Crisis - Norway Funeral Homes Overwhelmed With The Dead

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

They and I didn't say mRNA vaccinations should be continued, there are other choices, but vaccinations should continue.

That's not the topic of the conversation.
You can't continue the vaccinations if for example the risks outweigh the benefits in some age groups or when there is not much to gain.

For those who have been infected already and survived primary infection and are not immunosuppressed, basic immunology says no. Politics although may say something different.

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study.

The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system. The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv. “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID

You can't continue the vaccinations either if you die from the vaccines

Autopsy report confirms 24 year old college student died from Covid-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis

From my other thread.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here is more information on this.

The meta-analysis included 11 studies and a total of 58,620,611 subjects. Here are the main findings:

The risk of developing either myocarditis or pericarditis was increased following COVID-19 vaccination, with a relative risk of 2.04.

Risk was statistically significant for myocarditis alone, but not pericarditis, which may be because there is no increased risk for pericarditis, or because fewer studies looked at this outcome and therefore there was less statistical power.

Risk was increased in men more than women, and in people under 40 vs. over 40 yrs old

Risk was increased more following the second dose than the first.

Risk was significant only in the mRNA vaccines, not the viral vector vaccines.

Most cases of myocarditis were mild and self-limiting.

sciencebasedmedicine.org...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

In terms of who is educated on this matter it's better if you don't open this conversation either.

Did you really reply 3 times to my one post? Yes, let's move on as you can't even handle the information from your own links and just keep repeating the same message over and over, and it gets boring.

originally posted by: quintessentone

The risk of developing either myocarditis or pericarditis was increased following COVID-19 vaccination, with a relative risk of 2.04.

Risk was statistically significant for myocarditis alone, but not pericarditis, which may be because there is no increased risk for pericarditis, or because fewer studies looked at this outcome and therefore there was less statistical power.

This is what many of us have been saying, but as you said we need to lay all of it on the table. In this case the study shows 2x higher risk for young men to develop myocarditis if they get the vaccine. The other side of the coin is that it is still only 4 per 100,000 will get it and 95% of them that do will have only a mild case of it that either needs zero treatment or is easily treatable. The actual virus is 150 per 100,000 for this same group and more serious cases of myocarditis.

This is why this study also says...

The bottom line from this data is that the small increased risk of myocarditis, especially in young males, following 1-2 doses of an mRNA vaccine for COVID appears to be real. However, the risk is small in absolute terms, most cases are self-limiting, and the benefit of the vaccines vastly outweigh this small risk (even just for myocarditis itself).

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

In terms of who is educated on this matter it's better if you don't open this conversation either.

Did you really reply 3 times to my one post? Yes, let's move on as you can't even handle the information from your own links and just keep repeating the same message over and over, and it gets boring.

The message is over and over again until you understand it. Repetition is key in the learning process. The information from my links shows clearly the following

1) Natural Immunity confers much better protection than vaccination.

Nothing new or unexpected on this

2) Vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection and don't significantly reduce them either

Noting new or unexpected given the nature of the virus

3) There is no herd immunity contrary to some unsubstantiated claims and the fact that vaccines cannot prevent transmission and infection.

Nothing new or unexpected here.

4) The risks of vaccination may outweigh the benefits in a number of cases. Several examples are given.

5) The vaccines can cause serious harm just as the virus can cause serious harm.

6) The excess amount of non Covid deaths which are considerably high in several countries are a result of a number of factors which include lockdowns, delays in getting treatment, and other..


And as always no need for you or anyone else to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

1) Natural Immunity confers much better protection than vaccination.

2) Vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection and don't significantly reduce them either

3) There is no herd immunity contrary to some unsubstantiated claims and the fact that vaccines cannot prevent transmission and infection.

4) The risks of vaccination may outweigh the benefits in a number of cases. Several examples are given.

5) The vaccines can cause serious harm just as the virus can cause serious harm.

6) The excess amount of non Covid deaths which are considerably high in several countries are a result of a number of factors which include lockdowns, delays in getting treatment, and other..

Sure, basically what I have said over and over, but you do not stop there... Maybe you are now backtracking since maybe you finally read your own links. My "mostly incoherent" info is what I been pulling from your links, so you don't accuse me of MSMing you or something like that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

1) Natural Immunity confers much better protection than vaccination.

2) Vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection and don't significantly reduce them either

3) There is no herd immunity contrary to some unsubstantiated claims and the fact that vaccines cannot prevent transmission and infection.

4) The risks of vaccination may outweigh the benefits in a number of cases. Several examples are given.

5) The vaccines can cause serious harm just as the virus can cause serious harm.

6) The excess amount of non Covid deaths which are considerably high in several countries are a result of a number of factors which include lockdowns, delays in getting treatment, and other..

Sure, basically what I have said over and over, but you do not stop there... Maybe you are now backtracking since maybe you finally read your own links. My "mostly incoherent" info is what I been pulling from your links, so you don't accuse me of MSMing you or something like that.

No. I don't think you have said what I have said and written in the reply above. Far from it. This information is well known for a long period of time and I have used several links to demonstrate it.

You have been all over the place having conflicting views, often against the information that I have posted, and engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals.

So again, no!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No. I don't think you have said what I have said and written in the reply above. Far from it. This information is well known for a long period of time and I have used several links to demonstrate it.

You have been all over the place having conflicting views, often against the information that I have posted, and engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals.

So again, no!

Well first you do not need to use terms like "vaccine apologetics" or defending pharmaceuticals... We are having a discourse here and it seems that is where you all end up with your labels and snarky comments. The 6 things you wrote in your post is about the most reasonable post you have made in the past 50. For once you didn't go all extreme in your comments just like your extremes with your single death posts with knowing little about the person, and even if it was the vaccine, did they take it on their own or not and what are you suggesting when the virus is 40 times worse than the vaccine.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No. I don't think you have said what I have said and written in the reply above. Far from it. This information is well known for a long period of time and I have used several links to demonstrate it.

You have been all over the place having conflicting views, often against the information that I have posted, and engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals.

So again, no!

Well first you do not need to use terms like "vaccine apologetics" or defending pharmaceuticals... We are having a discourse here and it seems that is where you all end up with your labels and snarky comments. The 6 things you wrote in your post is about the most reasonable post you have made in the past 50. For once you didn't go all extreme in your comments just like your extremes with your single death posts with knowing little about the person, and even if it was the vaccine, did they take it on their own or not and what are you suggesting when the virus is 40 times worse than the vaccine.

But I always supported with very good links the six points I made above. It's others members who are trying to support narratives that come in direct contradiction with basic science principles and common sense.

As per your last part... you are mistaken again! You may have confused me with other members. I have created a range of threads where I have covered a range of vaccine injuries and deaths. Most of the deaths are verified by autopsies and most of the injuries have also been verified to be from the vaccines. In most cases the victims have received compensation.

In my two most recent threads I have covered the story of a young 24 year old male here in the US who has died as a result of the Pfizer vaccine. The autopsy performed verified it was from the vaccine.

In the other thread I was discussing a case in the UK where a family took legal action when their son died as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Again verified by an autopsy.

In other threads I have covered other verified deaths and injuries.

The topic of this threads relates to the excess deaths and we are starting to have a very good idea what the reasons behind these excess non Covid deaths are.

The fact that this isn't investigated is already a crime!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No. I don't think you have said what I have said and written in the reply above. Far from it. This information is well known for a long period of time and I have used several links to demonstrate it.

You have been all over the place having conflicting views, often against the information that I have posted, and engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals.

So again, no!

Well first you do not need to use terms like "vaccine apologetics" or defending pharmaceuticals... We are having a discourse here and it seems that is where you all end up with your labels and snarky comments. The 6 things you wrote in your post is about the most reasonable post you have made in the past 50. For once you didn't go all extreme in your comments just like your extremes with your single death posts with knowing little about the person, and even if it was the vaccine, did they take it on their own or not and what are you suggesting when the virus is 40 times worse than the vaccine.

In my two most recent threads I have covered the story of a young 24 year old male here in the US who has died as a result of the Pfizer vaccine. The autopsy performed verified it was from the vaccine.

As I have said many times you and other overhype the risk to the vaccines and underhyped the risk to the virus itself. The fact you and others need to post about some random guy that may have died to the vaccine is a good example. Should I do random posts about anyone who dies to the virus too? Even from your 84% more myocarditis cases with young men is actually 2 per 100,000 in normal situations to like 3.8 per 100,000 with the vaccine, and you defend that to the end, but the virus is 150 per 100,000 which you ignore as nothing. Once again from your links...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No. I don't think you have said what I have said and written in the reply above. Far from it. This information is well known for a long period of time and I have used several links to demonstrate it.

You have been all over the place having conflicting views, often against the information that I have posted, and engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals.

So again, no!

Well first you do not need to use terms like "vaccine apologetics" or defending pharmaceuticals... We are having a discourse here and it seems that is where you all end up with your labels and snarky comments. The 6 things you wrote in your post is about the most reasonable post you have made in the past 50. For once you didn't go all extreme in your comments just like your extremes with your single death posts with knowing little about the person, and even if it was the vaccine, did they take it on their own or not and what are you suggesting when the virus is 40 times worse than the vaccine.

In my two most recent threads I have covered the story of a young 24 year old male here in the US who has died as a result of the Pfizer vaccine. The autopsy performed verified it was from the vaccine.

As I have said many times you and other overhype the risk to the vaccines and underhyped the risk to the virus itself. The fact you and others need to post about some random guy that may have died to the vaccine is a good example. Should I do random posts about anyone who dies to the virus too? Even from your 84% more myocarditis cases with young men is actually 2 per 100,000 in normal situations to like 3.8 per 100,000 with the vaccine, and you defend that to the end, but the virus is 150 per 100,000 which you ignore as nothing. Once again from your links...lol

Nobody is 'random'. And especially one who has died as a result of these vaccinations when having being young and healthy. We don't post 'random' cases. I personally post actual cases of deaths caused by the vaccines and have been verified as well as verified vaccine injuries. The rest are likely to have been cause by these products.

Coming back to the reality. Young and healthy people are in no need of these products as they are in very low risk from Covid itself and in a number of cases the risks from the vaccines outweigh the benefits. Several examples with Florida not recommending the mRNA vaccines for the 18-39 males, 12-17 boys in more risk from myocarditis than getting hospitalised with Covid, and a number of other research which shows vaccines may not be the best path.

Natural immunity confers much better protection than vaccination and when young and healthy people have already been infected there is no point he getting vaccinated. It's also against all immunisation principles. You get vaccinated before getting infected not after.

Let me re-iterate the points made which you seem to have agreed above.

1) Natural Immunity confers much better protection than vaccination.

2) Vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection and don't significantly reduce them either

3) There is no herd immunity contrary to some unsubstantiated claims and the fact that vaccines cannot prevent transmission and infection.

4) The risks of vaccination may outweigh the benefits in a number of cases. Several examples are given.

5) The vaccines can cause serious harm just as the virus can cause serious harm.

6) The excess amount of non Covid deaths which are considerably high in several countries are a result of a number of factors which include lockdowns, delays in getting treatment, and other.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You have this habit of ignoring any numbers I post, so once again too...

Even from your 84% more myocarditis cases with young men is actually 2 per 100,000 in normal situations to like 3.8 per 100,000 with the vaccine, and you defend that to the end, but the virus is 150 per 100,000 which you ignore as nothing. Once again from your links...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You have this habit of ignoring any numbers I post, so once again too...

Even from your 84% more myocarditis cases with young men is actually 2 per 100,000 in normal situations to like 3.8 per 100,000 with the vaccine, and you defend that to the end, but the virus is 150 per 100,000 which you ignore as nothing. Once again from your links...lol

This isn't accurate. The Thailand study shows 1,660 per 100k which had a much larger sample size. Cardiovascular effects were found in a whopping 1/3 of people as well.

drjessesantiano.com...

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

This isn't accurate. The Thailand study shows 1,660 per 100k which had a much larger sample size. Cardiovascular effects were found in a whopping 1/3 of people as well.

I took the info from Asmodeus3 own links, so talk to them.... And as to your post...whatever...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

This isn't accurate. The Thailand study shows 1,660 per 100k which had a much larger sample size. Cardiovascular effects were found in a whopping 1/3 of people as well.

I took the info from Asmodeus3 own links, so talk to them.... And as to your post...whatever...

"Whatever" sounds like a classic denialist response.


Admit it, it's the largest medical scandal in the history of humanity. The reason you can't is because you recommended it to friends and family and how would it sound to tell them you couldn't have been more wrong and it could be toxic for them.

The truth doesn't care about feelings and a strong person can admit their mistakes.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

"Whatever" sounds like a classic denialist response.

whatever means I really do not care what you post 50 times a day, move along....

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

"Whatever" sounds like a classic denialist response.

whatever means I really do not care what you post 50 times a day, move along....

You're in the thread I created. Infact you're always in threads I create, I never asked for your opinion.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

You're in the thread I created. Infact you're always in threads I create, I never asked for your opinion.

And I didn't give it to you, so we are good.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You have this habit of ignoring any numbers I post, so once again too...

Even from your 84% more myocarditis cases with young men is actually 2 per 100,000 in normal situations to like 3.8 per 100,000 with the vaccine, and you defend that to the end, but the virus is 150 per 100,000 which you ignore as nothing. Once again from your links...lol

This is a very serious reason for the Department of Health in Florida not to recommend the mRNA vaccines for the 18-39 age group of males. It is now public health recommendation in the State of Florida.

Just as the JCVI committee didn't recommend vaccinations for the 5-11 age group in England.

More research is done since then where other age groups could be at more risk from the vaccines than from Covid. The 12-17 age group of boys (seem my thread) is at more risk from myocarditis from the vaccines than getting hospitalised with Covid.

In principle, a very bad idea to release the vaccines to young and healthy people without any testing. If testing was performed we would have known the short, medium and long term effects. As more time passes we will get to know much more.

Probably the greatest medical scandal in history.

In addition there is no need for vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

If you have the knowledge and the expertise you can write to the Department of Health in Florida and explain to them why their decisions are bad. Or you can suggest why the vaccines should be given to 12-17 boys despite the facts that show otherwise.