Crisis - Norway Funeral Homes Overwhelmed With The Dead

a reply to: Xtrozero

But the way, a little while ago you were alleging that the claim was made possibly from a Bitchute video. And you were clearly wrong.

You seem to be expanding the arguments everywhere and in all directions.

Are you seriously suggesting that the results found in both Pfizer's and Moderna's trials cannot be used in the real world?!?! According to these results we all winder how the hell they released these products into the market.

Of course they compared to the placebo group. How else do you think they will be doing it??

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

But the way, a little while ago you were alleging that the claim was made possibly from a Bitchute video. And you were clearly wrong.

I asked you a number of times where the 1 per 800 came from and you could not tell me. I also could not find it anywhere either, so I suggested it came from a video. You still didn't reply and now you do after I post to another?

You seem to be expanding the arguments everywhere and in all directions.

Are you seriously suggesting that the results found in both Pfizer's and Moderna's trials cannot be used in the real world?!?! According to these results we all winder how the hell they released these products into the market.

I was answering someone else about asking me to look into 12.5 per 10000, not you since you had no clue. So yes, I looked into it just like I did with you and also looked into where the New Zealand info came from, which I'm 100% sure you didn't know until I just posted about it. You can use whatever you want, you couldn't even explain what they were considering as severe either, so give it a rest, don't jump in now...lol

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Of course we would look in the real world. It came out of the original trials and not out of the minds of conspiracy theorists or out of a black hole...
To seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Don't start, you had no clue until I posted...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

But the way, a little while ago you were alleging that the claim was made possibly from a Bitchute video. And you were clearly wrong.

I asked you a number of times where the 1 per 800 came from and you could not tell me. I also could not find it anywhere either, so I suggested it came from a video. You still didn't reply and now you do after I post to another?

You seem to be expanding the arguments everywhere and in all directions.

Are you seriously suggesting that the results found in both Pfizer's and Moderna's trials cannot be used in the real world?!?! According to these results we all winder how the hell they released these products into the market.

I was answering someone else about asking me to look into 12.5 per 10000, not you since you had no clue. So yes, I looked into it just like I did with you and also looked into where the New Zealand info came from, which I'm 100% sure you didn't know until I just posted about it. You can use whatever you want, you couldn't even explain what they were considering as severe either, so give it a rest, don't jump in now...lol

I think its time you give it a rest with the nonsense and denialism.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Of course we would look in the real world. It came out of the original trials and not out of the minds of conspiracy theorists or out of a black hole...
To seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Don't start, you had no clue until I posted...lol

You posted something from another site. I have created an entire thread which you seem to avoid for some reason with the original paper and the follow up video by Dr Campbell.

You haven't read the paper neither you have watched the video with the explanations. You couldn't even find where the 1 in 800 was coming from.

I don't know what kind of argument is this about the New Zealand study or whatever you are using. Nobody has made any discussion about it. You see to want to divert again.

Seriously you don't have an idea of what is going on and tit are trying to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

You have lost the argument long time ago and you seem to want to engage further in defending of the pharmaceuticals and promoting the official narratives which have been debunked. If you have had a look at the original paper you would have seen the authors asking for a complete re-evaluation of the benefit to risk ratio as these products apparently are not safe and effective.

If you have read the paper (you haven't as it seems) you would have seen that it discusses the original trials. But you are very late in this conversation...

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

But the way, a little while ago you were alleging that the claim was made possibly from a Bitchute video. And you were clearly wrong.

I asked you a number of times where the 1 per 800 came from and you could not tell me. I also could not find it anywhere either, so I suggested it came from a video. You still didn't reply and now you do after I post to another?

You seem to be expanding the arguments everywhere and in all directions.

Are you seriously suggesting that the results found in both Pfizer's and Moderna's trials cannot be used in the real world?!?! According to these results we all winder how the hell they released these products into the market.

I was answering someone else about asking me to look into 12.5 per 10000, not you since you had no clue. So yes, I looked into it just like I did with you and also looked into where the New Zealand info came from, which I'm 100% sure you didn't know until I just posted about it. You can use whatever you want, you couldn't even explain what they were considering as severe either, so give it a rest, don't jump in now...lol

I think its time you give it a rest with the nonsense and denialism.

Just the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. He even makes a reference about the original trials without understanding that the paper I have linked in my thread, which obviously he hasn't read, was talking about the original trials.
He thinks he has brought some new information into the conversation..

a reply to: Xtrozero

If you think that everyone here doesn't read any papers and relies only on videos you are mistaken. Just as you were mistaken and have used the strawman argument that information comes from bitchute. You were wrong of course.

Have you managed to locate the peer-reviewed paper I have posted?? There is an entire thread made about this.

And no. You are wrong. Everyone who has written the paper knows that these results were referring to the original trials but Pfizer and Moderna. And so does Dr Campbell who describes them in the first few minutes of his video that you have apparently not watched.

Defending the pharmaceuticals or engaging in vaccine apologetics isn't a wise option.

a reply to: M5xaz

gets closer, but I can't help but think it'll look like the either the fall of the soviets or the reformation.. either way we look as corrupt as either the roman church or soviet union..

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
These harms have not been reflected in the numbers of serious adverse reactions to the vaccines, which are small compared to the number of doses delivered.

Your comment is simply evidence of your willingness to believe whatever your overlords tell you.

The evidence of extremely harmful effects are completely supported and reflected by the VAERS data.

Really? Then why do surgeons and nurses wear masks? Why aren't they harmed?

Who says they aren't?

Bankruptcy numbers in 2018 were the same as in 2020 and have fallen significantly since:

It is sad, really, how willing you are to believe whatever your overlords tell you.

The virus, like the similar coronaviruses SARS and MERS was NOT always likely to become endemic. As I have frequently pointed out, in New Zealand, two separate outbreaks were totally stopped. That shows that it was stoppable.

Sure... by destroying businesses and lives.

But then - what happens when the lockdowns are lifted? It starts spreading again.

The problem was those who did little or nothing to stop it spreading, and therefore incubated, and spread it.

Those people probably should be held liable for the outcomes we are seeing.

The only problem with that ridiculously insane opinion is there is nothing - NOTHING - of substance to back it up.

Here's an alternative opinion for you...

People who championed the lockdowns and mask mandates and forced others into their personal delusions should be held accountable for the businesses and lives they are actually and demonstrably responsible for destroying.

RPeople are still dying from COVID in nearly every country.

Maybe (the tests are still so flawed that they cannot be trusted) yes... but they are also dying from the flu, and lots of other things too...

So... freaking... what? Life is a crap-shoot. Get over it.

Pure and simple, people who advise others to avoid lifesaving medicines and safety precautions are evil.

Not as evil as those in positions of authoroty who FORCE everyone but themselves to be subjected to experimental medical procedures against their will.

So, you are in favor of lynchings, and based entirely on the untrue doom porn you believe?

Not at all. I'm in favor of open and fair criminal trials, and for those who are found guilty of mass murder, yes, I am 100% in favor of lynchings, performed on the steps of the Supreme Court building and broadcast live over the internet.

That's what law abiding citizens do.

Tell me, since you and I are survivors, are you experiencing all that extra cash and property that is now available because of the dead? Is anyone? Surely you'd think if depopulation motivates all your alleged villains, then as a survivor, you'd also be in a good position.

Does it hurt? Being you I mean? It really must be extraordinarily painful.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

If you think that everyone here doesn't read any papers and relies only on videos you are mistaken.

After you were posting it like crazy, I asked you 3 times where you got it so I could also look at it, and you just replied with snarky remarks. I also asked you what actually was listed as severe reactions since the devil is in the details and once again you just blew me off with some attacking reply. There still isn't a 1 per 800 that I can find, so maybe you can tell me who used that instead of 12.5 per 10,000 or 125 per 100,000 if it is in print somewhere.

The reason why I ask these things is because people throw around severe like it is set in stone as to what that means, and it is not. Because studies are different you can't apply one over everything as a wide brush such as the initial testing of the vaccine. Right now, New Zealand shows 3 per 10,000 vaccines that may have a severe reaction to the vaccine on a rather large list of issues. That is a rather big difference in the 12.5 per 10,000 based on just calculations. As example, for Myocardial infarction (heart attack) they are investigating 104 out of 16,000 normally seen every year there. We need to also remember that the vast majority of severe listed are treatable back to full health such as in the case of Myocarditis where almost all are mild cases and treated just fine, but still listed as severe vaccine reaction.

I'm not sure why the term video triggered you so much as I only used it because I found no reference to 1 per 800 and a video would have that information that would not be searchable, so I asked that too.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Your comment is simply evidence of your willingness to believe whatever your overlords tell you.

The evidence of extremely harmful effects are completely supported and reflected by the VAERS data.

Since VAERS is a passive reporting system why do you not look at the CDC data after they investigate the reports instead, and use that? VAERS is not a tool to determine anything, but people like you use it as the end all be all report that once the CDC investigates the severe cases, they get like less than 1% that is seen as vaccine related.

Here is what VAERS is really for.

VAERS

VAERS serves as an early warning system for unforeseen problems with approved vaccinations that might be worth investigating scientifically. Often, these problems are so rare that they don’t appear until after clinical trials when a much larger population receives vaccinations.

VAERS is a publicly available, searchable database of reports that have not been verified. It simply contains whatever people have voluntarily reported. Moreover, the CDC and FDA do not restrict what people can report, as long as it happened at some point following a vaccination.

That means events that happen even years later and have no obvious connection to a vaccine, such as feelings of anger, end up reported in the system, says Talaat. “It’s very open and public and searchable. Since it’s so transparent, people don’t really understand what it’s for. They think it’s things that are vetted and have causal relationships with the vaccine.”

Talaat says the best source of research stemming from VAERS is the CDC, because they are able to trace the records backward and verify them.

Here is how it typically goes...

For example, by January 10, 2021, VAERS logged 1,266 reports of adverse events following the Moderna vaccine. The CDC and FDA flagged 108 of those cases for further review. Ultimately, 10 of those cases turned out to be anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, with nine of the affected people having a history of allergic reactions or allergies—including five of those nine with a history of anaphylaxis specifically. This screening allowed doctors to advise vaccination sites to continue following CDC guidance for administering vaccines as they had been.

So, in this case 10 out of 1266 reports were seen as related that was well under 1%. I have no issues with you or others still grabbing whatever you like from VAERS, or reporting what someone else grabs, but I think accuracy is important in all this.

a reply to: Xtrozero

There still isn't a 1 per 800 that I can find, so maybe you can tell me who used that instead of 125 per 100,000 if it is in print somewhere.

So who used 125 per 100,000?

The study in question stated - 12.5 per 10,000.

Right now, New Zealand shows 3 per 10,000 vaccines that may have a severe reaction to the vaccine on a rather large list of issues.

Do you have a link for that?

The 12.5 per 10,000 came out of the original trials.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Xtrozero

There still isn't a 1 per 800 that I can find, so maybe you can tell me who used that instead of 125 per 100,000 if it is in print somewhere.

So who used 125 per 100,000?

The study in question stated - 12.5 per 10,000.

Right now, New Zealand shows 3 per 10,000 vaccines that may have a severe reaction to the vaccine on a rather large list of issues.

Do you have a link for that?

The 12.5 per 10,000 came out of the original trials.

Typically, it depends on the number. per 100,000 is very common. For rarer issues per million is used such as 3 per million. They typically try to keep the decimal out of it all, but the trials were 44,000 people so they used 10,000. I don't have issues with any of them... My question was where is 1 per 800 listed like that and I received zero answers. Digging, the closest thing I could find was in the Phiser report of 12.5 per 10,000, but no one told me that and no one suggested that was what the 1 per 800 represented.

New Zealand's data is easy to find and being isolated I bet very accurate... Metasafe

a reply to: Xtrozero
It's a bit of luck I suggested that you search 12.5 per 10,000 or you may have never found this:
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Xtrozero
It's a bit of luck I suggested that you search 12.5 per 10,000 or you may have never found this:
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

Is 2/4 the same as 1/2

Asking for a friend.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

It's a bit of luck I suggested that you search 12.5 per 10,000 or you may have never found this:
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

Yes, once you asked me to look for that I instantly saw the 1 per 800 relationship, but that is such a strange number as to what is typically use. As to how the 12.5 per 10,000 is listed in the initial report it seems people are using it out of contexts for all kind of things, so it is not some newly found thing. Also, since the severe list is huge and has all kinds of issues listed on it like diarrhea what does the 12.5 really represent to us, and is it really an issue as how it is used in the testing? I see people recently using it as a weapon to say the vaccine was bad, but as I said I think people are using it out of context for what it really represents.

I also don't think they actually pull it out of the report and just got it from some other place like that New Zealand study that listed it as what they used, and that is why it recently popped up after 2 years.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
[a reply to: tanstaafl

Since VAERS is a passive reporting system

That is completely and totally irrelevant, when looked at through the lens of its stated purpose, how long it has been used, and the historical data and what it has shown.

The VAERS data has been very consistent in revealing problems with vaccines, all kinds of them, and it's data was relied on to determine when other bad jabs were discontinued.'

The fact is, the number of adverse events being reported for all of the covid jabs is far, far in excess of anything ever before - in fact, there have been more reports for these two jabs in the first year alone than there were for all other jabs combined over a 30 YEAR period.

Anyone who cannot see that this is essentially proof positive - barring evidence that these reports have been falsified en masse (in fact there is far more than ample evidence the precise opposite is true, and many many reports were not made due to extreme pressure by Hospital Administrators and those who were benefiting financially from the whole charade) - that these jabs were extremely unsafe and should not only be pulled immediately, they should have never ever been granted EUA status.

why do you not look at the CDC data after they investigate the reports instead, and use that?

Do you have a link? My understanding is they have essentially refused to investigate.

VAERS is not a tool to determine anything,

Correct, but it is a tool intended to act as an early warning system, and it has been screaming at the top of it's fake lungs that there is a huuuuge problem here.

people like you use it as the end all be all report that once the CDC investigates the severe cases, they get like less than 1% that is seen as vaccine related.

Wrong. They have not been investigating these, they are simply making pronouncements.

Here is what VAERS is really for.

I know what it is for. You are apparently determined to ignore the huge problem posed when you take into account the huge number of reports, it is statistically impossible for these to not be whosing a huuuge problem, especially when compared to all other vaccines over the last 30+ years.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

Is 2/4 the same as 1/2

Asking for a friend.

That is not the point of this. 1 per 800 was used over and over and I asked 3 times where that came from and got no answer. On my own research 12.5 per 10,000 was the only thing I could find in relationship to it and was still out of context to how the 1 per 800 was being used.

So, what is your point again?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I also don't think they actually pull it out of the report and just got it from some other place like that New Zealand study that listed it as what they used, and that is why it recently popped up after 2 years.

What?

a reply to: Xtrozero
You did get get an answer..... eventually.
This link was provided for you by Asmodeus3...did you miss it?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There is a link to yt on the page...... it's written there.