Fully-Vaxxed Healthy Emmy Winner Dies of CV at Age 53

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
As if those publishing the nr. 95% (or the new number from Nature, 92%) don't know any better regarding the target group for selling or marketing vaccinations to at first, or even now. Most of which are beyond the age of 64, so the reality would be closer to below 67%, even with marketing spin and spinning numbers. I'm guessing about 50% for 75 year olds, dropping to about 10% after 90(104) days, substracting a few percentage for marketing bias in the graphs from the published from what has already proven to me to be an unreliable source.

edit: I meant published paper of course, forgot a word there. Note that this supports the point chr0naut was trying to make on page 1 that one shouldn't expect the vaccines to be perfect (100%). Making the event of the OP something to be expected, not really surprising news, and actually probably fairly common (also because of the horrible care and protocols in hospitals, deliberately withholding the medicine and type of quality care treatment that works best, and also works best in combating the Corona pandemic, so well, that some materialistic people need to go out of their way to brainwash masses of people into believing it doesn't work, making efficient use of the phenomenon of scientism).

Part 4: Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth (Awake!—1993)

...

Who Are the Victims?

Anyone misled into believing pseudoscientific theories becomes a victim. But even believing scientific truths poses a danger. The spectacular scientific advances resulting from the scientific revolution deceived many into believing that now nothing was beyond reach.

This belief was intensified as scientific progress continued to erode the antiscientific attitude false religion had once fostered. Commerce and politics began recognizing science as a powerful tool to be used in achieving their goals, be it monetary reward or consolidation of political power.

Clearly stated, science was slowly developing into a god, giving rise to scientism. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

As the 19th century drew to a close, people wondered what the 20th century would bring. Would science establish the “veritable heaven on earth” many thought it capable of producing? Or would its villains continue to strew the revolution’s battlefield with the tangled bodies of additional victims? “Working 20th-Century ‘Magic,’” appearing in our next issue, will answer.

Part 5: Science​—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth (Awake!—1993)

Working 20th-Century “Magic”

WHAT appeared in the 19th century to be impossible “magic” has in the 20th become reality. Within a single generation, people went from driving their own Model T Ford to the thrill of watching on color TV men walking on the moon. Far from being viewed as exceptional, scientifically produced “miracles” are today largely taken for granted.

...

As the century began, notes The New Encyclopædia Britannica, “the triumphs of science seemed to promise knowledge and power in superabundance.” But the technological advances made in the meantime have not been enjoyed everywhere in equal measure, nor can all of them be classified as unequivocally beneficial. “Few men,” it adds, “could foresee the problems that these very successes would bring to their social and natural environment.”

What Caused the Problems? [whereislogic: everyone pay attention now]

No fault can be found with scientific facts that help us to understand the universe better, nor with the technology that in a practical way harnesses them for mankind’s benefit.

...

But technology can be no better than the scientific knowledge upon which it is based. If scientific knowledge is faulty, any technological developments based upon it will likewise be flawed. Often, side effects will become apparent only after considerable damage has been done. For example, who could have foreseen that the introduction of aerosol sprays using chlorofluorocarbons or hydrocarbons would someday endanger the earth’s protective ozone layer?

Something else is also involved​—motive. A dedicated scientist may be interested in knowledge as such and may be willing to spend decades of his life in research. But a businessman, who may be more interested in the pursuit of profits, is eager to put the knowledge to immediate use. And what politician will patiently wait decades before using technology he thinks may give him political leverage if used at once?

Physicist Albert Einstein put his finger on the problem when he said: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” (Italics ours.) Yes, many of the problems created by 20th-century “magic” have arisen not simply because of faulty scientific knowledge but also because of runaway technology motivated by selfish interests.
...

Keeping Science in Its Place

...

Nevertheless, some people are so impressed by scientific accomplishments that they elevate science to virtual godship. Scientist Anthony Standen discussed this in his 1950 book Science Is a Sacred Cow. Even if we allow for possible exaggeration, Standen has a point: “When a white-robed scientist . . . makes some pronouncement for the general public, he may not be understood, but at least he is certain to be believed. . . . Statesmen, industrialists, ministers of religion, civic leaders, philosophers, all are questioned and criticized, but scientists​—never. Scientists are exalted beings who stand at the very topmost pinnacle of popular prestige, for they have the monopoly of the formula ‘It has been scientifically proved . . . ’ which appears to rule out all possibility of disagreement.”

Because of this wrong mode of thinking, some people seize upon seeming contradictions between science and the Bible as proof of scientific “wisdom” in contrast with religious “superstition.” Some even see in these so-called contradictions a proof of God’s nonexistence. However, in reality it is not God who is nonexistent but rather the imagined contradictions that clergymen have created by misinterpreting his Word. They thereby insult the Bible’s divine Author and at the same time do a disservice to mankind’s ongoing search for scientific truth.

Additionally, by failing to train their parishioners to exercise the fruitage of God’s spirit, these religious leaders foster an atmosphere of selfishness that causes people to think mainly of their own desires for personal comfort and convenience. This is often at the expense of others, even to the point of misusing scientific knowledge to slaughter fellow humans.​—Galatians 5:19-23.

False religion, imperfect human politics, and greedy commerce have shaped people into what they now are, “lovers of themselves, . . . unthankful, . . . without self-control,” egoists who are driven by a wrong mode of thinking.​—2 Timothy 3:1-3.

These are the people and organizations that have created the challenges of the 21st century that science is now being called upon to meet. Will it succeed? Read the answer in the final installment of this series in our next issue.

If scientific knowledge is faulty, developments based on it will be flawed

Not all scientific achievements are beneficial

Part 6: Science​—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth ...

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
The lowest numbers in those graphs for Pfizer (per graph)

Overall: 79 or 78%
By Age (35-64): 69% (I'm guessing based on the distance from the average to the upper range, using the same distance to the other side, cause there are some overlapping colors here making it hard to see, the upper range I can see)
By long-term health conditions (lthc): 72%
By prior infection status (no prior infection): 79% (this seems like an important number to mention, along with the lowest number for 35-64 year olds, 69%, and of course in comparison with averages; of course, mostly for my own personal situation, but I recon my situation is pretty common, although I'm not sure if I had a prior infection, I don't think so)
By dosing interval: 78%

Just to be clear, those were the lowest numbers at the starting points (14 days after the 2nd shot), when vaccine effectiveness is considered to be at its highest. If you look at the lowest numbers in the graph for Pfizer, thus after 90 days of drop-off (104 days after the 2nd shot), cause that's where the graphs end (it drops even lower after that):

Overall: 66%
By Age (35-64): 44%
By long-term health conditions (lthc): 52%
By prior infection status (no prior infection): 66%
By dosing interval (< 9 weeks*): 61% (*: I know from my own experience that they'll be giving me my 2nd shot in less than 9 weeks from the first, which has the worst results in that graph after 90 days, the other option for Pfizer, >= 9 weeks, has 66% after 90 days, the first number is the one that will be applicable to me, then again, if I look at my age and the 'by age' graph, there is a significantly lower number there; remember, just looking at the lower range now, I'm not that old)

For AstraZeneca it's (after 104 days since the 2nd shot):

Overall: 49%
By Age (35-64): 22%
By long-term health conditions (lthc): 24%
By prior infection status (no prior infection): 49%
By dosing interval: 48% (no huge difference between the 2 options compared there)

Of course, giving any of those types of numbers in the media, which would be applicable to 64 year olds, and lower for anyone older than that, doesn't create a very flattering picture. Especially the 22% one, which would apply to those getting the vaccine first (64 year old at risk groups). And worse for anyone older, also being first in line when the AstraZeneca vaccine was first rolled out, which is now way longer than 104 days ago since the 2nd shot for these people, and a booster shot will only last that long, requiring another booster shot after 2-3 months or so, and then again, and again. Ka-ching. While HCQ is collecting dust in the federal stockpile, hidden somewhere in the US, being deliberately kept away from the patients or should I say, cash-cows (milking cows). Along with certain profitable hospitals also stockpiling HCQ, unwilling to give it to patients except when trying to sabotage treatment to make it appear HCQ doesn't work in manipulative RCT's, where 5 days of HCQ (too short for hospitalized patients) is combined with "horrible care" and intubation as soon as you can get away with it (i.e. have consent out of desperation of the patient for not getting better under those conditions).

The term "horrible care" is quoted from this nurse:

Context and full video title (playlist):

Whistleblower NYC Nurse claims the city is 'murdering' COVID-19 patients "Patients are left to rot" (Apr 29, 2020)

The rest of my remark at the end there, relates to these videos:



Anyone care to answer the question at the end there (3:10)?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The film industry lost another great to the dreaded China Virus...as Emmy-winning hairdresser, Marc Pilcher, recently succumbed to CV.
In addition to recently winning his first Emmy for his work on the popular period drama, Bridgerton...Mr. Pilcher was a healthy 53 year old, two-time recipient of the CV "vaccine"...with no underlying health conditions.

Condolences have poured in to Mr. Pilcher's family from his many fans and stars he has worked with.

Irish actress Nicola Coughlan reacted to Pilcher’s death by encouraging people to get vaccinated.

“It’s a tragedy that he’s been taken so young when he had so much yet to do,” she wrote. “Please also use this as a reminder that Covid is still a very real and present danger, please get vaccinated and mask up to protect yourself and others.”

summit.news...

Ms. Coughlan, plays Penelope Featherington on the drama Bridgerton...and remains a staunch supporter of the "vaccine"...even after it completely failed to protect her fully-"vaccinated" close friend and coworker on the series.

We add our condolences to those of Ms. Coughlan's and the many others who knew and loved Mr. Pilcher.

nypost.com...

The vaccines are not 100% effective, there will be about 5% breakthrough cases and, unfortunately, some of those will die.

The vaccines are better than doing nothing, where around 95% more will die.

BS.

Person A is vaccinated ,can still get the virus and spread it.

Person B ,not vaccinated but should to protect person A who is vaccinated.

Person B gets vaccinated, Can still get the virus and infect person A who is already "vaccinated".

Accomplishment level - Zero.

That is not how a actual vaccine works. Never has never will.

All vaccines work by promoting an immune reaction. It is also how our bodies fight disease.

Just because we have an immune reaction, it doesn't magically make the disease go away.

Sometimes, people still get sick from the disease. Sometimes people die of the disease. This is true of vaccinated and unvaccinated immune systems.

Your 'reasoning' does not look particularly well reasoned - or original - admit it, you read it off a social media post.

Eeeh, no i did not read it of of a social media post it was my own thought. I dont even do FB, twatter or anything of the sorts.

Other than that . How many polio booster shots have you gotten this year?

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The film industry lost another great to the dreaded China Virus...as Emmy-winning hairdresser, Marc Pilcher, recently succumbed to CV.
In addition to recently winning his first Emmy for his work on the popular period drama, Bridgerton...Mr. Pilcher was a healthy 53 year old, two-time recipient of the CV "vaccine"...with no underlying health conditions.

Condolences have poured in to Mr. Pilcher's family from his many fans and stars he has worked with.

Irish actress Nicola Coughlan reacted to Pilcher’s death by encouraging people to get vaccinated.

“It’s a tragedy that he’s been taken so young when he had so much yet to do,” she wrote. “Please also use this as a reminder that Covid is still a very real and present danger, please get vaccinated and mask up to protect yourself and others.”

summit.news...

Ms. Coughlan, plays Penelope Featherington on the drama Bridgerton...and remains a staunch supporter of the "vaccine"...even after it completely failed to protect her fully-"vaccinated" close friend and coworker on the series.

We add our condolences to those of Ms. Coughlan's and the many others who knew and loved Mr. Pilcher.

nypost.com...

The vaccines are not 100% effective, there will be about 5% breakthrough cases and, unfortunately, some of those will die.

The vaccines are better than doing nothing, where around 95% more will die.

BS.

Person A is vaccinated ,can still get the virus and spread it.

Person B ,not vaccinated but should to protect person A who is vaccinated.

Person B gets vaccinated, Can still get the virus and infect person A who is already "vaccinated".

Accomplishment level - Zero.

That is not how a actual vaccine works. Never has never will.

All vaccines work by promoting an immune reaction. It is also how our bodies fight disease.

Just because we have an immune reaction, it doesn't magically make the disease go away.

Sometimes, people still get sick from the disease. Sometimes people die of the disease. This is true of vaccinated and unvaccinated immune systems.

Your 'reasoning' does not look particularly well reasoned - or original - admit it, you read it off a social media post.

Eeeh, no i did not read it of of a social media post it was my own thought. I dont even do FB, twatter or anything of the sorts.

Other than that . How many polio booster shots have you gotten this year?

The polio vaccine is given at 2 months old, 4 months old, 6 through 18 months old and 4 through 6 years old.

According to my medical records, I received all of my required 'baby' polio vaccines at the correct times. I have a vague recollection of receiving the Sabin oral vaccine, which was not injected, but was a rather pleasant tasting red syrup delivered on a small plastic spoon. This was at infants school, in the assembly hall, with lots of chairs and tables spread out and with nurses administering the doses, so I was probably 5 years old at the time - funny the things you remember.

Regardless, the best defense against getting COVID-19 serious complications is vaccination.

If it requires a government subsidized booster (that only costs about $40 anyway) every year or so, then so be it. I'd much rather have some immunity against it, rather than none at all (it is a novel virus, which means we have no immune response to the virus until we are either vaccinated, or we have the disease).

a reply to: chr0naut

Billions of doses of the vaccines have been administered, they have been tested in their current forms for more than a year, and most of the technologies behind them have been tested for decades.

chr0naut,

There are NO peer-reviewed tests that validate a supposed safeness of the covid 19 vaccine. NONE.

Remember chantix that was cleared as SAFE by the infamous FDA ? Oh how wonderful that people quit smoking cigarettes and then got cancer from their dirty SUPPOSEDLY SAFE chantix drug.

I could go ON and ON about the supposed SAFE drugs, tested and cleared by the FDA and all other money marketeers peddling pus in a vial.... but the TV commercials are filled with the class action lawsuits for the supposed SAFE drugs, cleared by the FDA and pharma tests.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ah, I see you are strong in the ways of the farce, young Qtard Ben Dover. The fecal transplant was successful.

chr0naut,

You DO KNOW that attacking the poster is NOT a viable support for your covid 19 safe drug position.
It is what one does when one is INCAPABLE of refuting facts.

a reply to: RickyD

For a statement like that I'd love to see a source. I don't think the whole covid thing is on the up and up by any means...but I also think a lot of crazy statements come from the other side of that coin as well. I prefer facts over opinions because I dislike being wrong when I speak.

RickyD,

I recently wrote that there had been no covid 19 isolated, you responded that I needed to provide source links to support my claim.

I SHOULD HAVE remembered that there is generally no way to prove something that does not exist. PROVE there is no Santa Clause. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. Prove there is no covid 19 virus. I should have responded, “Prove that covid19 exists.”

INSTEAD….
I responded that I believed that wuhan labs had chemically engineered a bio virus, using American tax dollars to fund a “gain of function” research, and created a violent virus variant, named covd 19.

HOWEVER....
I now believe that I was wrong. And believe me, I SO DISLIKE having to EVER admit that I am wrong. Sigh

But… now I return to my original and correct claim: There IS no covid 19 virus.

It has NEVER been isolated; but rather, minute pieces of a virus were clumped together to create a computer generated virus.
And THAT is scientific FRAUD.

So PLEASE… SOMEONE, anyone… correct me if I am wrong NOW.
PLEASE provide a source wherein the covid 19 virus has been identified, isolated, purified and reproduced.

a reply to: chr0naut

The virus has been isolated, and genotyped, in all of its strains. Just has.

chr0naut

PLEASE BE ADVISED…. There IS NO COVID 19 virus. It is a FRAUD, a sham, a leading cause of the world PLANdemic.

“The SARS-CoV-2 virus has NEVER been Isolated, Purified, Sequenced, Characterized and Proven to Exist… not by ANYONE ANYWHERE in the World. No Scientist, No Virologist, No Nobel Prize Winner succeeded in doing so. Not ONE study produced the gold standard of ‘Koch’s Postulates. They ALL failed.” *

Koch’s Postulates:
1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

MEANWHILE…. Everyone is welcome to view the link I am now providing to support the claim that the covid 19 virus is a computer created scam, fraud, fake virus.


• My above-mentioned quote was taken from :

award winning, Janet Ossebaard

Oh, and if anyone is absolutely bored and looking for some extraordinary and accurate information of WHAT is happening and WHY…. You may begin at the beginning of the Expose~ of the deep state plan to depopulate our planet..

The Great Awakening

There are 18 vidoes to watch, each one better than the last.

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
Perhaps we need to have a test that is actually accurate instead of wrought with false positives.
And it seems that any ol' person can administer a FAULTY test upon the public.

a reply to: chr0naut

When people are symptomatic and dying of with symptoms of ARDS, and it spreads in clusters from the infected, it is fairly obvious that they have a real disease.

No measurement in the real world is without a margin f error. If someone were to submit a paper for scientific peer review and its measurements did not try and quantify experimental and measurement errors, it would be rejected.

Testing for the presence of a viral genomic sequence, or for antibodies, also has a margin of error, like all other measurements. This is known and has been quantified from the start. But the amount of measurement error is tiny, like it always is. It's presence does not mean that the measurements is a failure.

Not only that, but there are symptoms and retesting involved, which minimizes the uncertainty of an already small margin of error.

chr0naut

You did NOT address the problem that the CDC has identified.

The PCR tests canNOT distinguish between a supposed covid 19 virus OR ANY of the flu viruses.

THEY have stated a test MUST BE provided by Dec 31, 2021 so that one knows whether one has the supposed covid 19 OR the flu.

I will state now that ONCE those tests become available... there will BE NO COVID 19 identified. There will be ONLY the flu.

The same as every single year... hundreds of THOUSANDS have died from the flu each year.

Magically, during 2020 and forward... there ARE miniscule cases of the flu...

WHY????

Because the covid 19 IS the flu. It has been a SCAM. A FRAUD. A means to usurp our freedoms and liberties and replace them with mandatory injections of Experimental and DANGEROUS concoctions of pod-knows-what.

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

Identified in the laboratory as a virus variant… but somehow NOT identified in the PCR tests.

a reply to: chr0naut

If you make the PCR test too specific, then every point mutation would appear to be a negative, rather than an instance of a strain of SARS-CoV-2.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO COVID 19 virus.... there is ONLY flu virus and their variants.

originally posted by CupcakeKarma

THAT means… we have shut down the planet Earth for a faulty test that provides too many false positives.

a reply to: chr0naut

What about all the people sick with and/or dying of the disease? Perhaps that was also part of the reason for all the disease mitigations in the first place? It was happening well before most countries had any sort of test.

So all this 'nothing tests for it' total BS, is actually irrelevant noise.

chr0naut,

You DO KNOW that every single year hundreds of thousands of people have died from the flu. It has been a constant for many decades.

But then, WALA... magically the flu just disappeared in 2020, and in its place, there appeared a NEW DISEASE virus named Covid 19.

It is the flu and yes, it kills. But toxic injections do NOT offset and neutralize the diseases within the body.
We do not give alcohol to an alcoholic to help booster immunity. Instead we can cease ingesting alcohol and let the body heal and recover.
We do NOT give toxic ingredients to a dying rose bush to help booster immunity. Instead we can plant the rose bush into clean ground and remove the diseased stems, and let the rose bush heal and recover.
We do NOT give toxins to a body filled with toxins hoping the EXTRA toxins will booster immunity. Instead we can cease to ingest toxins and use products that can neutralize the toxins and remove them from the body.

It is INANE to think that when we ADD poison, it will somehow, magically, neutralize a poisoned body.

IT does NOT WORK... and the VAERS website provides evidence that the toxic covid 19 injections CAUSE a toxic reaction that results in debilitating conditions or death.

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

Billions of doses of the vaccines have been administered, they have been tested in their current forms for more than a year, and most of the technologies behind them have been tested for decades.

chr0naut,

There are NO peer-reviewed tests that validate a supposed safeness of the covid 19 vaccine. NONE.

Remember chantix that was cleared as SAFE by the infamous FDA ? Oh how wonderful that people quit smoking cigarettes and then got cancer from their dirty SUPPOSEDLY SAFE chantix drug.

I could go ON and ON about the supposed SAFE drugs, tested and cleared by the FDA and all other money marketeers peddling pus in a vial.... but the TV commercials are filled with the class action lawsuits for the supposed SAFE drugs, cleared by the FDA and pharma tests.

So, the option for you is to go for no safety measures at all?

I mean sometimes seat belts can cause injury and death, so no-one should wear seat belts, right?

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

Ah, I see you are strong in the ways of the farce, young Qtard Ben Dover. The fecal transplant was successful.

chr0naut,

You DO KNOW that attacking the poster is NOT a viable support for your covid 19 safe drug position.
It is what one does when one is INCAPABLE of refuting facts.

Yes, you are right. But the thought did give me a chuckle. A positive mental attitude is a good thing, right?



And, the post I was responding to stated, "Ah yes, and fraudulent faucie is actually mother teresa's son, who aided her child traffic orphans for satanic adrenochrome." are they facts? Something that I should refute?

LOL

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

The virus has been isolated, and genotyped, in all of its strains. Just has.

chr0naut

PLEASE BE ADVISED…. There IS NO COVID 19 virus. It is a FRAUD, a sham, a leading cause of the world PLANdemic.

“The SARS-CoV-2 virus has NEVER been Isolated, Purified, Sequenced, Characterized and Proven to Exist… not by ANYONE ANYWHERE in the World. No Scientist, No Virologist, No Nobel Prize Winner succeeded in doing so. Not ONE study produced the gold standard of ‘Koch’s Postulates. They ALL failed.” *

Koch’s Postulates:
1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

MEANWHILE…. Everyone is welcome to view the link I am now providing to support the claim that the covid 19 virus is a computer created scam, fraud, fake virus.


• My above-mentioned quote was taken from :

award winning, Janet Ossebaard

Oh, and if anyone is absolutely bored and looking for some extraordinary and accurate information of WHAT is happening and WHY…. You may begin at the beginning of the Expose~ of the deep state plan to depopulate our planet..

The Great Awakening

There are 18 vidoes to watch, each one better than the last.

Honestly, do you believe that stuff? Most of it is nonsensical and, additionally, it is self-contradictory. If you were to believe one of her claims, then others of her claims are clearly not valid.

An example is that she claims that COVID-19 doesn't exist, and yet she also claims that it came from someone eating bat soup in Wuhan. WTF?

Anyway, here's someone's take on her video series:

Debunking Janet Ossebaard’s COVID-19 video series

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

Identified in the laboratory as a virus variant… but somehow NOT identified in the PCR tests.

a reply to: chr0naut

If you make the PCR test too specific, then every point mutation would appear to be a negative, rather than an instance of a strain of SARS-CoV-2.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO COVID 19 virus.... there is ONLY flu virus and their variants.

originally posted by CupcakeKarma

THAT means… we have shut down the planet Earth for a faulty test that provides too many false positives.

a reply to: chr0naut

What about all the people sick with and/or dying of the disease? Perhaps that was also part of the reason for all the disease mitigations in the first place? It was happening well before most countries had any sort of test.

So all this 'nothing tests for it' total BS, is actually irrelevant noise.

chr0naut,

You DO KNOW that every single year hundreds of thousands of people have died from the flu. It has been a constant for many decades.

But then, WALA... magically the flu just disappeared in 2020, and in its place, there appeared a NEW DISEASE virus named Covid 19.

It is the flu and yes, it kills. But toxic injections do NOT offset and neutralize the diseases within the body.
We do not give alcohol to an alcoholic to help booster immunity. Instead we can cease ingesting alcohol and let the body heal and recover.
We do NOT give toxic ingredients to a dying rose bush to help booster immunity. Instead we can plant the rose bush into clean ground and remove the diseased stems, and let the rose bush heal and recover.
We do NOT give toxins to a body filled with toxins hoping the EXTRA toxins will booster immunity. Instead we can cease to ingest toxins and use products that can neutralize the toxins and remove them from the body.

It is INANE to think that when we ADD poison, it will somehow, magically, neutralize a poisoned body.

IT does NOT WORK... and the VAERS website provides evidence that the toxic covid 19 injections CAUSE a toxic reaction that results in debilitating conditions or death.

How many are dead from your toxic reaction to these jabs, considering how many billions have had these jabs? Are the bodies piling up in the streets?

I've had two jabs and so has Mrs Carpy. Not had any noticeable toxic death yet.

Ah, so I suppose we had a placebo or some other rubbish excuse.

What "toxins"?

Honestly, the Disinfo and sheer dishonesty is off the scale.

Doom porn, fear and utter nonsense is rife on here.

Get jabbed or don't. It's your choice but why push your unfounded fear agenda?

It's not like 28 days later in these parts.

When will that happen?

Soooooon, 5 years, or what?

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
Perhaps we need to have a test that is actually accurate instead of wrought with false positives.
And it seems that any ol' person can administer a FAULTY test upon the public.

a reply to: chr0naut

When people are symptomatic and dying of with symptoms of ARDS, and it spreads in clusters from the infected, it is fairly obvious that they have a real disease.

No measurement in the real world is without a margin f error. If someone were to submit a paper for scientific peer review and its measurements did not try and quantify experimental and measurement errors, it would be rejected.

Testing for the presence of a viral genomic sequence, or for antibodies, also has a margin of error, like all other measurements. This is known and has been quantified from the start. But the amount of measurement error is tiny, like it always is. It's presence does not mean that the measurements is a failure.

Not only that, but there are symptoms and retesting involved, which minimizes the uncertainty of an already small margin of error.

chr0naut

You did NOT address the problem that the CDC has identified.

The PCR tests canNOT distinguish between a supposed covid 19 virus OR ANY of the flu viruses.

I think you have the wrong idea.

There are PCR test kits that can be used to test for COVID, and for Influenza A, and for Influenza B. All at the same time. Simultaneously. This does NOT mean that the three-way test can't differentiate between them.

It's like with my eyes, I can see a duck paddling around a pond, and I can also see a forest of trees. I can still tell the difference visually. In the same way, the three-way test can see the difference between the three different results - re-read the CDC advisory.

THEY have stated a test MUST BE provided by Dec 31, 2021 so that one knows whether one has the supposed covid 19 OR the flu.

I will state now that ONCE those tests become available... there will BE NO COVID 19 identified. There will be ONLY the flu.

The same as every single year... hundreds of THOUSANDS have died from the flu each year.

Not in the USA. The US 10 year average of flu mortality is 30,500 per year.

Magically, during 2020 and forward... there ARE miniscule cases of the flu...

WHY????

Because the covid 19 IS the flu. It has been a SCAM. A FRAUD. A means to usurp our freedoms and liberties and replace them with mandatory injections of Experimental and DANGEROUS concoctions of pod-knows-what.

No, there is still statistical data for the 2019-2020 flu season, with an estimated 20,000 deaths, which isn't far off the 10 year average, but it was a milder season than 2017-2018, which was the worst flu season for ten years, so, there's that.

Disease Burden of Flu - CDC

And they are still compiling data for the 2020-2021 season, because it isn't over yet, and they are still working on finalizing the 2019-2020 figures.

Isn't it odd that polio and smallpox VACCINES actually protect you from GETTING the virus they are designed to prevent? The COVID experimental jab 100% DOES NOT prevent you from getting or preventing COVID. How do people not understand this BS?

originally posted by: panoz77
Isn't it odd that polio and smallpox VACCINES actually protect you from GETTING the virus they are designed to prevent? The COVID experimental jab 100% DOES NOT prevent you from getting or preventing COVID. How do people not understand this BS?

No vaccine can prevent you from getting a disease. They work by assisting your immune response to mount a defense against the disease, when you get the disease.

After years of reducing the incubation of these two disease pathogens, there's almost none around to infect anyone with. That's how the vaccine campaigns work to eliminate disease.

Smallpox vaccination took more than 100 years to eliminate smallpox, with polio vaccination it was only decades. A big part of the time it took was the time to vaccinate such large numbers of people.

I've had some more thoughts about efficacy of vaccines, in particular the Pfizer vaccine. I realized that the factor of testing behaviour makes a rather large impact on the numbers given for 'odds for being tested positive vs unvaccinated'. After all, the rules are as such in my country, that only the unvaccinated need to get tested in order to go certain places, the vaccinated do not need to be tested for this. Add to that the fact that the vaccinated don't feel like they need to be tested, it may be that the odds that someone unvaccinated will have themselves tested may be as much as 3 times higher than the vaccinated for the same age. That also assumes that the claim that the vaccinated will experience less severe symptoms is true (because of already having some antibodies, a head start on the virus if you will, makes sense), which makes the odds that vaccinated will get tested even less than the unvaccinated. Obviously, if you do not get tested, or if those odds are lower, then the odds of being tested positive are similarly lower with the same amount. That then has nothing to do with vaccine effectiveness. Yet, for the moment, these so-called "scientific" publications, attribute that kind of lowering of the odds of getting tested positive (because the vaccinated are being tested less), to vaccine effectiveness (or as described on the y-axis as mentioned before); which is simply not very reflective of the reality of the matter.

So assuming a highest odds of not being tested positive for Pfizer of 75% for my age (compared to unvaccinated), 14 days after the 2nd shot (which I feel is already being generous in comparison with what it probably really is, the number is based on the graphs for the delta dominant period we find ourselves in now), and guessing that the unvaccinated are 3 times more likely to get tested than the vaccinated, and thus also 3 times more likely to be tested positive, that means the real odds for not being tested positive for those who got the Pfizer vaccine for my age compared to the unvaccinated of my age (if both groups were equally likely to be tested, which would increase the odds of getting tested positive for the vaccinated by a multiple of 3, cause then they also get tested 3 times more often than the stastistics in those graphs are based on), that would put the odds of not being tested positive for those vaccinated with Pfizer at 75/3 = 25%, for my age. At its highest (after 14 days after the 2nd shot). Since the news article says that the effectiveness of the vaccine drops by about 22% of what it was after 30 days after that point, then 30 days after the highest point, the number (the odds of not getting tested positive) would be 25 - 0.22*25 = 19.5%. 30 days after that again, it would be 15.21%.

Those numbers seem more realistic to me to ascribe to effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine for me personally than the widely hailed numbers in the media of 90-95% effectiveness. So that's starting at:

25%
19.5% (after 30 days after the highest point)
15.21% (after 60 days)
11.86% (after 90 days)
9.25% (after 120 days)

I'll be getting my 2nd shot for the potential head start in number of antibodies at least for a little while (30 days or so I guess; the number of new cases in my country is rising quite significantly again, hoping it will go down after 30 days again), mostly because I can't get HCQ, but knowing that those antibodies will not remain in my system for very long, at which point I won't have a head start on the virus anymore.

Everyone else here can believe whatever they feel like believing. Just wanted to share my latest thinking in light of my previous commentary. The math seems unassailable to me, only my estimates (in particular my estimate that the vaccinated of my age get tested 3 times less than the unvaccinated of my age; assuming the stastistics I linked earlier are not actually comparing with unvaccinated of a different age, like comparing with 64 year olds, because that's the highest option in that age group for comparison, and only 64 year olds, so you end up comparing the nr. of positive tests for 35 year old vaccinated with 64 year old unvaccinated, which would be another trick to skewer the numbers towards perceived higher effectiveness of vaccines, and it would still fall within the range of the same age group of 35-64, so you can still pretend that you did a fair comparison. Which of course already isn't fair because of not considering a factor for the odds of getting tested for unvaccinated compared to vaccinated, which they only mention in a rather vague way in the fineprint that they didn't consider this, without pointing out that not considering this would affect the numbers in favor of perceived vaccine effectiveness, or perceived lower odds for vaccinated to get tested positive in comparison to unvaccinated).

I know a thing or 2 about economics and marketing, and how to make numbers say something you want them to say for your potential customers, to make your product appear better than it actually is, without being spotted that you are using a bit of spin and conveniently leaving out some details. I've learned in my marketing classes, that marketing is basically propaganda for a different type of product (propaganda has religious, philosophical, ideological or political products for sale, marketing has economic products for sale).

... Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. ...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

So far, I've not been able to find a single published paper about vaccine effectiveness that wasn't a marketing report using the usual tricks I'm so familiar with and were even taught to me at the University ("economics for the financial sector") or the marketing course I was following when I started working for KPMG (accountants for the big boys, "one of the Big Four accounting organizations". "The Big Four is the nickname used to refer collectively to the four largest professional services networks in the world, consisting of the global accounting networks Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PwC." Quoting the wikipedia page for "Big Four accounting firms"; Pfizer is one of their clients).

Because it was only partially quoted in one of the articles in my previous commentary (I did bold it), I'd like to take this opportunity to quote the rest of 2 Timothy 3:1-5 (bolding another term this time than the ones highlighted in that article):

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

I'd like to think that I'm not a lover of money, and sharing this information for the sake of honesty. Too bad that article skipped that term, since it was quite appropiate concerning the subject spoken of there (they did quote "lovers of themselves", which is related to the topic of selfish greediness). CHAPTER NINE: Are We Living in “the Last Days”? (What Does the Bible Really Teach?)

The number of deaths in the last month in the US compared to the same month last year, are about 2-3 times higher than last year before there was a vaccine. This could indicate that the presence of vaccines is causing more people to die. Obviously, this is also affected by effective measures being cancelled (because of perceived effectiveness of vaccines) and lack of caution for those vaccinated and even unvaccinated going along with that attitude because of the government cancelling measures, pretending they're doing well and one doesn't have to take wise precautions anymore, such as wearing masks, avoiding contact, and when not being able to avoid that, keeping as much distance as one can manage, opening doors or windows to closed of communal places, or closing the places where most people gather on a regular basis, such as schools and indoor political (propaganda) rallies of very popular people that are good at selling/marketing themselves to their target market. Avoiding large gatherings, you know, everything that makes common sense, which has flown out the door in today's world more often than the Corona virus (did a little figurative-literal mix there).

Common Sense—Why So Uncommon?

...
The word “sense” is defined as “accurate appreciation,” “understanding,” and “practical wisdom or judgement.” It implies that a person has the ability to judge and decide with intelligence. Common sense evidently requires that we use thinking ability. Many people would rather let others do their thinking for them. They allow the media, their peers, or popular opinion to make decisions for them.

Common sense seems to be so lacking in today’s world that an observant man once noted, ‘Common sense, in truth, is very uncommon.’ ...

...

Learn from experience. Associating common sense with experience in life, a Swiss poet stated: “Common sense is . . . composed of experience and prevision [foresight].” Indeed, “anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) [whereislogic: see my signature] Common sense may be developed through observation, training, and experience. We can learn to do things better over a period of time. Learning from our mistakes, however, calls for humility and meekness. The self-assuming, haughty, and headstrong spirit of people in these last days is not a manifestation of common sense.​—2 Timothy 3:1-5.

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
For AstraZeneca it's (after 104 days since the 2nd shot):

By Age (35-64): 22%

So that leaves 7.33% if you're 64 years old and consider that vaccinated people are 3 times less likely to be tested than unvaccinated people (22/3).

Of course, number of new cases in your area or country is most heavily affected by number of tests being done. Meaning you can easily make it appear that the number of new cases is much lower than the reality by doing less tests (or if other factors, such as people thinking they're safe, are affecting the number of tests being done; a good graph shows both, number of new cases and number of tests in comparison; the percentage of positive tests is affected by motive for getting tested, whether you got your test because you want to go somewhere where they require a negative testresult, or whether you got your test because you're already in the hospital with severe symptoms, to name 2 extremes that will heavily affect the percentage of positive tests, showing that any number reported for this in the media, is near meaningless without further stastistics concerning motive for those tests; this must also be considered when comparing number of new cases with number of tests if one wants an accurate picture of what's really going on).

Anything related to HCQ is much easier to calculate as explained before. But 100% effectiveness in preventing death and hospitalization means nobody can make any money on the Corona pandemic anymore, including those who scaled down production of gas and kept it down till well after the lockdowns until they had an excuse to raise prices. Ka-ching. As mentioned before, God is still watching. Judgement Day is around the corner cause we are living in “the Last Days” of this system of things (making way for a new system for the meek and righteous). I advise everyone taking a big bite out of the rather large Corona-pie to have their arguments and excuses ready at hand, figuratively speaking, cause you don't actually need 'm, God will look straight into your heart and know everything he needs to know.

Jeremiah 17:9-11

9 The heart is more treacherous* [Or “deceitful.”] than anything else and is desperate.* [Or possibly, “incurable.”]

Who can know it?

10 I, Jehovah, am searching the heart,

Examining the innermost thoughts,* [Or “deepest emotions.” Lit., “kidneys.”]

To give to each one according to his ways,

According to the fruitage of his works.

11 Like a partridge that gathers what it has not laid,

So is the one who acquires riches dishonestly.* [Or “but not with justice.”]

They will leave him in midlife,

And in the end he will prove senseless.”



Context (playlist):

Song 62 To Whom do you Belong Vocal Renditions