Jump to content

First a trickle....Now a flood


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I said they don't stop infection or transmission, hospitalization or death and you disagreed with me, indicating that you believe they DO all those things.

No, you said they don't do anything they were "touted" to do (which they do), and then you went on to say they don't stop infection, transmission, hospitalization or death (which nobody said they did).  ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, you said they don't do anything they were "touted" to do (which they do), and then you went on to say they don't stop infection, transmission, hospitalization or death (which nobody said they did).  ?

 

What is with you trying to re-write history?

They most certainly WERE touted to STOP infection and transmission.  Every official from the CDC, FDA, Fauci, every news reporter.  The videos of them saying exactly that are everywhere and have been posted here many times.  

So why lie about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

What is with you trying to re-write history?

They most certainly WERE touted to STOP infection and transmission.  Every official from the CDC, FDA, Fauci, every news reporter.  The videos of them saying exactly that are everywhere and have been posted here many times.  

Post one.  Let's see what you're talking about.  

I remember him saying everywhere and anywhere that no vaccine was 100% effective - that was part of his justification for recommending masks even after vaccination, which I imagine you moaned about as well.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

What is with you trying to re-write history?

They most certainly WERE touted to STOP infection and transmission.  Every official from the CDC, FDA, Fauci, every news reporter.  The videos of them saying exactly that are everywhere and have been posted here many times.

Perhaps you and the officials who used the word STOP are both giving it too much weight.

Quote

So why lie about it?

By that same token, take your use of the word lie - how much weight should be assigned to that? Do you have an actual verbatim video, recording or on the record official statement that contains the word promise with an unambiguous regard towards the word STOP?  There should be one amongst all the videos you claim to have seen.

Or you simply reading/hearing/seeing something between the lines that actually isn't there?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Do you have an actual verbatim video, recording or on the record official statement that contains the word promise with an unambiguous regard towards the word STOP?  There should be one amongst all the videos you claim to have seen.

You asked for this before and I posted the videos of Walensky, Maddow, Fauci, Biden and others saying exactly that.

"Now we know that the virus STOPS (Maddow bangs on the table to emphasize it) with every vaccinated person."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most important of all is mortality in the "gold standard" RCTs.

At 6 month follow-up in the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs, the vaccine groups had 4 extra non-COVID deaths for every 3 less COVID deaths overall (compared to the placebo groups), even during the deadliest Alpha wave in winter 2020-2021. The separate Pfizer and Moderna RCTs both had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine versus placebo.

Pfizer: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf – Table S4

Moderna: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf – Table S26

Believe it or not, the excess all-cause vaccine deaths in both RCTs were confined to the OLDER age groups. In the two RCTs combined, among the older age groups, there were 21 deaths in the vaccine groups versus 16 deaths in the placebo groups. A 31% INCREASE in mortality with the "lifesaving" vaccine. (Many reasons for the younger folks NOT to risk the vaccine, even if the 6-month mortality effect is mildly favorable for them, when it's ALREADY unfavorable for the older folks by 6 months).

Among the older age group (>65) in the Moderna RCT, there were 9 deaths in the vaccine group versus 6 deaths in the placebo group. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf - see page 53, Table S19

Among the older age group (>55) in the Pfizer RCT, there were 12 deaths in the vaccine group versus 10 deaths in the placebo group. https://www.fda.gov/media/152256/download - see page 57, BOTTOM of Table 25

The only study I remember claiming that vaccinated were less likely to be hospitalized and die than the unvaccinated was from the CDC website. At that time their definition of "unvaccinated" included anyone who was less than 14 days past their second shot, and their definition of death due to Covid included all who tested positive at time of death.

Other studies have not shown evidence of severity protection.

Fully vaccinated (2 dose) individuals were twice as likely to be hospitalized and die compared with unvaccinated during the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant surge in UK (Fig 5a-c). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.28.22276926v1.full.pdf

Bayesian analysis of 145 countries show “a marked increase in both Covid-19 related cases and death due directly to a vaccine deployment”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356248984_Worldwide_Bayesian_Causal_Impact_Analysis_of_Vaccine_Administration_on_Deaths_and_Cases_Associated_with_COVID-19_A_BigData_Analysis_of_145_Countries

Vaccinated patients are 16X more likely to have moderate illness and 4X more likely to have severe illness upon reinfection with Covid than unvaccinated patients: Bangladesh data. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.26.21268408v1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alarming antibody evasion properties of rising SARS-CoV-2 BQ and XBB subvariants (cell.com)
 

Quote

 

In brief:

Recent BQ and XBB subvariants of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrate dramatically increased ability to evade neutralizing antibodies, even those from people who received the bivalent mRNA booster or who are immunized and had previous breakthrough Omicron infection. Additionally, both BQ and XBB are completely resistant to bebtelovimab, meaning there are now no clinically authorized therapeutic antibodies effective against these circulating variants.

 

Quote

Here, we report that neutralization of BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 by sera from vaccinees and infected persons was markedly impaired, including sera from individuals boosted with a WA1/BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine. Titers against BQ and XBB subvariants were lower by 13- to 81-fold and 66- to 155-fold, respectively, far beyond what had been observed to date. Monoclonal antibodies capable of neutralizing the original Omicron variant were largely inactive against these new subvariants, and the responsible individual spike mutations were identified. These subvariants were found to have similar ACE2-binding affinities as their predecessors. Together, our findings indicate that BQ and XBB subvariants present serious threats to current COVID-19 vaccines, render inactive all authorized antibodies, and may have gained dominance in the population because of their advantage in evading antibodies.

Quote

Alarmingly, in the ‘‘3 shots WT’’ cohort, neutralization titers were far lower against BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1, with reductions of >37-fold to >71-fold compared to D614G.

Quote

Against XBB and XBB.1, 19 of 23 mAbs lost neutralizing activity greatly or completely.

Quote

Our data demonstrate that these new subvariants were barely susceptible to neutralization by sera from vaccinated individuals with or without prior infection, including persons recently boosted with the new bivalent (WA1/BA.5)mRNA vaccines.

Hmmmm, I wonder if this could be because of that ADE/antigenic sin/OAS/Hoskins Effect that so many doctors and scientists warned would happen if we mass vaccinated DURING a pandemic.

Surprisingly, funded by the NIH:

Quote

This study was supported by funding from the NIH SARS-CoV-2 Assessment of Viral Evolution (SAVE) Program, the Gates Foundation, and through the National Institutes of Health Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Center (75N93019C00051). We acknowledge Michael T. Yin and Magdalena E. Sobieszczyk for providing serum samples. We thank all who contributed their data to GISAID.

You know it must be bad when they're finally admitting things.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You asked for this before and I posted the videos of Walensky, Maddow, Fauci, Biden and others saying exactly that.

"Now we know that the virus STOPS (Maddow bangs on the table to emphasize it) with every vaccinated person."

 

No, this is not even close to what you need to provide.  This is irrational exuberance at best that wouldn't stand a chance in court if given as evidence of a promise. Court after all is the place to settle the largest crime against humanity since the history of humanity don't you think?

Try harder...much much MUCH harder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's talk some more about how the alphabet entities play with definitions and data and stats to fool everybody:

(Eyeball, just scroll past, this will be waaaaay over your head, it's basically what WestCanMan is futilely trying to explain to you on the 86% thread.)

The first 2 weeks after inoculating are the riskiest.  It roughly doubles the base rate chance of healthy people getting covid. Ask me if you're interested in the data, there are several studies, but I want to explain Bayesian analysis in this post.

This is the best explanation I've found of Bayesian analysis:

bay1.thumb.JPG.1c0ed017fdee5589b29b45f68022c13b.JPG

1185017799_bay2.thumb.JPG.db638086df9e96f69864dc8253eb1941.JPG

This is the essence of the Bayes theorem.

It’s how you measure real relative risk and outcome. But the definition of “vaxxed” as “dose 2 +14 days" (or 21 days, as some use) ignores this utterly.

It attributes the risk of running across the field to “staying in the foxhole.”

If you get sick or hospitalized or die in that period, you get called “unvaxxed.” The increased risk you face due to immunosuppression should be associated with vaccination. Instead, it gets attributed to lack of vaccination.

This is utterly dishonest.

It’s also a frighteningly effective way to lie about efficacy. 

You can make a vaccine with zero efficacy and actual net harm from early immunosuppression, look highly effective with just this one definitional "game."

Here's what it looks like on a graph, using Alberta data:

alberta.thumb.JPG.0231d6a158dd943f8b1fdef82d9107ba.JPG

47.6% of hospitalizations post vaccination were in the first 14 days. and the rate falls off rapidly right after. (left is data by day, right is aggregate).

 

This was not chosen at random. This was a laser focused precision strike to shift the blame. It’s literally reducing the overall vaxxed hospital count by half and adding them to the unvaxxed.

This is the same GIGO that went on in the clinical trials. They did not count this period when calculating efficacy.

Deaths are even more stark with 55.6% in the first 14 days post jab.

And it all got shifted the same way. This one dodge alone means that ~56% of all post jab covid deaths get called “unvaxxed.”

This data extends all the way to the present.

Given the huge front loading on cases, hospitalization, and deaths, this one definitional stunt could literarily be the entire source of apparent vaccine efficacy and that may well include the drug trials.

It also means that the vaxxed are more likely to also be “recovered” than the unvaxxed.

For the sake of example, let’s say you have a base rate of 5% infection per month. (Just picking a number.)

Once you are infected, you do not get infected again.

We presume vaccines have zero effect on infection rates after the initial immunosuppression period. (this gets MUCH worse if they have negative VE’s, but as you’ll see, it’s not needed to make the case)

But immunosuppression means the vaxxed get 63% of total infections in the first month.  Again, note the conspicuously beneficial placement of 2 week cutoff…

 

10.thumb.jpg.b67ed528d7f616c6743f644c1c402e05.jpg

 

So, in this example, infection rate looks like this in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.:

 

 

Now presume that once you get covid and recover, you have a 99% lower chance of being hospitalized for covid in the future (this is roughly correct).

So take a baseline 10% case hospitalization rate in a population (much too high but makes the math easy) and we get this: (this is case hospital rate as reported in a case randomly distributed in the population, so the downward slant is the building of herd immunity to severe disease.)

 

 

 

~25% apparent vaccine efficacy from literally doing nothing except getting people sick faster.  

And this is BEFORE we pile the hospitalizations from the first 14 days into “unvaxxed” and salt their number while shaving the vaxxed. do that on the order of 50% of reported hospitalizations (as above, 47.6% in two week misallocation window) and the vaccines could well have negative VE on hospitalization and death and you would not be able to see it.

It would show up in cases though. It’s also a possible explanation on why all cause deaths are up in so many places that vaccinated. THAT figure will catch this issue, even if the drug trials and public health reporting is all set up to hide it. Seeing it rise year on year despite milder variants, SHOULD raises some questions.

That’s not how you analyze an outcome and they know it. This is trial design 101 stuff.

This was not an accident. This was a choice.

The drug companies that ran these trials know more about how study design and definitions affect reported outcomes than anyone on earth.

They did not screw this up.

They did not pull it out of a hat.

They stacked the deck.

So....

the reason I started this thread is not because I'm traumatized and venting about my sister, although what has happened to her has been extremely difficult for us.  She has had to accept that she is now, at 48 y.o. disabled for the rest of her life and I have had to accept my role as caregiver.  And we do this without any help from the government who forced this on everyone and we do it to the chorus of useful id-iots shrieking that we are liars and need to STFU.

It's because I feel that there is a lot of this sort of deliberate dishonesty going on and the reason they've been able to pull it off is because so few of the citizenry know even the basics of how an immune system works or how to understand and analyze a medical study or the "tricks" that can be done with stats and data.

The more of us that have even a basic understanding of these things, the less chance they can fool us all next time.  And there will be a "next time."  They've gotten away with it and this will only embolden them to go further.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, this is not even close to what you need to provide.  This is irrational exuberance at best that wouldn't stand a chance in court if given as evidence of a promise. Court after all is the place to settle the largest crime against humanity since the history of humanity don't you think?

Try harder...much much MUCH harder. 

I've posted it here and I've posted it in other threads. Other people have posted the links, too.

I'm not playing your stoopid "post it again" game where you demand I repeatedly post the same things over and over, I post them repeatedly and you repeatedly run away after they're posted and then come back a week later and pretend you never saw it.

Also, you're not the boss of me.  I know how old dudes like to think all women have to obey them and say How High every time they bark "Jump!"  

They've been posted repeatedly.  Go find it on your own now.

Or don't. I don't care.

You don't have the intelligence level to follow anything I post anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, you said they don't do anything they were "touted" to do (which they do), and then you went on to say they don't stop infection, transmission, hospitalization or death (which nobody said they did)"

This is MSM programming at its best.  Forgetting what they were seeing when the shots were rolled out.  80+% effective.  Get vaxxed so you don't spread it to grandpa and grandma, is what they were saying.  It's kind of pathetic when moonbox can't even remember such basic facts because of the brainwashing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sharkman said:

"No, you said they don't do anything they were "touted" to do (which they do), and then you went on to say they don't stop infection, transmission, hospitalization or death (which nobody said they did)"

This is MSM programming at its best.  Forgetting what they were seeing when the shots were rolled out.  80+% effective.  Get vaxxed so you don't spread it to grandpa and grandma, is what they were saying.  It's kind of pathetic when moonbox can't even remember such basic facts because of the brainwashing.

It's quite bizarre, the attempts to re-write history.

If that's not what they touted, then why did we have vax mandates and passports?

The only reason mandates and passports were shoved down everyone's throats was because the shots were "100% safe and 95% effective" and anybody who didn't take them was a "granny killer."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I've posted it here and I've posted it in other threads. Other people have posted the links, too.

Maddow reporting "Now we know that the virus STOPS (Maddow bangs on the table to emphasize it) with every vaccinated person."  does not constitute a promise in any way shape or form with the sort of official weight you're giving it.

All of your links and sources fall short for the same fundamental reason, the only weight they carry is that which you give them.

It's hilarious seeing you take Maddow's word as the conspiracies gospel truth - as if it were some sort of ah ha window was inadvertently opened up to reveal the TRUTH.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Seriously, dude?

The best argument you've been able to pull out your pea-brain is your usual "Horseshit".

It's not an argument it's simply a description of what you're providing.  I suppose it would be more realistic to say horse-feathers because feathers have little to no weight compared to crap. 

Quote

Get outta here.  This is all way over your head.  Clearly.

This is all in your head. I have a fair bit of experience living and dealing with people who suffer from deluded thinking some to the point of requiring medical attention.

In any case it's not an argument I want it's evidence. With weight, the sort of substantial weight that tangibly exerts gravity.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Maddow reporting "Now we know that the virus STOPS (Maddow bangs on the table to emphasize it) with every vaccinated person."  does not constitute a promise in any way shape or form with the sort of official weight you're giving it.

All of your links and sources fall short for the same fundamental reason, the only weight they carry is that which you give them.

It's hilarious seeing you take Maddow's word as the conspiracies gospel truth - as if it were some sort of ah ha window was inadvertently opened up to reveal the TRUTH.

 

It wasn’t Maddow that was saying it, so much as it was Fauci and the vax manufacturers.  And the fact that you can’t remember this and continually whine for more proof demonstrates your brainwashed condition.  
 

You want help but won’t accept it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sharkman said:

It wasn’t Maddow that was saying it, so much as it was Fauci and the vax manufacturers.  And the fact that you can’t remember this and continually whine for more proof demonstrates your brainwashed condition.

So you guys do your back-peddling for one another now, is that how it works?  Why can't you simply come up with anyone that matters that's actually using the word promise?

Because it doesn't exist. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by eyeball
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
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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