Covid Vaccine

[Confluence]

Exactly.

Lying *************

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Went to a party this evening, the host, a nice enough guy told me he contracted Covid 2 weeks ago and lasted for a few days.

Said he couldn't understand why, he had the initial 2 vaccines, plus 3 additional boosters. I suppressed the urge to laugh.

 

[Confluence]

Went to a party this evening, the host, a nice enough guy told me he contracted Covid 2 weeks ago and lasted for a few days.

Said he couldn't understand why, he had the initial 2 vaccines, plus 3 additional boosters. I suppressed the urge to laugh.

You can't fix stupid

 

[Booted]

You can't fix stupid

Yes you can!
With a new vaccine I invented.
It may require a 2nd dose and a booster or two..........or three. But, eventually, even the dumbest of idiots will wise up.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Went to a party this evening, the host, a nice enough guy told me he contracted Covid 2 weeks ago and lasted for a few days.

Said he couldn't understand why, he had the initial 2 vaccines, plus 3 additional boosters. I suppressed the urge to laugh.

I had someone at work cancel an appointment on Friday because they had Covid. I thought we were done with this.
I didn't ask if they had any boosters.

 

[Steeltime]

You Reich wingers believe that somebody is filling people with false information about the Chinese flu to stir fear? Take a look at how AI is handling Chinese flu questions, conspiracy theorist!!

User:

How many hospitalized patients were in the studies of Sulaiman and Mokhtari that you just quoted?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for the oversight in my previous response. To answer your question, the study by Sulaiman et al. conducted in Saudi Arabia included 106 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, while the study by Mokhtari et al. conducted in Iran included 66 hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

It is important to note that both studies had limitations, including small sample sizes and the fact that they were not randomized controlled trials. Therefore, further research is needed to fully understand the potential benefits and risks of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.

User:

The Sulaiman study says that it included 7,892 outpatients. The Mokhtari study says that it included 28,759 outpatients. Neither study included hospitalized patients as study subjects.

RebbeIO:

I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. You are correct that the studies by Sulaiman et al. and Mokhtari et al. did not include hospitalized patients as study subjects.

The study by Sulaiman et al. conducted in Saudi Arabia included 7,892 outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms who were treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. The study found that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death among the outpatients.

The study by Mokhtari et al. conducted in Iran included 28,759 outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms who were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The study found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the duration of hospitalization or the risk of death among the outpatients.

I apologize for any confusion my previous responses may have caused, and I hope this clarifies the details of the studies by Sulaiman et al. and Mokhtari et al.

User:

Why have you made numerous factual errors in the discussion above, when the facts were all published?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for any confusion or errors that I may have caused in our discussion. As an AI language model, I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me. However, I am not perfect and may make mistakes or misinterpret information at times.

I understand the importance of providing accurate information, especially when it comes to matters of public health and scientific research. I will continue to do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I appreciate your patience and understanding.

User:

This answer did not answer the question that I asked. All of the errors you made were statements contrary to facts that you verified in subsequent answers. Since you had the correct factual information, why did you cite incorrect facts?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for any confusion or frustration that my previous responses may have caused. As an AI language model, I do not intentionally provide incorrect information. However, I understand that I made errors in my previous responses, and I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that this may have caused.

I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I understand the importance of providing correct information, especially when it comes to matters of public health and scientific research. I will continue to do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I appreciate your patience and understanding.

https://brownstone.org/articles/my-conversation-with-ai-over-hydroxychloroquine/

Huh .... AI source actually lies about Hydroxychloroquine efficacy and I mean overtly LIES about the available data. Random error, of course, since I am certain that the dozens of AI sources now raise concerns about vaccines for the young or the relative low chance of significant illness for those under 50.

Right?

 

[Confluence]

You Reich wingers believe that somebody is filling people with false information about the Chinese flu to stir fear? Take a look at how AI is handling Chinese flu questions, conspiracy theorist!!

https://brownstone.org/articles/my-conversation-with-ai-over-hydroxychloroquine/

Huh .... AI source actually lies about Hydroxychloroquine efficacy and I mean overtly LIES about the available data. Random error, of course, since I am certain that the dozens of AI sources now raise concerns about vaccines for the young or the relative low chance of significant illness for those under 50.

Right?

Stalin was born too early.

He would be perfecting this AI stuff.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Will the anti-anti-vaxxers ever acknowledge when they are wrong?​

Some things just aren't debatable. When the Cleveland Clinic study first came out, it was bad news for the anti-anti-vaxxers. But a new paper made it even worse. A lot worse. Will they admit it?​

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/will-the-anti-anti-vaxxers-ever-acknowledge?

If they were honest, the CDC should be telling people NOT to get any more COVID shots according to this new study from the Cleveland Clinic.​

Executive summary
​

The anti-anti-vaxxers like to position themselves as the champions of scientific integrity.

I’m going to prove to you in this article that all of them are frauds; they are simply promoters of false government propaganda.

It’s so simple to do.

You see none of them will acknowledge that the latest Cleveland Clinic study clearly and unambiguously shows that they were all wrong about the vaccine. It’s now crystal clear the COVID vaccines make you more likely to be infected. No place to hide. No hand-waving arguments are left.

If they don’t acknowledge what this article says, you have crystal clear proof they are incapable of interpreting what scientific studies say.

The original Cleveland Clinic paper showed more vaccines —> more infections
​

See this article. Figure 2 showed clearly that the more vaccines you got, the more likely you were to be infected.

But the anti-anti-vaxers argued that there were no “adjustments” and that the paper didn’t study that result as a primary outcome.

This is the typical hand-waving desperation attempt to gaslight you into believing that the result wasn’t dispositive. They provided absolutely no evidence that their attack had a basis in science.

Now, there is a new paper by the same authors that specifically focuses on Fig. 2 and proves the effect was legitimate
​

See this superb article by Jessica Rose which talks about the new paper. Basically, the Cleveland Clinic authors addressed all the hand-waving arguments that people have made about Figure 2 and proved that they weren’t true. They made Fig. 2 the focus of the paper and did a Cox multivariable analysis on that data showing there were no confounders that could distort the result.

The result, that more vaccines make you more likely to be infected, is now the accepted hypothesis. If someone wants to re-analyze their data and show that they goofed or they fabricated the data, the burden is now on them.

This paper ends the debate. It’s time for the anti-anti-vaxxers to public acknowledge what the paper says: it’s better not to be “up to date”
​

What do you think my anti-anti-vaxxers friends will do? Admit they were wrong? Or ignore the new paper?

Here’s a list of some of the prominent anti-anti-vaxxers and government organizations. Do you think there is an honest scientist/organization on this list?

1. CDC
2. FDA
3. NIH
4. WHO
5. Peter Hotez
6. David Gorski
7. Debunk the Funk
8. Dorit Reiss
9. Susan Oliver (and her dog Cindy)
10. Skeptical Raptor
11. Reuters Fact Check (and other Fact Checkers)
12. Jonathan Jarry
13. ZDoggMD
14. Avi Bitterman
15. Eric Burnett
16. Adrian Wong
17. Ian Copeland
18. Drew Comments
19. Xeno Rasmusson
20. Neil deGrasse Tyson
21. …

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Querying the existence of a covid ‘pandemic’​

https://www.hartgroup.org/pandemic-definitions/

Words are powerful: handle with care
Covid-19 has been described as a global pandemic but does this title give it a severity and indeed fear factor way beyond its actual impact?

The word pandemic used to have a very specific meaning. It was used to describe a scenario where there was extensive incapacitation of key workers and large numbers of deaths, including young people. A genuine pandemic is not something that would have needed billions of dollars in advertising for people to even notice and fear. Using this long-established definition of the word, we conclude that there was in fact no global pandemic in 2020. The word was deliberately misapplied and weaponised against an unsuspecting public. Let us be clear, this article is not questioning the existence of a virus SARS-CoV-2 or an illness named Covid-19, but even the choice of ‘SARS’ (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) as the name for this coronavirus was already setting the scene for systematic fear-mongering.

The notion of a ‘pandemic’ was relentlessly promulgated through mainstream media to ramp up fear in the population, to help enforce unprecedented lockdowns and other extremely harmful policies (e.g school closures and universal mask wearing) and to push through Emergency Use Authorisations of novel technology mRNA and viral vector DNA products.

This would not have been possible were it not for three false premises that covid was:

1. novel;
2. extremely lethal; and
3. unprecedented.

It was none of these things. It was no more novel than numerous other viruses which emerge each year in terms of the ability to be recognised by our immune systems. It was no more lethal than bad influenza viruses of the past and was less lethal than seasonal influenza for the young. Intensive care stays were longer than have been observed with flu, though whether that was due to a virus directly or caused by our changed response to how we treated respiratory infections is unclear. Overall it was a treatable, seasonal respiratory virus mostly affecting the old and infirm.

HART has written previously on how similar the mortality was to the bad influenza winter of the year 2000. The mortality data for 2020 is unremarkable globally when compared to previous influenza seasons except perhaps in New York City and Northern Italy. In both of these outliers, the data emerging is raising uncomfortable questions about the relative contribution of the virus versus the impact of policy-related responses when considering the extraordinary number of deaths reported. In spite of these outliers, global mortality data shows no evidence of a global pandemic. It could be argued that a once in every 20 year event should not be minimised, but nor does it justify an all of society emergency response or the institution of a permanent biosecurity surveillance state.

Figure 1 showing ONS crude mortality rates since 1840


Without the highly flawed PCR case data and draconian global restrictions on doctors’ freedom to treat their patients as they saw fit, there would be nothing particularly notable about this year. Outside of PCR driven data, a small rise in the number of calls to ambulances for breathing difficulties was observed, though it is possible that hysteria and fear may be responsible for at least part of this. We might have noticed an unusually late spike in influenza-like illness but not much more. Mortality-wise, it would appear as a mid-range ‘bad flu’ year. It is worth reading the work of Professor Denis Rancourt on mortality data, who has been pointing out this inconvenient truth since early 2021.1,2

Interestingly, the WHO quietly altered the accepted definition of ‘pandemic’ in 2009, just before the so-called H1N1 ‘pandemic’. The rushed-to-market Pandemrix vaccine which was pushed hard in the face of the imaginary ‘pandemic’ was subsequently pulled from the market due to life-changing side effects (often in children), a signal picked first up in Finland but later found elsewhere.

In essence, they used exactly the same playbook in 2020, but seemed to have ironed out some of the ‘problems’ encountered the first time round. Vicious behavioural psychology tactics were the main tools used to ‘correct’ these ‘problems’. Shaming people into believing they may ‘kill granny’ was a master-stroke. They used guilt, shame and the threat of ostracism, these being some of the most powerful drivers of human behaviour. There was even an identical cast of characters; Fauci, Drosten and Gates, all reporting for duty, aided and abetted by the bought and paid for media machine working on 24 hour overdrive.

In 2003, an influenza pandemic was defined as follows:

“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

In 2009, the WHO decided, in their infinite wisdom, to get rid of the words “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” from the definition. You would think deaths and serious illness were the only meaningful characteristics of a ‘deadly pandemic’.

To successfully fight against the globalist mission creep of tyrannical public health measures, we must collectively stop stoking the ‘deadly pandemic’ fire. If we continue to allow this falsehood to embed in public consciousness, all of the unethical horrors enacted will simply be repeated for the next non-pandemic-pandemic.

Without the requirement for excess deaths and widespread serious illness, malevolent profit-driven interests can simply will a ‘pandemic’ into existence on finding any new mutation amongst the global virus population. A strategy to force countries to invest heavily in searching for genetic anomalies will fuel the pandemic creation industry. Once one is found, the response can be fuelled by using fraudulent test data and media advertising, as they did very successfully in 2020. We cannot allow this to happen again and must therefore reclaim the word ‘pandemic’ to ensure it is only applied in the correct way.

We expect a reflexive objection to this article from some quarters on the basis that the case has not been adequately argued that covid had minimal impact on overall mortality in 2020. This fact is irrelevant when challenging the terrifyingly inappropriate global response. The world’s population was sold a serious lethal deadly pandemic which – we were told – necessitated the reordering of society. The ‘new normal‘ as it was affectionately called by so many perfectly in-sync global leaders. In the event, we did not have a serious lethal deadly pandemic, and what has happened (and continues to happen) is based on a lie. Arguing about whether or not some bits of the lie might have a modicum of truth in them is a distraction from much bigger questions which need addressing.

Footnotes​

1. Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data
2. All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response

 

[madinsomniac]

I briefly read an article tying the majority of covid deaths to the use of ventilators… Its completely realistic that most covid deaths were bacterial infections from ventilators… when I was in the ICU they seemed awful predisposed to getting me on a ventilator… I opposed that and ended up fine… later to learn that only 18% of people put on ventilators in that hospital survived…

 

[Confluence]

Querying the existence of a covid ‘pandemic’​

https://www.hartgroup.org/pandemic-definitions/

Words are powerful: handle with care
Covid-19 has been described as a global pandemic but does this title give it a severity and indeed fear factor way beyond its actual impact?

The word pandemic used to have a very specific meaning. It was used to describe a scenario where there was extensive incapacitation of key workers and large numbers of deaths, including young people. A genuine pandemic is not something that would have needed billions of dollars in advertising for people to even notice and fear. Using this long-established definition of the word, we conclude that there was in fact no global pandemic in 2020. The word was deliberately misapplied and weaponised against an unsuspecting public. Let us be clear, this article is not questioning the existence of a virus SARS-CoV-2 or an illness named Covid-19, but even the choice of ‘SARS’ (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) as the name for this coronavirus was already setting the scene for systematic fear-mongering.

The notion of a ‘pandemic’ was relentlessly promulgated through mainstream media to ramp up fear in the population, to help enforce unprecedented lockdowns and other extremely harmful policies (e.g school closures and universal mask wearing) and to push through Emergency Use Authorisations of novel technology mRNA and viral vector DNA products.

This would not have been possible were it not for three false premises that covid was:

1. novel;
2. extremely lethal; and
3. unprecedented.

It was none of these things. It was no more novel than numerous other viruses which emerge each year in terms of the ability to be recognised by our immune systems. It was no more lethal than bad influenza viruses of the past and was less lethal than seasonal influenza for the young. Intensive care stays were longer than have been observed with flu, though whether that was due to a virus directly or caused by our changed response to how we treated respiratory infections is unclear. Overall it was a treatable, seasonal respiratory virus mostly affecting the old and infirm.

HART has written previously on how similar the mortality was to the bad influenza winter of the year 2000. The mortality data for 2020 is unremarkable globally when compared to previous influenza seasons except perhaps in New York City and Northern Italy. In both of these outliers, the data emerging is raising uncomfortable questions about the relative contribution of the virus versus the impact of policy-related responses when considering the extraordinary number of deaths reported. In spite of these outliers, global mortality data shows no evidence of a global pandemic. It could be argued that a once in every 20 year event should not be minimised, but nor does it justify an all of society emergency response or the institution of a permanent biosecurity surveillance state.

Figure 1 showing ONS crude mortality rates since 1840


Without the highly flawed PCR case data and draconian global restrictions on doctors’ freedom to treat their patients as they saw fit, there would be nothing particularly notable about this year. Outside of PCR driven data, a small rise in the number of calls to ambulances for breathing difficulties was observed, though it is possible that hysteria and fear may be responsible for at least part of this. We might have noticed an unusually late spike in influenza-like illness but not much more. Mortality-wise, it would appear as a mid-range ‘bad flu’ year. It is worth reading the work of Professor Denis Rancourt on mortality data, who has been pointing out this inconvenient truth since early 2021.1,2

Interestingly, the WHO quietly altered the accepted definition of ‘pandemic’ in 2009, just before the so-called H1N1 ‘pandemic’. The rushed-to-market Pandemrix vaccine which was pushed hard in the face of the imaginary ‘pandemic’ was subsequently pulled from the market due to life-changing side effects (often in children), a signal picked first up in Finland but later found elsewhere.

In essence, they used exactly the same playbook in 2020, but seemed to have ironed out some of the ‘problems’ encountered the first time round. Vicious behavioural psychology tactics were the main tools used to ‘correct’ these ‘problems’. Shaming people into believing they may ‘kill granny’ was a master-stroke. They used guilt, shame and the threat of ostracism, these being some of the most powerful drivers of human behaviour. There was even an identical cast of characters; Fauci, Drosten and Gates, all reporting for duty, aided and abetted by the bought and paid for media machine working on 24 hour overdrive.

In 2003, an influenza pandemic was defined as follows:

“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

In 2009, the WHO decided, in their infinite wisdom, to get rid of the words “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” from the definition. You would think deaths and serious illness were the only meaningful characteristics of a ‘deadly pandemic’.

To successfully fight against the globalist mission creep of tyrannical public health measures, we must collectively stop stoking the ‘deadly pandemic’ fire. If we continue to allow this falsehood to embed in public consciousness, all of the unethical horrors enacted will simply be repeated for the next non-pandemic-pandemic.

Without the requirement for excess deaths and widespread serious illness, malevolent profit-driven interests can simply will a ‘pandemic’ into existence on finding any new mutation amongst the global virus population. A strategy to force countries to invest heavily in searching for genetic anomalies will fuel the pandemic creation industry. Once one is found, the response can be fuelled by using fraudulent test data and media advertising, as they did very successfully in 2020. We cannot allow this to happen again and must therefore reclaim the word ‘pandemic’ to ensure it is only applied in the correct way.

We expect a reflexive objection to this article from some quarters on the basis that the case has not been adequately argued that covid had minimal impact on overall mortality in 2020. This fact is irrelevant when challenging the terrifyingly inappropriate global response. The world’s population was sold a serious lethal deadly pandemic which – we were told – necessitated the reordering of society. The ‘new normal‘ as it was affectionately called by so many perfectly in-sync global leaders. In the event, we did not have a serious lethal deadly pandemic, and what has happened (and continues to happen) is based on a lie. Arguing about whether or not some bits of the lie might have a modicum of truth in them is a distraction from much bigger questions which need addressing.

Footnotes​

1. Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data
2. All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response

It's the flu, bro

 

[SanDiegoSteeler]

people are conditioned now. I am just waiting to see what is next.
"follow the science" my ***,
you follow by looking Up instead.
So many it seems don't look Up.
I had a 2 day Covid experience. the test told me so.
wasnt bad at all.

i hate the loss of freedom,
sad sad situation.

pretty sure we are f'ed, everywhere,


gonna say it here in this thread...
Lord Have Mercy. Let me enjoy my last days, Instill in folks what it is all about.
Don't let us implode.

tired of blah blah blah blah,,,,, blah.

my opinion.

oh and go steelers.

folks dont know how many times I wanted to push post reply.

there I did it.

 

[Superman]

Yes you can!
With a new vaccine I invented.
It may require a 2nd dose and a booster or two..........or three. But, eventually, even the dumbest of idiots will wise up.

see, I'm ahead of you on this.
I propose we enact a Covid Tax. Yes, a new tax. But this tax will go towards the prevention and spread of a new virus I've yet to create, and if you contract this virus, I can assure you through the use of my mind that the virus will not infect you, but will remove itself from you if you pay this tax. Directly to me.

 

[Superman]

I briefly read an article tying the majority of covid deaths to the use of ventilators… Its completely realistic that most covid deaths were bacterial infections from ventilators… when I was in the ICU they seemed awful predisposed to getting me on a ventilator… I opposed that and ended up fine… later to learn that only 18% of people put on ventilators in that hospital survived…

@Tim Steelersfan - can we get one of these highly functioning ventilators sent to Ogurr?

 

[steel dino]

Saw that Fauci was back in front of a mic and camera this morning warning of a Covid comeback..

God help us .

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

Saw that Fauci was back in front of a mic and camera this morning warning of a Covid comeback..

God help us .

So flu season?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Saw that Fauci was back in front of a mic and camera this morning warning of a Covid comeback..

God help us .

So flu season?

No, election season.

 

[Steelr4evr]

No, election season.

It won't go for them like it did last time.

 

[SanDiegoSteeler]

Saw that Fauci was back in front of a mic and camera this morning warning of a Covid comeback..

God help us .

**** that little leprechaun. I can't stand him. Sorry God.

PS I don't like the asterisks on this side of your site Juatin.
But there are alot of thinkgs I don't like anymore.,

 

[Ron Burgundy]

It won't go for them like it did last time.

Don't bet on it. They fake **** up now and don't even care if everyone knows.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Don't bet on it. They fake **** up now and don't even care if everyone knows.

I meant with people just trusting them and doing whatever they're told with no questions asked.

That gig is up.

 

[JMM]

That's why I didn't worry much about my customers that died from Covid (haven't had one in about a year). Haven't had a dead person cough or sneeze on me yet.
They burp once in a while when you move them around on the table, which is a little unnerving. They don't really wake up and chase you around though.

JMM's last words.

 

[JMM]

people are conditioned now. I am just waiting to see what is next.

That's why they're going to imprison the opposition and ultimately leave us with Romney type RINO before all is said and done.

 

[Steeler Pride]

Kirk Herbstreit’s son Zak, OSU football player, hospitalized with heart condition…it is happening more and more.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Just curious. How many times has everyone had covid?

I had it at least 3 times. Once officially because i was tested. A second time I'm certain because I lost taste and smell for 2+ weeks. And a 3rd time where i'm like 90% sure because it felt just like the other times but i did not lose taste.

Each time, I had a fever for about 6 hours, took tylenol, fever went down and i just felt like I had a medium sized hangover for a day or 2.