First a trickle....Now a flood

[Goddess]

My issue with Redman is that he worked on the creation of the jab, but wasn't there when the rollout/mandates/restrictions were enforced.

Now he claims he tried to tell everyone, but I call BS on that.

He never put his reputation and career on the line to warn people, like other doctors, scientists and researchers did.

It killed and maimed a lot of people who were never at any risk of dying from covid.

[Goddess]

Fascinating article (and in Open Access!! 😀) that proposes to look at "scientific consensus" - including in the case of covid and also other historical examples - in the light of scientific gatekeeping and deference to science.

 

Gatekeeping failures, degenerative consensus dynamics, and undue deference to science | Synthese | Springer Nature Link

This paper argues for a more nuanced approach to the issue of deference to science. It contends that non-scientists sometimes have good reasons to withhold or qualify such deference, particularly when there is evidence of inadequate gatekeeping practices within scientific communities. Gatekeeping can fail in various ways, including through excessive restrictiveness or undue permissiveness (Dormandy & Grimley, 2024). If it is too restrictive, it may exclude theories, methods, or other elements that ought to be considered by the scientific community. If it is too permissive, it may fail to filter out elements, including seriously flawed studies, that do not merit serious attention. In both cases, such failures undermine the pluralistic exchange of ideas that is central to scientific inquiry and progress and reduce the trustworthiness of its outcomes.

Given that scientific consensus formation requires thorough consideration of all relevant alternatives and often takes years, or even decades, to achieve, it was far-fetched to assume that a robust consensus could have formed within mere months or even weeks.^Footnote26 To the extent that visible agreement on the dominant Covid narrative did exist, it is plausible to assume that it did not reflect a mature state of scientific debate in which all relevant alternatives had been thoroughly considered, but rather resulted from phenomena such as groupthink (Joffe, 2021) and various forms of social pressure to conform. Dissenters were ignored, accused of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation”, dismissed as “covid10ts” or as representatives of a “post-truth” mentality, or ridiculed in other ways.^Footnote27 

[Goddess]

An easy-to-understand description of the IGg4 class antibody switch that is happening from the jabbers:

 

The bad news just keeps coming for the mRNA guinea pigs.

There are quite a lot of studies, now, about the likelihood of mRNA vaccines inducing an IgG4 class switch, and the consequences that would have for those who took those shots. In short, because of the long-term persistence of the spike protein, instead of staying in the arm and being gone in a couple of days as was promised, that persistent exposure, lasting months, years or potentially indefinitely, instead trains the immune system to ignore and disregard a viral infection. Similarly to the archetypal case of pollens, when an otherwise healthy immune system encounters a foreign body, and it persists for long enough, the body undergoes a cascading response switching between IgG subclasses from one, to two, to three, and eventually arriving at IgG4.

IgG4 is called the anti-antibody. Every antibody subclass serves as a flag for the immune system. With classes one through three, and from the broader IgM/IgA types that will bind to nearly everything, versus the custom-made IgG type that is produced to bind to one specific antigen, one recognizable part of some foreign body, the antibody activates the rest of the immune response; the complement cascade begins, various immune cells release signaling chemokines and cytokines to recruit immune cells to the site of the infection, and the immune response begins in earnest. In contrast, IgG4 serves the opposite purpose; the immune cells that meet it will be disabled, the local complement cascade will be interrupted and pacified, and the immune system is told, “Don’t worry about this one. He’s harmless.”

This is a necessary adaptation to prevent an otherwise damaging inflammatory response to ever-present foreign bodies such as pervasive pollen in the spring. The failure of this mechanism, among others, manifests as hayfever; a completely pointless, damaging inflammatory response is induced, where none is necessary. A few molecules of pollen (generally) aren’t actually going to hurt you; IgG4 is among the body’s mechanisms to recognize that, and call off the cavalry.

What you don’t want is an IgG4 response to a replicating pathogen that is going to harm you - and that’s exactly what the mRNA shots are, quite foreseeably, causing.

A new pre-print study:

Class switching toward IgG4 six months after primary mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in kidney patients | medRxiv

just published from the University of Amsterdam, has confirmed exactly what we said was going to happen: after a long delay, up to six months or more after taking at least two shots, the immune response in mRNA vaccinees eventually switches to the non-inflammatory IgG4 subclass.

This is bad news bears for, it appears, anybody that took those shots.

The Study

The researchers followed four cohorts of patients undergoing treatment for kidney disease. The study included only those who had taken at least two COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines,” and studied the patients’ immunologically healthy, unvaccinated family members or close associates for their control groups. Baseline levels were measured 28 days after vaccination, with IgG4 consisting of 3-5%, versus IgG1 at 55-65%; later, between two and six months after their second dose, almost all of the studied patients had substantially elevated anti-Spike IgG4 levels, up to five times their starting prevalence at 10-15%, with subtypes two and three having all but vanished, and IgG1 levels remaining stable.

This is an interesting development. In a full class switch, IgG1 tends to vanish almost completely, to be replaced with IgG4 almost exclusively. Here, only IgG2 and IgG3 vanished, and IgG4, rather than completely taking over, was only elevated in the response, with IgG1 proportions remaining stable.

Complete vs Partial Class Switch

The subtlety of the switch belies its effect. IgG4 is a potent immunosuppressant; it does not need to completely take over to exert an outsized effect. Most of the body’s systems rely on homeostasis, and various levels of signal and countersignal, as I’ve covered in previous articles; a given pathway will be affected by both agonists and antagonists, with competing levels of “peace” versus “war” signals, and the eventual response will be determined by which is stronger at any given time.

IgG4 works a little differently. When an immune cell responds to an IgG1 antibody, it’s likely only there because it’s already been summoned to the site of infection; some cells will continue to amplify the signal, while most will just get to work attacking the foreign body. An IgG4 response, on the other hand, takes priority. The antibody manually interrupts the complement cascade, binding to C3a, preventing C3b deposition; immune cells that are told to stand down will reliably repeat and amplify those orders. One IgG4 calling for peace will be heard and amplified more loudly than ten IgG 1-3 encounters.

Of course, there is a silver lining. The fact that IgG1 remains dominant means that, at any given site of infection, there’s a reasonable chance that there won’t be any IgG4 present for at least a while, and the immune system will still be able to do most of its work. If IgG4 were dominant, the effect would be comparable to AIDS; even with an otherwise healthy immune system, even boosted in its power by the common C and D vitamins, the response would be completely shut off, and the viral infection would be free to run rampant, causing extensive tissue destruction, blood clotting, releases of stressor chemokines, and the various other unavoidable signals induced by cell death, until it ends up overwhelmed by that pervasive counter-signal; at that point, very late in the course of an infection run rampant, a cytokine storm would commence, with the body realizing it has some catching up to do against that infection; inflammatory artillery starts firing everywhere, all at once, and massive tissue destruction and death follows in relatively short order without intensive medical care, and even then it’s a crapshoot. Cytokine storms were, for a time, the leading, direct end-stage cause of death for those in hospital with severe COVID-19, frequently following bacterial infection from incompetently executed intubations causing mechanical injury to throat or lung tissue.

The Immune Microenvironment

An immune response is, generally - except in cases of cytokine storm - hyper-localized to the site of infection. Consider that everything that constitutes the immune system is carried in and by the blood, which is constantly rushing by, never static. Immune cells that were, five seconds ago, moving through your heart, calmed and idled by the absence of any antibody or chemokine signal, only momentarily find themselves, by pure chance, rushing by the site of an infection and suddenly in receipt of that alarm.

The alarm, too, travels through the blood. A cell that releases an alarm, in the form of various molecular chemokines or cytokines, will see those molecules rushed away in the bloodstream. Immune cell motility - their ability to choose a direction in which to move, to follow an alarm to its source - is based upon these cytokines. A CD8 cell in your leg, where nothing in particular is going on, will be in an environment that is saturating it with ‘peace’ signals; when it smells an alarm, it will physically move in the direction of that alarm, trying to get closer to the site of infection.

As it moves closer to the site of infection, that signal gradient will gradually shift away from the bias toward peace, and the volume of that alarm will steadily increase; closer to the infection, there are more cells releasing those alarms, and increasingly fewer ‘peace’ signals. This balance is instructive to the cell as to whether it needs to be in attack mode yet.

Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to war we go...

IGg4 is among the strongest of "peace" signals.

Spike-specific IgG4 generated post BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination is inhibitory when directly competing with functional IgG subclasses: Cell Reports

As it processes the increasingly pervasive gradient of alarm signals, and draws closer to the site of infection, it’s still being saturated with both types of general signals; if it started in the leg, and an infection is in, say, the groin, the cells in the knee are still saying everything’s fine, but that smell of danger is getting stronger. The most effective cells aren’t generalists; CD8, the heavy artillery, are largely produced specifically to respond to one epitope of one hostile foreign body. While the immune system is ever present, we don’t walk around with an army of cells ready to attack some specific pathogen or another. There’s billions of potential pathogens, with billions of potential protein conformations that could be recognized by any one cell; we can’t keep them all, in quantity, all the time. While there’s generally some present, for most types of potential infection, their quantity is minimal and residual from the last time that pathogen was seen in the body.

That is also, coincidentally, the reason why the practice of measuring actively circulating antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2, as a proxy for whether one is protected, or in need of another booster, is quite insane. That faulty approach was used to justify instructing people to get one booster after another: just one more of the genocidal frauds perpetrated on the world by Dr. Fauci.

A properly established immune response will create memory B-cells, which then sit idle until their pathogen is encountered, and only then will they flood the body with antibodies and immune cells tailored to that pathogen; it is not natural to walk around with persistently high levels of antibodies for a pathogen you have not recently encountered. That is the primary reason this class shift has occurred - that unnatural, ever-present exposure is what drives the class switch. The logic that evolved here is, effectively, that if we’ve been on consistent high alert against a foreign body, that has been continually present for six months now, and you’re still here to tell the tale, then it’s probably harmless, and your immune system should stop overreacting.

This is also, coincidentally, a major method by which immunological cancer therapies will eventually, if not rapidly effecting a complete or near-complete clearance, induce tolerance toward tumors and cancers.

An immune evasion mechanism with IgG4 playing an essential role in cancer and implication for immunotherapy - PMC

It’s exactly the same process, and irreversible; as cancers tend to evolve, under extreme pressure, numerous immune evasive features that prevent any recognition of some cells, that timer does not actually begin until the pharmaceutical immune interventions that unmask them are commenced. From the moment those tumors are made visible for an immune response, where they were previously invisible, the clock is ticking toward an IgG4 class switch and a substantial shutdown of the immune response.

 

 

[Goddess]

Nenshi (affectionately known in Alberta as "Nenshit") is taking ivermectin for his puffy face.

I thought it was just "horse dewormer"?????

Nenshi says he’s using ivermectin to treat a rare face disease

 

[Goddess]

For @LinkSoul60

As just one example that deaths increased after the jab rollout, here is an analysis of US data on covid deaths.  

It uses the "total death" data only, so it avoids the controversy over whether someone died "with" or "from" covid and the controversy of whether they died after or because of a covid vaccine.

Simply put, if covid vaccines reduced mortality, all-cause mortality in the US would have returned to 2019 levels.  It did not.  All cause mortality skyrocketed in every country with high covid vaccination levels.  But here we will just look at the US.  I'm not going back and re-doing work I've already done.

Total deaths in the US by year:

2017 - 2,804,359

2018 - 2,831,835

2019 - 2,845,819

2020 - 3,433,986  (pandemic, no vaccine)

 

This means 588,167 more people died in 2020 than in 2019.

Health authorities attribute this increase in deaths to covid-19.

If the vax reduced deaths from covid, we should see 2021 levels revert back to 2019 and years prior.

What actually occurred?

2021 - 3,449,536

Keep in mind that covid-19 had presumably killed the most vulnerable in 2020.  And in the 3rd quarter of 2021 the CDC reported that there was a high level of immunity - 68.4% had either vaccine or infection induced immunity.

But instead of declining, overall mortality increased.

This increase in mortality, actually mirrored what happened in the Pfizer trials.  In the trials, the placebo group and the vaccinated groups had approximately the same number of participants.  (Placebo group had a slightly larger number.) 

So, if the vaccine prevented deaths, there should be more deaths in the placebo group.  Agreed?

If the vaccine had no impact on mortality, the number of deaths in both groups should be roughly the same.  Agreed?

If the vaccine caused deaths, there should be more deaths in the vaccinated group.  Agreed?

So, what happened?

Official FDA documentation of the trial shows 21 deaths in the vaccinated group and 17 in the placebo group.

November 8, 2021_Summary Basis for Regulatory Action - COMIRNATY

This should have been the end of the road for this product, but instead, the FDA allowed Pfizer to explain why they felt every death was unrelated to the vaccine.  Now remember, vaccine trial participants are generally specifically chosen for their good health.

They had required Pfizer to do a statistical comparison when evaluating efficacy (which they placed at 95%) based on 162 "cases" in the placebo group vs. 8 in the vaccinated group.  A statistical comparison of whether this vaccine increased or reduced deaths should have also occurred.

If a vaccine reduces cases, but increases deaths......it needs to be re-evaluated, not rushed to market.

For the public, when covid-19 deaths decreased in the first half of 2021, media exploded with headlines touting this.

But when deaths increased dramatically in the second half of 2021 and early 2022 the headlines became "Vaccines not linked to deaths".  Around the world, health agencies stopped publishing data when higher rates of deaths & hospitalizations began occurring in the vaccinated.  The numbers were going the wrong way.  But what sticks in most people's minds are the original headlines that "vaccines saved lives."  Because the real data was quietly hidden away from you.

I saved this screenshot from the Manitoba dashboard.  This was the last data published on the Manitoba dashboard.

The problem with studies such as the one you posted, is that they don't account for confounders like:

• vaccinated people are less likely to be tested for covid or coded for covid death.
• the studies don't account for people who died of the vaccine

All-cause mortality data cuts through all the confounders.

I could go on and may continue this further later.

But I am really hoping you are able to understand what I presented here.

 

 

 

Edited March 18 by Goddess

[Goddess]

In a major win for the vaccine injured, the CDC has finally moved to officially recognize covid-19 vaccine injury with a new ICD10 code.

Up til now, with no code available for doctors to report covid-19 vaccine injuries, there has been no tracking of them, no accountability.

T50.B25x - Adverse effect of covid-19 vaccines.

[User]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

If the vax reduced deaths from covid, we should see 2021 levels revert back to 2019 and years prior.

This is such lousy logic. No, this would not happen at all if unvaccinated people continued dying as well as fewer vaccinated. 

 

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, User said:

This is such lousy logic. No, this would not happen at all if unvaccinated people continued dying as well as fewer vaccinated. 

 

The confounders to your argument would be:

• percentage of vax uptake in the population, which we know was very high in both Canada and the US
• a large portion of unvaccinated would have natural immunity
• the data shows higher rates of death and hospitalization amongst the vaccinated
• the vax does not confer immunity

Your argument is invalid unless you account for those confounders.

[User]

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The confounders to your argument would be:

• percentage of vax uptake in the population, which we know was very high in both Canada and the US
• a large portion of unvaccinated would have natural immunity
• the data shows higher rates of death and hospitalization amongst the vaccinated
• the vax does not confer immunity

Your argument is invalid unless you account for those confounders.

-And yet, the unvaccinated still died. You can't claim that just because there is a vaccine rollout, deaths should go back to pre-pandemic levels. The pandemic is still happening, and people are still dying. 

-There is no evidence to suggest that people en masse had any natural immunity to COVID. Sick people, unhealthy people, old people were still more vulnerable.

-No, the data doesn't show that. The data shows that the majority of deaths were from unvaccinated. 

-The vax did in fact lower death and severe illness requiring hospitalizations. 

 

 

 

[Goddess]

Another factor to consider, the number of deaths claimed to be caused by covid-19 is unprecedented as compared to all other diseases that we are vaccinated against.

CDC data shows plainly that for most diseases, there were only about a few dozen or a few hundred deaths per year PRIOR to the introduction of a vaccine for any given disease.  And these deaths typically occurred before there were significant advances in both general and acute medical care, universal sanitation, etc.

In contrast, the CDC claims covid-19 killed hundreds of thousands per year.  Meaning, even for a disease they claimed killed so many, with far more advanced medical technology, billions of taxpayer dollars and over 80% vax rate - they cannot show the vaccines reduced overall mortality.

The claim that "vaccines saved millions of lives"  - can be traced back to a citation from the Commonwealth Fund.  It's not a peer-reviewed study.  It's a blog.  The blog was based on a mathematical model.

We have to be careful of the evidence we are relying on to make grandiose claims.

If you went to court with a blog that used a mathematical model, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

You can't point to data that doesn't exist.

 

 

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, User said:

And yet, the unvaccinated still died.

And so did the vaccinated.

6 minutes ago, User said:

There is no evidence to suggest that people en masse had any natural immunity to COVID

Did you not read my post above?  The CDC said over 68% had immunity either from natural or vaccine-induced.  Are you disputing their claim?  I actually believe it was higher, if the number of "cases" claimed were real.  Each one would have had natural immunity.

6 minutes ago, User said:

The data shows that the majority of deaths were from unvaccinated.

It doesn't.  You're incorrect.

6 minutes ago, User said:

The vax did in fact lower death and severe illness requiring hospitalizations. 

 

I concur that it had a limited time frame to do so for some vulnerable populations.  But then deaths increased.  Both in real life and in the trials.  Again, a vax that decreases cases initially but increases deaths overall, should never have been marketed or mandated.

Edited March 18 by Goddess

[User]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And so did the vaccinated.

Not as many. To the point, the unvaccinated continued to die, which would mean deaths would not go back to pre-pandemic levels. 

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Did you not read my post above?  The CDC said over 68% had immunity either from natural or vaccine-induced.  Are you disputing their claim?  I actually believe it was higher, if the number of "cases" claimed were real.  Each one would have had natural immunity.

That "immunity" comes from SURVIVING Covid, not never getting it in the first place. That was my point. You can get immunity far more safely from a vaccine vs surviving the virus. 

That is not an option for older people, sick people, or unhealthy people. You can't expect them to all risk severe illness and death for natural immunity. 

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It doesn't.  You're incorrect.

It does. I have already had this argument with West and proven him wrong with the data over and over again. 

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I concur that it had a limited time frame to do so for some vulnerable populations.  But then deaths increased.  Both in real life and in the trials.  Again, a vax that decreases cases initially but increases deaths overall, should never have been marketed or mandated.

Deaths increased... how? That matters. If more and more unvaccinated continue to die, what does that have to do with saying something about the Covid vaccine?

 

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, User said:

-And yet, the unvaccinated still died. You can't claim that just because there is a vaccine rollout, deaths should go back to pre-pandemic levels. The pandemic is still happening, and people are still dying. 

-There is no evidence to suggest that people en masse had any natural immunity to COVID. Sick people, unhealthy people, old people were still more vulnerable.

-No, the data doesn't show that. The data shows that the majority of deaths were from unvaccinated. 

-The vax did in fact lower death and severe illness requiring hospitalizations. 

 

 

 

Basically your argument is that deaths for a particular disease SHOULD GO UP after mass vaccinating for said disease.

How odd.

I don't think I wish to engage you further.  I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about.

[User]

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Another factor to consider, the number of deaths claimed to be caused by covid-19 is unprecedented as compared to all other diseases that we are vaccinated against.

CDC data shows plainly that for most diseases, there were only about a few dozen or a few hundred deaths per year PRIOR to the introduction of a vaccine for any given disease.  And these deaths typically occurred before there were significant advances in both general and acute medical care, universal sanitation, etc.

In contrast, the CDC claims covid-19 killed hundreds of thousands per year.  Meaning, even for a disease they claimed killed so many, with far more advanced medical technology, billions of taxpayer dollars and over 80% vax rate - they cannot show the vaccines reduced overall mortality.

The claim that "vaccines saved millions of lives"  - can be traced back to a citation from the Commonwealth Fund.  It's not a peer-reviewed study.  It's a blog.  The blog was based on a mathematical model.

We have to be careful of the evidence we are relying on to make grandiose claims.

If you went to court with a blog that used a mathematical model, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

You can't point to data that doesn't exist.

 

 

Yes, they can show vaccines reduced both severe illness and death FOR THOSE WHO WERE VACCINATED

There are so many studies on this I could post them all day long.

"After weighting for demographic factors and 41 underlying health conditions, the researchers found that vaccinated adults had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID  and a 25% lower risk of all-cause mortality. 

Further analysis showed that vaccinated people consistently had a lower risk of death, regardless of the cause. Mortality was 29% lower within 6 months for vaccinated adults."

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/mrna-covid-vaccines-tied-drop-death-rate-4-years#:~:text=After weighting for demographic factors,low rate of serious complications.

Meaning  These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines offered protection against hospitalization and severe in-hospital outcomes during the 2024-2025 season, in which multiple JN.1 lineages evolved and circulated.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2844612

[User]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Basically your argument is that deaths for a particular disease SHOULD GO UP after mass vaccinating for said disease.

How odd.

I don't think I wish to engage you further.  I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about.

No, not my argument at all. 

Depends on how deadly and harmful the disease is, how contagious, how many are infected... 

My argument is that it is illogical for you to claim that just because people are vaccinated, overall deaths should go down to the same rates as before the Pandemic. COVID was a very contagious and deadly disease and vaccination did not happen overnight, it took a campaign to achieve high levels and STILL the unvaccinated continued to die and the vaccine was not a magic shield, it reduced risk of death and serious illness, it did not stop it. 

So why would deaths be presumed to go down to pre-pandemic levels when unvaccinated were still getting sick and dying as well as fewer people who got vaccinated? 

Not only do I have a clue as to what I am talking about, but I also understand basic logic here. 

You want to run away because you are being called out. 

[Goddess]

Just now, User said:

You want to run away because you are being called out. 

No, I want to leave the discussion with you because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Tell me this:  Are you willing to put your vaccine beliefs on the line against a lawyer who has been taking vaccines to court for decades?

Because for me, here's the problem with you and others here - a lot of your talking points have already been proven to be false in court, using CDC studies and data and their very best vaccinologists.  Including the illustrious godfather of vaccines - Stanley Plotkin.  

Because you don't know the start of everything, you try to jump in somewhere in the middle of vaccine education and it makes it really difficult when you don't even know the basics.

 

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, User said:

No, not my argument at all. 

Depends on how deadly and harmful the disease is, how contagious, how many are infected...

Riiiiight.

So........ "sometimes" mass vaccinating for a disease should make deaths from that disease go up?

Really hard to take you seriously.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No, I want to leave the discussion with you because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Tell me this:  Are you willing to put your vaccine beliefs on the line against a lawyer who has been taking vaccines to court for decades?

Because for me, here's the problem with you and others here - a lot of your talking points have already been proven to be false in court, using CDC studies and data and their very best vaccinologists.  Including the illustrious godfather of vaccines - Stanley Plotkin.  

Because you don't know the start of everything, you try to jump in somewhere in the middle of vaccine education and it makes it really difficult when you don't even know the basics.

 

What do you mean, put my beliefs on the line against a lawyer?

I am stating facts and basic logic right here, right now. 

These are not talking points, just basic facts. 

If you have a court case you want to reference, then let's see it. 

 

[User]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Riiiiight.

So........ "sometimes" mass vaccinating for a disease should make deaths from that disease go up?

Really hard to take you seriously.

Yet again, you keep using these words like "make" or "should," which are things I have not said. 

You completely ignored what I said:

Depends on how deadly and harmful the disease is, how contagious, how many are infected... 

My argument is that it is illogical for you to claim that just because people are vaccinated, overall deaths should go down to the same rates as before the Pandemic. COVID was a very contagious and deadly disease and vaccination did not happen overnight, it took a campaign to achieve high levels and STILL the unvaccinated continued to die and the vaccine was not a magic shield, it reduced risk of death and serious illness, it did not stop it. 

So why would deaths be presumed to go down to pre-pandemic levels when unvaccinated were still getting sick and dying as well as fewer people who got vaccinated? 

[Goddess]

21 minutes ago, User said:

What do you mean, put my beliefs on the line against a lawyer?

I am stating facts and basic logic right here, right now. 

These are not talking points, just basic facts. 

If you have a court case you want to reference, then let's see it. 

 

No.  If you want to read the information, it's better if you see it yourself and can look up the references yourself.

You can thank Aaron Siri for forcing Pfizer to release their trial data.  They wanted it hidden for 75 years and Mr. Siri was the lawyer who took them to court and got the documentation released.

Although I suspect you agree with Pfizer on that one, as well.

For instance, people claim that there are mountains of studies that show vaccines do not cause autism.  Mr. Siri has gone to court over this for decades.  The CDC, FDA, etc - the truth is, they have no studies that show that.

[User]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

No.  If you want to read the information, it's better if you see it yourself and can look up the references yourself.

You can thank Aaron Siri for forcing Pfizer to release their trial data.  They wanted it hidden for 75 years and Mr. Siri was the lawyer who took them to court and got the documentation released.

Although I suspect you agree with Pfizer on that one, as well.

For instance, people claim that there are mountains of studies that show vaccines do not cause autism.  Mr. Siri has gone to court over this for decades.  The CDC, FDA, etc - the truth is, they have no studies that show that.

This current discussion was not about:

-Forcing Pfizer to release its trial data 🚫

-Vaccines causing autism 🚫

What the discussion was about:

-Your awful logic of saying that deaths should have immediately gone down after the COVID vaccine to levels before the Pandemic ✅

 

 

[Goddess]

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, User said:

Your awful logic of saying that deaths should have immediately gone down after the COVID vaccine to levels before the Pandemic 

Well your logic is that they should go UP and that means they're working, so......   🤣

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Your awful logic of saying that deaths should have immediately gone down after the COVID vaccine to levels before the Pandemic ✅

My logic was used in court and it won, so...... maybe YOU should go up against Mr. Siri in court.  You seem to know more than the CDC.  AND Stanley Plotkin! You should call them and let them know that your logic is winning on a political discussion board, so you can surely take on Mr. Siri in a court of law.

Edited March 18 by Goddess

[User]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

 

 

 

 

Well your logic is that they should go UP and that means they're working, so......   🤣

Once again, that has not been nor ever was my argument. I have corrected you twice before now. The fact that you have to keep making up crap to argue against only further shows the weakness of your position here. 

Why do you keep posting crap about autism? The discussion is not about autism. 

 

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

My logic was used in court and it won, so...... maybe YOU should go up against Mr. Siri in court.  You seem to know more than the CDC.  You should call them and let them know that your logic is winning on a political discussion board, so you can surely take on Mr. Siri in a court of law.

Well, feel free to show that then. You have not so far. 

 

[Goddess]

Just now, User said:

Once again, that has not been nor ever was my argument. I have corrected you twice before now. The fact that you have to keep making up crap to argue against only further shows the weakness of your position here. 

Why do you keep posting crap about autism? The discussion is not about autism. 

 

You asked for a court case.