the majority of these people are leftists - they feel like they're the morality police and everyone else is inferior to them. They can't possibility come to grips with the fact that they were just being stupid fascists while the "racist & misogynistic" anti-vaxers were being level-headed and reasonable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No one wants to admit that they were duped, especially after they spent a year trash talking the people who were actually correct.

I think I mentioned it here that after my sister's vaccine injury, i got involved with the injury community and met a lovely lady, approx same age as my sister, similar injuries but Leigh Anne's were worse.

This week, she got notice that she has been approved for a payout from the Vaccine Injury Fund.

I don't know the amount, I didn't ask her but I asked if it was enough and she said, "Not even close."  When you factor in that she will lose at least 20 of wages due to not being able to work.  She's lost her career.  And since it took 2 years to get anything at all, she's lost her house, lost her savings because she's had to pay for her own treatments, lost her health.

She said it's bittersweet, but mostly bitter.  She doesn't believe her sacrifice saved even one person from dying of covid.  And the fact that her sacrifice is mocked and laughed at by the Canadian public is angering.  On Twitter right now, anyone who has posted videos of their neuro injuries - the shaking and seizures - is being brutally mocked by pro-vaxxers.  They're going back through the person's timeline and posting pictures of times when they are good, and saying "See, you're a LIAR!" and posting images of Oscars.  I've never seen anything like it in level of cruelty.  I fear it will result in myriads of suicides, which is already a problem for many of these people who have lived in constant pain for 2 years now  with zero help and are already at the end of their ropes.

She said the frustrating part is that she now knows that she WAS, at the time being very healthy, at a very miniscule risk of having either severe covid or dying from it.  But now because of her poor health, she is at GREATER risk.  And now that she's seen the data showing the jabbed and boosted are experiencing infections at higher rates, the chances of her getting it are increased, too.

I don't understand how this makes sense to people.

EDIT:  I will add that in helping my sister keep her house and life together, I have lost my entire life savings and part of my RRSPs.  I won't ever be able to make it up.  Most vaccine injured do not have family with resources enough to rely on in this way.

Edited by Goddess
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Leigh Anne's story:

My vaccine injury story (rumble.com)

This is what every vaccine injured person goes through.

Note from the video that her son (18 years old) was also going through a life-threatening vaccine injury at the same time as she was and that she had to report her injury herself to CAERS, as doctors refused to do it.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't know the amount, I didn't ask her but I asked if it was enough and she said, "Not even close."  When you factor in that she will lose at least 20 of wages due to not being able to work.  She's lost her career.  And since it took 2 years to get anything at all, she's lost her house, lost her savings because she's had to pay for her own treatments, lost her health.

Pfizer is loaded with cash from their lies and deceit, and it's really important that the vax-injured get what's due to them. 

I personally don't care if Pfizer goes under, they need to pay, bigtime. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NIH funds research, the CDC makes recommendations, but the FDA are the real gatekeepers that approve new drugs and vaccines before they go to market.

DID YOU KNOW?  Up until 1992, none of those agencies were allowed to take money from Pharma.  Then in 1992, the CDC found a loophole that allowed them to accept Pharma contributions through the non-profit CDC Foundation. Money began pouring in.  From 2014-2018, the CDC accepted almost $80 million from companies like Pfizer and Merck.

The real payoff, though, is when Pharma cozies up to the FDA.  In 1992, Congress altered the FDA's funding mechanisms to allow Pharma companies to pay USER FEES to  "speed up"  the approval process.  In 1993, Pharma fees paid for 27% of the FDA's budget.  In 2017, they paid for 75% of the budget.

It's naive to believe that this flow of big money  from Pharma has no influence on the entities that are supposed to regulate them.

The situation is no better at the international level.

Since its founding in 1948, the WHO only accepted donation from member states.  This changed in 2005 when private funding began to be allowed.  Today, 80% of the WHO's funding comes from private donations, mostly Pharma.  13% of their funding comes from Bill Gates.

In 2020, Lawrence Gostin - director of WHO's Collaborating Center on Global Health Law - expressed concerns about these funding arrangements:  "By Gates wielding such influence, it could steer WHO's priorities."  He also pointed out that "it would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda."  Gates is not a doctor or scientist.  He is, however, a very large investor in Pharma.

The WHO's list of donors include Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson.

A 2018 report found that more than 2/3 of FDA officials land jobs at the very Pharma companies they were to review as governmental agents.

Is FDA's revolving door open too wide? | Science

Future jobs of FDA’s haematology-oncology reviewers | The BMJ 

This revolving door between government and industry is one of the mechanisms by which pharma companies capture the agencies that are supposed to ensure that corporate profit motives do not trump the public good.

With just a little curiosity, you will find that a large portion of the current Pfizer board, recently worked for the FDA.

 

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...