Funeral Director Says 95% Of Clients Were Vaxxt And Died Within 2 Weeks Of Being Vaxxt

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
What I said has zero to do with fear mongering and is straight facts.

Still doesn't mean that they have anything to do with what was asked.

The only fear mongering was for a virus with a 0.15% infection fatality rate with the rediculous sensationalism by the media. Then when people bring the facts you call THAT fear mongering.

No, they are both fear-mongering and that is proven by the fact that the deaths predicted by both never materialized.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

A 32 year old buddy of mine died of a heart attack on a plane to Bali over the weekend - He just got the booster to fly

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

A 32 year old buddy of mine died of a heart attack on a plane to Bali over the weekend - He just got the booster to fly

Sorry to hear. The new normal is for 32 year olds to die from heart attacks. The astronomical chance that it could happen means it can happen all the time and everyone pretends its normal.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

So, still waiting on your claim about knowing folk who dropped dead from PTSD?

Tumbleweeds......

That was a lie, wasn't it?

🤣🤣🤣 How do you continue to get away with posting this spurious nonsense, blatant lies and dismal attempts at sources. My god every single thread you post is like satire of what a conspiracy loon would post.

It's not even like there's anything of any actual substance to try and debunk - absolute tripe 😂😂

a reply to: fencesitter85

You might say that, I, couldn't possibly comment!

I won't give up on calling out this nonsense about his/her claim to know plenty of people who have dropped dead of PTSD because of "masks and lockdowns".

It truly is an absolute farce.

It is making this place a joke.

originally posted by: DeviantMortal
Without going into two pages of details my wife and her dad have both been vaccinated. They both have a lot of other health issues and decided that the vaccine was worth the risk even if all it did was reduce the chances of hospitalization.

6 months later we all got the virus, it was rough for all of us. They had worse and longer lasting symptoms than me, but I have a naturally better immune system than them.

It doesn't do great at preventing me from getting sick. But I get over being sick quicker than most people I know.

Long story short, I know a lot of people who have gotten the jab, none of them are dead, yet.

I don't trust those who pushed the jab, I don't trust the jab, but at least in my circle I have not seen any evidence that it kills people. Let alone within 2 weeks.

The only thing I have noticed is that my wife seems to randomly have bouts of her heart beating rapidly, could be unrelated. She already some pre-existing heart issues.

This maybe just me, and I have health issues as well, but my logic was if I am all ready compromised then why would I risk being more compromised?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

All of these people dead, and yet absolutely none of them has a name?

A couple of years back some kid swallowed one of those batteries that looks like an old penny. Their parents were all over the media, the kid's name was in the papers, their picture was on TV, and their parents were holding press conferences.

In another case, a kid swallowed a couple of those miniature high powered magnets and they stuck together in their stomach. Same thing. Name and picture all over the media, parents taking interviews.

Man get's shot by cops during a felony, picture in all of the papers, parents giving interviews, gofundme for the funeral expenses.

Over and over again, person is killed or injured, name and picture in the media, family speaking out. Everybody who ever knew them is posting on social media.

Person dies right after getting vaxxed ... silence.

Who are these people who were apparently killed by the vax, how old were they, what were their histories, why is absolutely nobody who knew them talking about it?

Now, take the case of Lisa Shaw, a British journalist who we absolutely 100 percent know died after being vaxxed. A real person with a family and friends.

Here name and picture were all over the media for months. Her friends and family were demanding answers, the MSM were demanding answers, the British authorities pulled out all of the stops to find out what happened, and there was an inquest. I can even tell you the name of the coroner who conducted it, it was Karen Dilks, she ruled that the vax did indeed kill Lisa Shaw.

So, why is it that you can't come up with anything for all of those other people?

EYE ROLL. Like a funeral director is allowed to publish names of who he worked on, or like it actually makes a difference in this case, OR like it's actually going to reach the mainstream media?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowedAnything "safe and effective" needs no pandering as it speaks for itself with 100 percent results. But that has not been observed, only "peddled".

Aspirin kills ~3000 people per year.

No one is forced to take aspirin to keep their job. Stop with the false equivalency. They make you sound stupid.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

the jokes on you...

All cause mortality is up everywhere. AZ’s argument Is to discredit the funeral director because he didn’t release names and claims parents would be everywhere. The truth is
All cause mortality is up and plenty of ppl are complaining to anyone who will listen.

There was an adverse reaction Facebook group where these ppl were consoling one another because no one would listen to them and Facebook shut the group down. This is the type of censorship that is being done. All because knowing the truth would cause vaccine hesitancy. Can you #ing imagine? Shills like AZ think that is ok and then challenge you to find evidence or ppl speaking out after they’ve been silenced. It’s #ing comical.

All cause mortality is up everywhere. AZ’s argument Is to discredit the funeral director because he didn’t release names and claims parents would be everywhere. The truth is
All cause mortality is up and plenty of ppl are complaining to anyone who will listen.

There was an adverse reaction Facebook group where these ppl were consoling one another because no one would listen to them and Facebook shut the group down. This is the type of censorship that is being done. All because knowing the truth would cause vaccine hesitancy. Can you #ing imagine? Shills like AZ think that is ok and then challenge you to find evidence or ppl speaking out after they’ve been silenced. It’s #ing comical.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: fencesitter85

You might say that, I, couldn't possibly comment!

I won't give up on calling out this nonsense about his/her claim to know plenty of people who have dropped dead of PTSD because of "masks and lockdowns".

It truly is an absolute farce.

It is making this place a joke.

Oh I'm on your side here brother. I was targeting the OP, who for some reason seems to get a lot of support for his baseless nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me how important facts are to people like him, until they go against his narrative.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Denial will come with the territory, there never was any profit in telling people things they did not want to hear. These threads are the same. Shooting the messenger, denigrating the source. Even if it is a Ph.D. with proven credentials. We are in some strange territory now.
This is an MP in the House of Commons because it is on a Bitchute platform, does not make his statements invalid. He cites scientific data, but he is pointing out that the damage from the vaccine far outweighs any of its benefits, yet we are at the point where they are still pushing the boosters in the face of these horrifying figures. Are we looking at some sort of madness here.?www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: anonentity

We have democracy and freedom of speech here.

Other opinions are available.

a reply to: Terpene

The joke is on the poster who makes bogus claims and runs away when called out, matey.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Saloon
Understand what?

There was something, natural or man made, spreading through the population that was causing deaths. Someone came up with a worst case scenario estimate that caused people to panic.

The cause was isolated and drug companies came up with vaccines and governments ok'ed their use.

They don't seem to work well but may have helped some and caused some people to have serious side effects, including death, everyone else seems to be unaffected.

Some are running around peddling doom porn in regards to the covid vaccines and some of us are not buying into it.

You come along and ask those who are not buying into the doom porn if we believe that those pushing them are doing so doing so out of their concern for the health and welfare of humanity? Some might and some might not but, in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it make?

Vaccines were never needed.

1. You don't vaccinate during a pandemic. It allows for selection of viral mutants making the pandemic become prolonged.

The viruses will mutate and natural selection will favor strains that evade immune response, even without the existence of a vaccine.

There is nothing in scientific literature to indicate that immunization promotes the spread of new strains faster than they would have occurred in nature, and there is scientific evidence that vaccination campaigns have eradicated diseases.

2. Vaccines for respiratory viruses are garbage.

Influenza (40-60% effective), Pneumonia (77% effective), and Whooping Cough (80% effective) are respiratory illnesses that have workable vaccines. TB has a vaccine but it isn't particularly effective (about 50%, or less, effective).

3. It's not a vaccine, it's an experimental gene therapy that was never properly tested.

It is a vaccine, it is no longer experimental, it isn't a gene therapy, it was tested in phase 3 trials prior to general distribution, and it continues to be monitored clinically.

4. Vaccines require 10 years of safety data.

What vaccines historically have been tested for ten years before being used? Where does it state that the rule is for a vaccine to be tested for 10 years prior to approval?

Does this also mean that an extremely deadly infectious pathogen, say one likely to wipe out the human race in 5-10 years, should wait until the species is entirely dead, before roll-out of a vaccine?

5. By the time it was available it was obsolete, using a spike protein for an older strain.

Sure, but most strains are similar to the ancestor strains, from which the descend. This means that most vaccines are still quite effective and they shouldn't be discarded in favor of nothing just because there are dents in their effectiveness.

6. The spike protein is a horrible choice for an antigen as it takes the worst part of the corona virus and pumps fragments into all over the body and allows mrna via LNPs to go anywhere which allow any cell to be spike protein production factories.

What part of the virus should we use that is not part of the virus? Also, why do you think that the spike protein is "the worst part of the virus"? Clearly, the entire virus is deadlier than the spike protein.

7. The synthetic mrna doesn't breakdown like it's supposed to and spike proteins have been observed being produced many months after injection unlike the virus.

And... therefore, they produce an extended immune response. Surely when the vaccine causes the body to produce most of the spike protein, in the hours after vaccination, would be when there are the highest quantity of the spike protein in the body? What aren't people dropping dead from the vaccination then, and why would a reduced amount of the spike protein production be more deadly, later?

And since an infectious agent carries the spike protein, wouldn't later presence of the spike protein in the body indicate a later infection of the pathogen, rather than some residue of the vaccination?

8. The virus has a 0.15% infection fatality rate which is ridiculously low compared to real pandemics and does not require a stupid vaccine like this

The infection fatality rate is based upon an assumption of how many infections there are. As such, IFR's from every different researcher are vastly different. A better measurement is how deadly the pathogen is, in confirmed cases; the CFR. On a CFR basis, the COVID-19 pandemic is as dangerous, when measured clinically, as many previous pandemics.

9. Darpa admitted via classified leaked documents that the government knew ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were curative for covid 19, there was already a known cure.

Countries that initially promoted the use of HQC, Ivermectin, and other non-FDA approved treatment protocols have abandoned them, on the basis that they are ineffective.

10... blah blah blah it's the dumbest sh# I've ever seen

I think that a lot of this is believed due to the 'conspiracy' element. It is telling that when someone counters with reference to the credible and generally conventionally accepted data, the response becomes "but you can't trust the government" or "but that's what 'they' want you to think", neither of which is a valid reason to abandon rationality. They are 'non-think' responses, and are stupid.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

A 32 year old buddy of mine died of a heart attack on a plane to Bali over the weekend - He just got the booster to fly

Sorry to hear. The new normal is for 32 year olds to die from heart attacks. The astronomical chance that it could happen means it can happen all the time and everyone pretends its normal.

Really? Heart Attacks Increasingly Common in Young Adults - article from 2019

a reply to: chr0naut

What vaccines historically have been tested for ten years before being used? Where does it state that the rule is for a vaccine to be tested for 10 years prior to approval?

There is no typical length of time it takes for a drug to be tested and approved. It might take 10 to 15 years or more to complete all 3 phases of clinical trials before the licensing stage. But this time span varies a lot.

The creation of a vaccine involves scientists and medical experts from around the world, and it usually requires 10 to 15 years of research before the vaccine is made available to the general public.

Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years, and involves a combination of public and private involvement.

3 different websites..........easy to find.

Does this also mean that an extremely deadly infectious pathogen, say one likely to wipe out the human race in 5-10 years, should wait until the species is entirely dead, before roll-out of a vaccine?

Why do you think it usually takes 10-15 years?

I am not saying that it will......but how can you be sure that the cure won't do want you think it will prevent?

If the average age of a covid death is 82 (according to FOI) ........I don't think covid is an extremely deadly infectious pathogen.

And working at that speed....it was not tested to see if it stopped transmission.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

What vaccines historically have been tested for ten years before being used? Where does it state that the rule is for a vaccine to be tested for 10 years prior to approval?

There is no typical length of time it takes for a drug to be tested and approved. It might take 10 to 15 years or more to complete all 3 phases of clinical trials before the licensing stage. But this time span varies a lot.

The creation of a vaccine involves scientists and medical experts from around the world, and it usually requires 10 to 15 years of research before the vaccine is made available to the general public.

Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years, and involves a combination of public and private involvement.

3 different websites..........easy to find.

And yet, you have not provided a single example of an existing vaccine that was developed for 10 years prior to use.

I'm sure also that if I did a web search on "unicorns", that there would be a number of websites found. Do you think that the mention of something on a website makes it credible?

Does this also mean that an extremely deadly infectious pathogen, say one likely to wipe out the human race in 5-10 years, should wait until the species is entirely dead, before roll-out of a vaccine?

Why do you think it usually takes 10-15 years?

I don't think that at all.

Since you cannot identify any vaccine that took 10 years of testing before implementation, the words on those websites are not a representation of the truth, but are are purely hypothetical.

I am not saying that it will......but how can you be sure that the cure won't do want you think it will prevent?

You ultimately would only know by how it works in the real-world.

If you introduce artificial and irrelevant barriers to application of the medicine, you'd never know, and it would be too late if everyone is dead.

So, the wisest path is to use any potential medicines as soon as they appear to be safe, and to truthfully monitor them for function and effectiveness. If they are ineffective or unsafe, cancel them quickly.

If the average age of a covid death is 82 (according to FOI) ........I don't think covid is an extremely deadly infectious pathogen.

And working at that speed....it was not tested to see if it stopped transmission.

Although the average age of those affected is older, there are cases of babies, children, and young adults dying from COVID-19. I mean, if you use statistics, it can be shown that matter almost doesn't exist in the universe - that doesn't mean that it empirically doesn't exist.

People have unrealistic ideas of vaccines. To demonstrate this, a little history: Only one disease has ever been totally defeated through vaccination - smallpox. In 1798, Edward Jenner realized that dairy workers who had infections of the less deadly cowpox, suffered from smallpox far less than the general population. From this, he deduced that if he infected people with cowpox, it would protect them from the deadly smallpox. He immediately (without any other testing) vaccinated himself, those around him, and his family. Smallpox did not suddenly disappear, nor was the vaccine 100% effective. It took time and good coverage of the population to eliminate smallpox. On October 1977 was the last case of smallpox. So, it really took a vaccination campaign of 179 years to eradicate the disease.

In the USA, the coverage of the COVID-19 vaccines is 68% of the population, even after two years of having the vaccines. At the early stages of the vaccinations, it was calculated that for herd immunity to defeat the virus, it would take 90% coverage, so that is way short of the mark. Since the new strains have arisen and are more infectious, it is no longer possible for herd immunity to have that effect. Those two reasons are why, in the USA and many other countries, the vaccine has not been a miracle cure that some were expecting. However, even with that poor coverage and with more infectious strains, fewer cases of COVID-19 lead to hospitalizations and deaths and if you account for the rise in infectiousness, there is indication that there has been an effect on reducing overall transmissiblity in the real-world.