• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Covid Vaccine

Sure, Tim. What were you saying about when multiple sources cover a story then it’s relevant?




Does an industry (the MSM) attacking their #1 competitor (Fox and Tucker) trying to destroy him mitigate the point that Tucker is a newsman?

200w.webp
 
And I love how you point out that I misspelled Merriam in desperation.

You know, it's sort of a ground rule that if you want to debate someone and attempt to appear smarter than that someone, you at least at the very basic level can spell.

You’re the one going against the advice of every major medical association.

How so? I'm following the advice of doctors from places like Johns Hopkins and Stanford and countless other global medical organizations that tell us the naturally immune are protected. I'm following the science that is...the science. Even your WashPo agrees.

 
Sure, Tim. What were you saying about when multiple sources cover a story then it’s relevant?




******* Floggy - I responded to this bullshit take months ago, quoted the case at length. The case was thrown out on 1st amendment grounds because part of Carlson's monologue was obvious parody, not a reporting of facts. That's it, you dumb ******* queef.

******* stupid liberal quisling bootlickers - too stupid to read the ******* case I LINKED, too dumb to understand my prior evisceration of this very same stupid, inane, inaccurate pablum.
 
Remember when Trump was accused killing a few hundred thousand people with Covid? Stood there, answered questions, took the shots.

And here is our fearless leader being asked about the deaths under his watch. To Biden, it's a ******* joke. He just laughs. And nary a Liberal can be found now to give a damn after spending a year losing their collective minds over Trump and Covid. Ohhh, the hypocrisy.

 
Last edited:
Here is my prior post, Floggy, quoted in full, you stupid lazy dumbshit dick-licking *******-cleaning ****-for-brains know-nothing douchebag cum-guzzling cockholster piece of rancid maggot-infested ****.
The 1st Amendment does not give a person the right to lie. If it did, Tucker Carlson wouldn’t have to give the legal defense of “No reasonable person would take me seriously”.

For the third time, you are the one lying about the decision in the Carlson case. Outright lying because I previously gave you the true facts, The judge correctly found that Carlson was not actually accusing McDougal of the crime of extortion and was simply using hyperbole (that means exaggeration or overstatement, since I know big words are hard for you) to make his point. Here is part of what the judge actually held:


Plaintiff’s understanding focuses only on specific words Mr. Carlson stated, taken entirely out of context of what preceded them and what followed. In particular, Ms. McDougal emphasizes that Mr. Carlson reiterated to his viewers “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed,” Am. Compl. ¶ 10, before he went on to state, “Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money . . . [F]or whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Id. But, immediately before these statements, Mr. Carlson laid out that he was “stipulating” to these assertions “for the sake of argument.” See Episode Transcript. And, as the segment continued, Mr. Carlson stated his opinion that Ms. McDougal’s alleged conduct “sounds like a classic case of extortion.” Id. It is true that Mr. Carlson repeatedly asserted that the conduct was extortion during a debate with a guest commentator in which Mr. Carlson also described the payment from Cohen to McDougal as “paying off someone who is extorting you, threatening to make public details of your personal life, if she doesn’t get paid.” See Episode Transcript. But there can be no doubt that Mr. Carlson did so as hyperbole to promote debate on a matter of public concern. As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual representations and, therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation. For this reason, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on this ground is granted.
Click to expand...


Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096, 1108 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[A]ccusations of extortion are a familiar rhetorical device. We all know of colloquial or hyperbolic uses of the term. Although the term has a derogatory meaning when used either way, we cannot assume that the term always refers to a crime or similarly heinous conduct. Like with other words, context matters.”); Small Bus. Bodyguard Inc. v. House of Moxie, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 290, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“It is hyperbole, just like her exaggerated statement that she was suffering from ‘varying degrees of what many people might view as extortion, manipulation, fraud, and deceit.’ And hyperbole is ‘simply not actionable’ for defamation.” (quoting Gross v. N.Y. Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146, 152, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, 623 N.E.2d 1163 (1993))).

Read the decision, rather than repeating some idiotic blurb you slurped up from Media Matters.


McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) case opinion from the Southern District of New York US Federal District Court

law.justia.com


Second, the 1st amendment most certainly protects "lies" to a significant degree.


Attempts to silence individuals through defamation suits clashes head-on with the First Amendment and nearly two centuries of jurisprudence based squarely on the principle that "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe…").

The First Amendment is grounded on the fundamental idea that society benefits from a full and free exchange of ideas and opinions. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 266 (explaining that the First Amendment is designed "to secure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.") (internal quotes omitted); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 488 (1957) ("The fundamental freedom of speech and press have contributed greatly to the development and well-being of our free society and are indispensable to its continued growth.").


Rickert v Washington, a 2007 decision of the Washington Supreme Court, considered whether a political candidate could be punished for telling deliberate lies about her opponent in a political campaign. Voting 5 to 4, the court held that Marilou Rickert, a Green Party candidate for the State Senate, could not be fined for falsely claiming in a campaign brochure that one of her opponents "voted to close a facility for the developmentally challenged." The Court's majority said the state law "naively assumes that the government is capable of correctly and consistently negotiating the thin line between fact and opinion in political speech."

United States v Alvarez
(2012) raised the question of whether the First Amendment allowed prosecution of a newly elected member of a California water board who introduced himself to a group of citizen as a 25-year Marine veteran who had been "awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor." Alvarez was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Act which authorizes imprisonment for anyone who "falsely represents himself or herself...to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States." The Supreme Court, on a 6 to 3 vote, affirmed the Ninth Circuit decision overturning Alvarez's conviction. Justice Kennedy (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) applied strict scrutiny to the law and noted that content-based restrictions on speech were almost always unconstitutional. Justices Breyer and Kagan, concurring, said intermediate scrutiny should apply to false statements, but that the Stolen Valor Act must fall, because it applied too broadly, even to false claims made to family and friends in private, for example.
Click to expand...

Does the First Amendment Protect Lying?


Cases, notes, and questions on the issue of whether the Constitution protects lies

The problem here is that eminently qualified professionals - immunologists, epidemiologists, Ph.D.'s, pharmacological experts - simply disagree with the government narrative.

That's it. And that is the speech most deserving of protection.

And one thing is patently clear - you are unqualified to criticize or challenge expert opinions by immunologists, epidemiologists, Ph.D.'s, and pharmacological experts about the Chinese flu, origins, treatments, the vaccine, etc.

Just as you are patently unqualified to render legal opinions on the 1st Amendment.


Uh, earth being the center of the universe was NOT scientific fact, it was indeed, misinformation.

You are not very bright, are you?

The scientific method is to pose a theory and test it with experimentation and observation. If the theory proves correct under the test, it is deemed a scientific "fact" until later testing and theorizing proves the earlier scientific "fact" wrong, or incomplete, or inaccurate.

That does not make the revised or now-rejected scientific "fact" any less of a fact when it was held to be the prevailing scientific "fact."
 

Top soccer star retires due to ‘heart condition’… He promoted the Vaccine​



 
Does an industry (the MSM) attacking their #1 competitor (Fox and Tucker) trying to destroy him mitigate the point that Tucker is a newsman?

200w.webp
Carlson’s own legal defense mitigated that he most certainly is not a newsman.
 
******* Floggy - I responded to this bullshit take months ago, quoted the case at length. The case was thrown out on 1st amendment grounds because part of Carlson's monologue was obvious parody, not a reporting of facts. That's it, you dumb ******* queef.

******* stupid liberal quisling bootlickers - too stupid to read the ******* case I LINKED, too dumb to understand my prior evisceration of this very same stupid, inane, inaccurate pablum.
So obvious parody is news? Great argument!
 
Carlson’s own legal defense mitigated that he most certainly is not a newsman.

Lying **********.

Floggy is a worthless lying bag of ****. I proved, weeks ago, that his claim in this regard is a demonstrable lie. I quoted the case - you know, the actual PUBLISHED DECISION. I showed he is lying about this and he keeps repeating the lie.

Plaintiff’s understanding focuses only on specific words Mr. Carlson stated, taken entirely out of context of what preceded them and what followed. In particular, Ms. McDougal emphasizes that Mr. Carlson reiterated to his viewers “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed,” Am. Compl. ¶ 10, before he went on to state, “Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money . . . [F]or whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Id. But, immediately before these statements, Mr. Carlson laid out that he was “stipulating” to these assertions “for the sake of argument.” See Episode Transcript. And, as the segment continued, Mr. Carlson stated his opinion that Ms. McDougal’s alleged conduct “sounds like a classic case of extortion.” Id. It is true that Mr. Carlson repeatedly asserted that the conduct was extortion during a debate with a guest commentator in which Mr. Carlson also described the payment from Cohen to McDougal as “paying off someone who is extorting you, threatening to make public details of your personal life, if she doesn’t get paid.” See Episode Transcript. But there can be no doubt that Mr. Carlson did so as hyperbole to promote debate on a matter of public concern. As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual representations and, therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation. For this reason, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on this ground is granted.

Stop lying, you miserable, worthless ****.
 
Carlson’s own legal defense mitigated that he most certainly is not a newsman.

The idiocy of the current rabbit hole you've gone down is comical. Like arguing that a pencil is...not a pencil. Or that an apple is not an apple.

What industry does Tucker work in? What "NEWS" channel is Tucker employed by?

1639587406789.png
1639587435906.png
1639587545399.png
 
So obvious parody is news? Great argument!

Let me explain in a fashion that even somebody as stupid and moronic and biased as you can understand:
  • Those hosting political shows present facts, argument, opinion AND humor.
  • The humor is not a fact.
  • The fact may be funny.
  • The opinion can be humorous.
  • That combination does not make the humorous statement defamatory.
  • You are a stupid lying ******* leftist shill loser nobody.
All of the above are true. Examples of combination of fact and humor:

Floggy enjoys getting shots. It's the only time a woman will touch him. Floggy is an imbecile - he thinks sticking vegetables up his *** will help him meet the minimum daily dietary requirements.
 
Of course it is. It is for you, it is for me and just about everyone else. There is nary a topic in America these days that isn't ideological. It's ok for people to admit it. I'm not sure why no one will.
Yep, everyone has opinions based on their own personal beliefs and values, and I respect those that admit their bias based on how they choose to live their lives, after all this still is America, for the moment anyway. It does appear, to me at least, while factoring in my admitted bias, that the left simply preaches at those they disagree with, cancelling them unless they fall in line with their beliefs. And that's where I have a problem.
 
Oh my, oh my.


URGENT: A huge Israeli study shows natural Covid immunity is far superior to the vaccine-generated kind​

And getting vaccinated if you have natural immunity appears basically useless.​


mRNA vaccine protection from Covid is far weaker than natural immunity and declines very fast, according to a new study of almost 6 million people in Israel.

During the summer Covid wave, more than 140,000 Israelis who had been vaccinated but not received a booster shot became infected with Covid. Put another way, in just two months, about 1 out of every 20 vaccinated Israelis became infected with Sars-Cov-2.

Natural immunity - the protection following infection and recovery - lasts much longer, the study shows.

In fact, people who had already had Covid once had better protection from the virus more than a year later than people who had been vaccinated only three months before.

The gap was even larger in cases of severe infection.


Vaccinated people were more than five times as likely to develop severe infections than people with natural immunity. Only 25 out of roughly 300,000 Israelis with natural immunity developed severe Covid infections in the summer wave - compared to almost 1,400 vaccinated Israelis.

The difference did not result from gaps in age between vaccinated and recovered people. People over 60 benefitted even more from natural immunity relative to vaccination than did younger people.

1639587758029.png

The study also showed that giving people who had natural immunity a vaccine dose did little to lower rates of infection for them, raising the question of why they should ever be vaccinated.

Finally, the study offered a disturbing signal that vaccination may ultimately interfere with the development of lasting immunity in people who are infected after being vaccinated.

A booster shot did lower the risk of infection about to the level of peak protection from natural immunity - but because the study ended in September, it is impossible to know how long that protection may last.

All these findings come out of a database of Covid infections among almost 6 million Israelis in August and September, at the peak of the fourth Covid wave in Israel. The database contains information on essentially every Israeli over age 16 who was fully vaccinated or had previously had a Covid infection.

The paper, “Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity,” is currently available as a preprint at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.full.pdf

Oddly, the paper’s title does not mention waning of vaccine immunity, although the figures it presents make the severity of the problem clear. Such shyness is common among researchers presenting bad news about Covid vaccines - they will offer the data, but not highlight it.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetc...8a86-bdd7-45b1-ae6d-4173a663e34f_750x633.jpeg
1639587783126.png

Israel has exclusively used the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, began mass vaccinations before almost any other country, and has an excellent health care database. As a result, it has among the best information on the effectiveness of the shots. It offers far more complete data than the United States.
The vaccine failure over the summer in Israel - following apparent success in the spring - has presaged a similar pattern across the United States and Europe, and a similar desperate campaign for boosters.

In this paper, the researchers examined infection rates among five different groups of Israelis - those with natural immunity, those who had received boosters, those who were vaccinated but had not received boosters, those with natural immunity who had also received a vaccine, and those who had become infected after being vaccinated.

The researchers specifically excluded unvaccinated Israelis without natural immunity from the comparison because Israel has very few of them and they are “unrepresentative of the overall population.”

In other words, the researchers explicitly denied the validity of the comparison that vaccine advocates make when they compare Covid rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated people in places with high vaccination rates (a point I have been trying to make for months).

The researchers found that the highest rates of infection by far came in people who had been vaccinated at least six months before. They had a nearly 3 percent chance of being infected per month (the researchers present the figure as 89 per 100,000 “person-days.”)

Those people were four times as likely to be infected as newly vaccinated people. They were also seven times as likely to be infected as people who had natural immunity from an infection six to eight months before, and three times as likely as those who had natural immunity from an infection more than year before.

A single vaccination dose in people with natural immunity temporarily produced strong protection, the researchers found. But after six months, the advantage had faded to within the margin of statistical error. In other words, so-called hybrid immunity hardly appeared to exist after six months - natural immunity was once again providing the protection.


Nor did vaccination appear to stop severe disease.

Nearly every case of severe disease in the database - almost 1,400 of the roughly 1,600 cases - came in vaccinated but unboosted people. Boosters did appear to reduce severe disease significantly. Again, though, the study covered less than two months after the booster program began, when boosters should be at peak effectiveness.

Finally, the study showed that people who had been vaccinated and then been infected and recovered were actually more likely to be infected again six months later than those who had only “pure” natural immunity.


That finding, though based on a small number of cases, adds to worrying data that mRNA vaccination may actually wrong-foot our immune systems in the long run and make it harder to build lifelong protection against Covid.
 
Meanwhile, Fauci and the shot-worshippers continue to ignore treatment measures:

Pfizer said Friday that its easy-to-administer Covid-19 pill, used in combination with a widely used HIV drug, cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89% in high-risk adults who’ve been exposed to the virus.

It’s now the second antiviral pill behind Merck’s to demonstrate strong effectiveness for treating Covid at the first sign of illness. If cleared by regulators, it would likely be a game changer in the ongoing global pandemic fight.


So let's put the data together. Natural immunity gives greater protection than the shot and for a longer time. The non-risk population has about a 0.3% chance of fatality from the Chinese flu. The at-risk - elderly, obese, immuno-compromised - have about a 4% to 5% chance of fatality from the Chinese flu and they are the one group driving the deaths and hospitalizations.

If the treatment reduces the hospitalization and death of the at-risk group by 89%, then the at-risk population will have about a 0.4% to 0.5% chance of hospitalization or death from the Chinese flu.

Together with natural immunity, Ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, the treatment measures are defeating the Chinese flu.
 
Together with natural immunity, Ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, the treatment measures are defeating the Chinese flu.

Wrong counselor. Given they are not being used as they should be, they are not defeating the Chinese flu.

They should be.

Which begs the question...what's the game here?
 
Which begs the question...what's the game here?

My opinion: More dead = more fear = more power for the stupid, lying political class for whom the "mandates" don't even apply and their very wealthy donors who make even more from shutdowns and government edicts and government contracts.
 
Remember when Trump was accused killing a few hundred thousand people with Covid? Stood there, answered questions, took the shots.

And here is our fearless leader being asked about the deaths under his watch. To Biden, it's a ******* joke. He just laughs. And nary a Liberal can be found now to give a damn after spending a year losing their collective minds over Trump and Covid. Ohhh, the hypocrisy.


Wait, according to you, Trump killed untold more and created God knows how many eventual side effects with Operation Warp Speed. Right? Lest you forget, this IS the Covid VACCINE thread.
 
Here is my prior post, Floggy, quoted in full, you stupid lazy dumbshit dick-licking *******-cleaning ****-for-brains know-nothing douchebag cum-guzzling cockholster piece of rancid maggot-infested ****.
Triggered much?
 
Oh my, oh my.


URGENT: A huge Israeli study shows natural Covid immunity is far superior to the vaccine-generated kind​

And getting vaccinated if you have natural immunity appears basically useless.​


mRNA vaccine protection from Covid is far weaker than natural immunity and declines very fast, according to a new study of almost 6 million people in Israel.

During the summer Covid wave, more than 140,000 Israelis who had been vaccinated but not received a booster shot became infected with Covid. Put another way, in just two months, about 1 out of every 20 vaccinated Israelis became infected with Sars-Cov-2.

Natural immunity - the protection following infection and recovery - lasts much longer, the study shows.

In fact, people who had already had Covid once had better protection from the virus more than a year later than people who had been vaccinated only three months before.

The gap was even larger in cases of severe infection.


Vaccinated people were more than five times as likely to develop severe infections than people with natural immunity. Only 25 out of roughly 300,000 Israelis with natural immunity developed severe Covid infections in the summer wave - compared to almost 1,400 vaccinated Israelis.

The difference did not result from gaps in age between vaccinated and recovered people. People over 60 benefitted even more from natural immunity relative to vaccination than did younger people.

View attachment 7265

The study also showed that giving people who had natural immunity a vaccine dose did little to lower rates of infection for them, raising the question of why they should ever be vaccinated.

Finally, the study offered a disturbing signal that vaccination may ultimately interfere with the development of lasting immunity in people who are infected after being vaccinated.

A booster shot did lower the risk of infection about to the level of peak protection from natural immunity - but because the study ended in September, it is impossible to know how long that protection may last.

All these findings come out of a database of Covid infections among almost 6 million Israelis in August and September, at the peak of the fourth Covid wave in Israel. The database contains information on essentially every Israeli over age 16 who was fully vaccinated or had previously had a Covid infection.

The paper, “Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity,” is currently available as a preprint at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.full.pdf

Oddly, the paper’s title does not mention waning of vaccine immunity, although the figures it presents make the severity of the problem clear. Such shyness is common among researchers presenting bad news about Covid vaccines - they will offer the data, but not highlight it.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/048b8a86-bdd7-45b1-ae6d-4173a663e34f_750x633.jpeg
View attachment 7267

Israel has exclusively used the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, began mass vaccinations before almost any other country, and has an excellent health care database. As a result, it has among the best information on the effectiveness of the shots. It offers far more complete data than the United States.
The vaccine failure over the summer in Israel - following apparent success in the spring - has presaged a similar pattern across the United States and Europe, and a similar desperate campaign for boosters.

In this paper, the researchers examined infection rates among five different groups of Israelis - those with natural immunity, those who had received boosters, those who were vaccinated but had not received boosters, those with natural immunity who had also received a vaccine, and those who had become infected after being vaccinated.

The researchers specifically excluded unvaccinated Israelis without natural immunity from the comparison because Israel has very few of them and they are “unrepresentative of the overall population.”

In other words, the researchers explicitly denied the validity of the comparison that vaccine advocates make when they compare Covid rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated people in places with high vaccination rates (a point I have been trying to make for months).

The researchers found that the highest rates of infection by far came in people who had been vaccinated at least six months before. They had a nearly 3 percent chance of being infected per month (the researchers present the figure as 89 per 100,000 “person-days.”)

Those people were four times as likely to be infected as newly vaccinated people. They were also seven times as likely to be infected as people who had natural immunity from an infection six to eight months before, and three times as likely as those who had natural immunity from an infection more than year before.

A single vaccination dose in people with natural immunity temporarily produced strong protection, the researchers found. But after six months, the advantage had faded to within the margin of statistical error. In other words, so-called hybrid immunity hardly appeared to exist after six months - natural immunity was once again providing the protection.


Nor did vaccination appear to stop severe disease.

Nearly every case of severe disease in the database - almost 1,400 of the roughly 1,600 cases - came in vaccinated but unboosted people. Boosters did appear to reduce severe disease significantly. Again, though, the study covered less than two months after the booster program began, when boosters should be at peak effectiveness.

Finally, the study showed that people who had been vaccinated and then been infected and recovered were actually more likely to be infected again six months later than those who had only “pure” natural immunity.


That finding, though based on a small number of cases, adds to worrying data that mRNA vaccination may actually wrong-foot our immune systems in the long run and make it harder to build lifelong protection against Covid.
How did the vaccine “fail” Israel this summer? And why is the title of the study different from the subject of the Berenson article?

 
Top