- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,379
- Reaction score
- 5,449
- Points
- 113
Don’t act snub? OK, and you don’t act smug! Reputable sources, or misrepresentations of reputable sources.
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 910
- Reaction score
- 1,024
- Points
- 93
Right, “bought and paid for” the conspiracy theory that explains why the other conspiracy theory is being debunked.
Our own governments standard is several years of testing a new vaccine in phase 3 alone.
Tell me why our government forced citizens to take a shot that did not pass their own standards.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,379
- Reaction score
- 5,449
- Points
- 113
Again, why do any of you trust western medicine at all? You (supposedly) have such strong convictions in these beliefs and yet all these top health systems are telling you it’s ******* nonsense.
COVID-19 vaccine myths debunked
You've likely heard about the new COVID-19 vaccines, but what should you believe? We'll set the record straight on some of the circulating myths.
COVID-19 Vaccines: Myth Versus Fact
Two of our experts review some common myths circulating about the vaccine and clear up confusion with reliable facts.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 910
- Reaction score
- 1,024
- Points
- 93
Again, why do any of you trust western medicine at all? You (supposedly) have such strong convictions in these beliefs and yet all these top health systems are telling you it’s ******* nonsense.
COVID-19 vaccine myths debunked
You've likely heard about the new COVID-19 vaccines, but what should you believe? We'll set the record straight on some of the circulating myths.www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org
COVID-19 Vaccines: Myth Versus Fact
Two of our experts review some common myths circulating about the vaccine and clear up confusion with reliable facts.www.hopkinsmedicine.org
Several years of testing seems like a good standard to me.
If you want to be their Guinea pig go ahead. It is a free country right?
But that ship has sailed.
I made a comment. I replied to his post. If you call that "reposting" fine. It was commentary, like commenting on a Facebook post.
So explain to me how that is much different than today's media? We have a thread, the Enemy of the People thread, exposing the corruptness of the media. They lie to us every day. Because it is on ABC doesn't make it any more true than a cardiologist posting a research study on Twitter. You can claim that their reporting has to pass journalistic measures, editor reviews, etc. Except...that whole machine is in on pushing known propaganda when it suits them.
There's really no denying this.
So your issue really comes down to control. So does mine/ours. Your trusted MSM media controls the narrative, often a false one. Social media lets people post what they want with a lack of control.
As a friend and co-worker of mine used to tell me often - there's truth and fiction in nearly everything you read or see. The challenge is finding the truth in it all.
Last edited:
FFS, YOU referred to data showing exactly that, Tim.
You seriously are not capable of comprehending the charts and the data.
The vaccination rate in WA State increased every month. That 10% figure of unvaccinated people isn't static. It evolved.
On March 17, 2021, WA state was 13% vaxed.
On March 17, 2021, WA state had suffered 5,152 deaths.
Did 10% of the unvaxxed population drive those deaths? Nope, because only 13% of the population was vaxed.
Stick with me.
At the beginning of October, WA was 74.5% vaxed.
At the beginning of October, WA had a total of 8,102 deaths.
From March 17 to October 1, there were a total of 2,950 deaths.
What was the % of the population that was unvaxed during that period of time? Was it 13% or 74.5%?
It was neither. The vaccination rate changed. It evolved.
That chart literally is not saying that 10% of the population, which is unvaccinated, drove those deaths.
To understand the impact of vaccinations, you HAVE to analyze the data day to day or week to week or month to month. Including the first 6 months of the data skews the results.
10% of the population that is unvaccinated did not drive all of those deaths because the population wasn't static at 10% since Feb 21. Comprende?
You quantify how many lives the vaccine saved, v natural immunity v normal human immune response and I'll respond.
In the meantime, show me a vaccine that has killed fewer humans.
Duddddeeee. You've never had an Asahi? Not making fun. Do you eat sushi? Or go to Japanese steak houses?
Grab yaself some. They come in big torpedo size cans. Good stuff. With the wasabi.
Something you ignore 9 times out of 10....
And that 1 time it supports your inane positions, you're a supporter!
Why would the FDA be sued for withholding results of Covid19 vaccine safety analyses? Shouldn't all of this be utterly transparent? Unless...there's something to hide?
The nonprofit Children’s Health Defense sued the US Food and Drug Administration for withholding the results of key COVID-19 vaccine safety analyses.
Since the start of the COVID pandemic, the FDA has acted like a proxy for Big Pharma and blocked effective treatments for the virus while at the same time approving dangerous and ineffective COVID vaccines.
The FDA lied about Ivermectin and later lied that they lied about Ivermectin.
The FDA also ignored the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of reported hospitalizations linked to the experimental COVID vaccines.
How many Americans died and continue to die due to their negligence?
The Epoch Times reported:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been sued for withholding the results of key COVID-19 vaccine safety analyses.
The FDA’s actions violate federal law, the new lawsuit, filed on Jan. 26 in federal court in Washington by the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense (CHD), alleges.
The suit is seeking the raw results from the FDA’s analyses of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The system, which the FDA runs with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accepts reports of post-vaccination adverse events.
As part of its vaccine safety monitoring, the FDA pledged to run a type of analyses called Empirical Bayesian (EB) data mining on the reports to see if any safety signals were triggered. Signals give agencies an idea of which problems may be caused by vaccines. Agencies are supposed to research signals to verify them or rule them unrelated to vaccination.
“A report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed,” the CDC says on its website.
The FDA denied CHD’s request for the results of the data mining, claiming the records are “intra-agency memoranda consisting of opinions, recommendations, and policy discussions within the deliberative process of FDA, from which factual information is not reasonably segregable.”
First Lawsuit Filed Against FDA for Withholding Dreadful Vaccine Safety Data
The nonprofit Children’s Health Defense sued the US Food and Drug Administration for withholding the results of key COVID-19 vaccine safety analyses.
Since the start of the COVID pandemic, the FDA has acted like a proxy for Big Pharma and blocked effective treatments for the virus while at the same time approving dangerous and ineffective COVID vaccines.
The FDA lied about Ivermectin and later lied that they lied about Ivermectin.
The FDA also ignored the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of reported hospitalizations linked to the experimental COVID vaccines.
How many Americans died and continue to die due to their negligence?
The Epoch Times reported:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been sued for withholding the results of key COVID-19 vaccine safety analyses.
The FDA’s actions violate federal law, the new lawsuit, filed on Jan. 26 in federal court in Washington by the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense (CHD), alleges.
The suit is seeking the raw results from the FDA’s analyses of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The system, which the FDA runs with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accepts reports of post-vaccination adverse events.
As part of its vaccine safety monitoring, the FDA pledged to run a type of analyses called Empirical Bayesian (EB) data mining on the reports to see if any safety signals were triggered. Signals give agencies an idea of which problems may be caused by vaccines. Agencies are supposed to research signals to verify them or rule them unrelated to vaccination.
“A report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed,” the CDC says on its website.
The FDA denied CHD’s request for the results of the data mining, claiming the records are “intra-agency memoranda consisting of opinions, recommendations, and policy discussions within the deliberative process of FDA, from which factual information is not reasonably segregable.”
Yup. Newsweek chose to publish this. They didn't have to.
As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.
I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.
I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.
But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.
What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.
We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and "they" responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.
We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.
Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.
Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.
When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.
Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.
And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech "misinformation" and blaming it on "scientific illiteracy" and "ignorance," the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government's opponents.
And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.
Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as "grifters" those who represented their interests. We believed "misinformation" energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view. <---sound familiar?
We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.
Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.
My motivation for writing this is simple: It's clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.
It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That's a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.
Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.
Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.
As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.
I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.
I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.
But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.
What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.
We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and "they" responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.
We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.
Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.
Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.
When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.
Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.
And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech "misinformation" and blaming it on "scientific illiteracy" and "ignorance," the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government's opponents.
And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.
Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as "grifters" those who represented their interests. We believed "misinformation" energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view. <---sound familiar?
We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.
Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.
My motivation for writing this is simple: It's clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.
It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That's a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.
Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.
Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.
This is where the term "useful idiot" comes into play.
You don't want to know what I do. Luckily my patients never complain.
What happens when one does?
Then we've got real problems because the zombie apocalypse is upon us.
I hear there is an S10 that is zombie proof.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
Several years of testing is obviously optimal but if you’re in the middle of a pandemic and people are dying, stopping people from dying might be preferable to having them wait for more testing.
Should they be mandated? No. Should people whose lives could be saved by taking them be scared into not taking them by a bunch of lies? No.
I get squirmish with blood.
With my own though, I don’t know. Back in 2011 I had a hockey puck wound that was cleaned up, stitched but swelled back up. Like an idiot I squeezed it and blood gushed out. Luckily nothing happened health wise lol. But I learned to let the body just heal.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
What do you mean “my trusted MSM”? I don’t trust anyone’s opinion. I look at sources and data. When anti-vax sites twist and distort and misrepresent data and the authors of the studies that produce that data are quoted as saying “that is not the correct interpretation of the data” I believe them. Do you believe media regularly makes up stuff that the authors of studies have said? Is that what you actually believe? Why don’t these people ever push back against the misrepresentation of what they’ve said?
Sorry I don’t have the world view that “Everything that agrees with me is real. Everything that disagrees with me is false.” Reality doesn’t work that way.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
Wow Robert Kennedy’s rabid anti-vax group suing the FDA . Color me shocked.
I’m sure this is not a publicity stunt at all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
There is nothing I disagree with here. We faced a pandemic of a novel virus and there was a lot we got wrong. That’s completely understandable. Many do not want to admit that their “side” is wrong about anything. It should never have been politicized the way it has been. Both sides are to blame for that in my opinion.
Both sides were bound to clash for quite some time. The riots in Ferguson and Baltimore back in was it 2014-2015? That was the start of the tension.
Having a novel virus amidst an election season as well proved to break it all out.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 4,796
- Reaction score
- 4,914
- Points
- 113
I have said since the beginning that the response was at minimum, worthless, and at worst, criminal. MY MILITARY TRAINING, in NBC protocols proved this to be true.
But, with that being said, I don’t fault the initial response. Where I had the problem is after the first 3 weeks, they knew they were wrong. Instead of owning up and coming clean, they chose to double and then even triple down on the lies and bad decisions.
My hope is that people are finally going to open their eyes and see the harm that was done INTENTIONALLY. I do hope that, though Oneforthebus does seem to prove that will not be the case for a large number of people.
But, with that being said, I don’t fault the initial response. Where I had the problem is after the first 3 weeks, they knew they were wrong. Instead of owning up and coming clean, they chose to double and then even triple down on the lies and bad decisions.
My hope is that people are finally going to open their eyes and see the harm that was done INTENTIONALLY. I do hope that, though Oneforthebus does seem to prove that will not be the case for a large number of people.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,023
- Reaction score
- 11,694
- Points
- 113
Bull ******* ****.
If this were actually true, then there would be corresponding and horrible death tolls in shithole countries around the globe that did not have access to this new class of wonder drug......but that did not happen, did it? This means that these stats are very flawed, but unfortunately you cannot think critically, and only give credence to that which backs your paymaster's worldview.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,023
- Reaction score
- 11,694
- Points
- 113
Excellent write up!!!
Perhaps a couple years down the road, when the indignant posters here fully remove their heads from their alimentary canals, they will come to appreciate this perspective.
Similar threads
