Crisis - Norway Funeral Homes Overwhelmed With The Dead

a reply to: Xtrozero
It's the promotion of fear that p*ss** me off! Along with a the cowards that need validation for their own, "feelings" of fear.

Idiots. Totally ignorant of the fact, that the people they believe are trying to "save them", for "their own safety".
Are the same KIND of people that "democratically" elected Hitler, as a "leader".
And most of them? They got bonus train rides.

But they're/were most likely "educated/trained". Not critical thinkers.

Historically speaking? ...Just saying NO, usually defines a good death, from a bad death.

All the "yes men", end up as bad examples.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Heard imunity needs an imune system to activate it.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I did see what you have written that's why I haven't commented on it. I do strongly agree that herd immunity is not just very difficult to achieve but in this case impossible just as everyone has accepted after 3 years of rapidly mutating and very infectious variants.

OK not really debating that. BUT we all need to remember that the virus was totally NEW and that there was the problem. Use of herd immunity has more to do with everyone having antibodies either from the virus, vaccine or both. The fact that variants spring up reduces the efficacy of both the vaccine and virus induced antibodies, and so people can get it again and again with the new variants, BUT they will have some protection giving them a better chance for minimal illness with each. Can you agree with this?

I was merely responding to your comment that the other member is correct when he talks about herd immunity. Obviously he isn't as he was specifically talking about herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 which is impossible.

I was just saying herd immunity is a thing...

For the last part I only agree for those who are at a higher risk i.e over 65 and with comorbidities. When you have cases where the there is more risk from vaccine-induced myocarditis rather than hospitalised with Covid then there is no point trying to vaccinate children or young adults. (As an example. There are many more conditions a vaccine could cause).

I will say again it was very wrong to release these vaccines to the general population. Just as one of the Italian members of the European Parliament said: The greatest medical scandal in history.

It was wrong to mandate them, not release them. I think the only wrong was they needed to leave them at the 18+ age group. When we take lets say myocarditis in young males we are still talking only 2 to 3 per 100,000 doses, with the vast majority mild condition quickly treatable. It seems second dose of Moderna pushes it up to 20 per 100,000 and so that is the number people are alarmed about. I see the other vaccines are still 3 per 100,000 on second shot, so no clue what is going on with the Moderna one.

Here is the death rates for males to COVID
15-19 3 per 100,000
20-24 8 per 100,000
24-29 17 per 100,000
30-34 33 per 100,000
35-39 56 per 100,000
40-44 106 per 100,000
80+ 10,825 per 100,000

So you tell me when should males start to use the vaccine?

a reply to: Xtrozero


There is a difference between what is required by the FDA or the law and how many of reports are made on VAERS.

Underreporting is a serious issue and has been a serious issue for as long as anyone can remember.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review

The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings. In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%).

Likewise it is estimated that a very small fraction of adverse reactions from the vaccines are reported


www.bmj.com...

How can public health officials rely on a system that reports fewer than 1% of adverse effects?
How can they dismiss placebo-controlled trials that raise serious possibilities of vaccine-caused illness?

16 July 2010
Allan S. Cunningham
Retired pediatrician
Cooperstown NY 13326

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am sure if you take a look at the threads and the current literature on the subject you will see that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are associated with numerous issues including blood clots.

Also front the other post, herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is impossible.

I believe the vast majority of blood clots are from the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine and mainly in younger women at 1 per 100,000, others are much lower...

The vast majority of myocarditis from all the vaccines is about 2 to 3 per 100,000, BUT the second shot of Moderna saw a spike of 20 per 100,000, and that is the one doctors have been concerned about.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is a difference between what is required by the FDA or the law and how many of reports are made on VAERS.

Underreporting is a serious issue and has been a serious issue for as long as anyone can remember.

How is this different than what I wrote? Your article is from 2006 and I said a Harvard study in 2018 showed less than 2% are using VAERS. Do you want to argue just to argue when we say the same thing? lol

Likewise it is estimated that a very small fraction of adverse reactions from the vaccines are reported

How can public health officials rely on a system that reports fewer than 1% of adverse effects?
How can they dismiss placebo-controlled trials that raise serious possibilities of vaccine-caused illness?

Jesus, from 2010 and basically repeating what I said.. geez

My point is the pandemic and vaccines changed all that... So you are taking articles from decades ago and applying them to todays situation where everyone knows what VAERS is and with it in the front limelight... Before 2020 no one had a clue it even existed...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I did see what you have written that's why I haven't commented on it. I do strongly agree that herd immunity is not just very difficult to achieve but in this case impossible just as everyone has accepted after 3 years of rapidly mutating and very infectious variants.

OK not really debating that. BUT we all need to remember that the virus was totally NEW and that there was the problem. Use of herd immunity has more to do with everyone having antibodies either from the virus, vaccine or both. The fact that variants spring up reduces the efficacy of both the vaccine and virus induced antibodies, and so people can get it again and again with the new variants, BUT they will have some protection giving them a better chance for minimal illness with each. Can you agree with this?

I was merely responding to your comment that the other member is correct when he talks about herd immunity. Obviously he isn't as he was specifically talking about herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 which is impossible.

I was just saying herd immunity is a thing...

For the last part I only agree for those who are at a higher risk i.e over 65 and with comorbidities. When you have cases where the there is more risk from vaccine-induced myocarditis rather than hospitalised with Covid then there is no point trying to vaccinate children or young adults. (As an example. There are many more conditions a vaccine could cause).

I will say again it was very wrong to release these vaccines to the general population. Just as one of the Italian members of the European Parliament said: The greatest medical scandal in history.

It was wrong to mandate them, not release them. I think the only wrong was they needed to leave them at the 18+ age group. When we take lets say myocarditis in young males we are still talking only 2 to 3 per 100,000 doses, with the vast majority mild condition quickly treatable. It seems second dose of Moderna pushes it up to 20 per 100,000 and so that is the number people are alarmed about. I see the other vaccines are still 3 per 100,000 on second shot, so no clue what is going on with the Moderna one.

Here is the death rates for males to COVID
15-19 3 per 100,000
20-24 8 per 100,000
24-29 17 per 100,000
30-34 33 per 100,000
35-39 56 per 100,000
40-44 106 per 100,000
80+ 10,825 per 100,000

So you tell me when should males start to use the vaccine?

I wouldn't rely on a crippled vaccine which should have never been released in the population. Young and healthy people up to the age of 45-50 with no comorbidities have no need for them. Natural immunity is superior. As the matter of fact no comparison.

For the elderly with co-morbidities, yes, they can use it as they can get seriously ill in some cases.

The mandates were a huge mistake and the release in the general population without knowing the short, medium, and long term effects a crime. They should be indicted and end up in jail for this. Medical negligence at least.

As for the statistics I am well aware of them.

Here are the stats for most age groups (both male and female)


Infection Fatality Rate but Pre-vaccination era.


0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs

www.medrxiv.org...

They are slightly lower than the ones you have provided and the authors of this paper argue it could be much lower.

In a few words if you are below the age of 50 and with no comorbidities you just relax and don't engage with the absurd vaccination campaign.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is a difference between what is required by the FDA or the law and how many of reports are made on VAERS.

Underreporting is a serious issue and has been a serious issue for as long as anyone can remember.

How is this different than what I wrote? Your article is from 2006 and I said a Harvard study in 2018 showed less than 2% are using VAERS. Do you want to argue just to argue when we say the same thing? lol

Likewise it is estimated that a very small fraction of adverse reactions from the vaccines are reported

How can public health officials rely on a system that reports fewer than 1% of adverse effects?
How can they dismiss placebo-controlled trials that raise serious possibilities of vaccine-caused illness?

Jesus, from 2010 and basically repeating what I said.. geez

My point is the pandemic and vaccines changed all that... So you are taking articles from decades ago and applying them to todays situation where everyone knows what VAERS is and with it in the front limelight... Before 2020 no one had a clue it even existed...

Under-reporting is still an issue though. It was an issue and it is still an issue. Not much has changed. I don't think everyone knows what VAERS is. This is your interpretation which could be very wrong. Most probably have no clue. Some are beginning to learn.

Every estimation that I have seen and heard talks about 1-10% of all cases of adverse reactions reported. Which makes underreporting a serious issue which has never been solved.

originally posted by: murphy22

It's the promotion of fear that p*ss** me off! Along with a the cowards that need validation for their own, "feelings" of fear.

We have seen this with both sides now.

The Left pushed virus fears, pushed lockdown, pushed mandates, pushed masks, F'ed up people lives while in private they really didn't believe it much either but use it all as some virtue signal of they are good and everyone else not on board with it are all bad.

A chunk of the Right are pushing vaccine doom porn, depopulation agendas, the evil everyone associated with anything medical these days, well except for their Bit Chute experts.

It is all fear porn not needed...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am sure if you take a look at the threads and the current literature on the subject you will see that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are associated with numerous issues including blood clots.

Also front the other post, herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is impossible.

I believe the vast majority of blood clots are from the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine and mainly in younger women at 1 per 100,000, others are much lower...

The vast majority of myocarditis from all the vaccines is about 2 to 3 per 100,000, BUT the second shot of Moderna saw a spike of 20 per 100,000, and that is the one doctors have been concerned about.

Actually there are reports of blood clots in all Covid-19 vaccines used.

For example the Astrazeneca vaccine is no longer available in the UK, the country that has created it, and it was withdrawn quietly from the market due to some 'rare' serious adverse reactions and deaths due to blood clots.

One 'safe and effective' vaccine gone.

Thromboembolic events and hemorrhagic stroke after mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) covid-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study

(Link doesn't seem to work)

The article above discusses the possibility of strokes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Under-reporting is still an issue though. It was an issue and it is still an issue. Not much has changed. I don't think everyone knows what VAERS is. This is your interpretation which could be very wrong. Most probably have no clue. Some are beginning to learn.

Every estimation that I have seen and heard talks about 1-10% of all cases of adverse reactions reported. Which makes underreporting a serious issue which has never been solved.

Your "talks" are bias based, and VAERS is not the end all be all reporting system. We have many countries doing their own reporting and numbers seem to match up rather well when talking X per 100,000. I would disagree that medium to severe reactions are being under reported. I'm sure mild reactions are... So if in todays world the medical profession is not reporting medium to sever then they are totally F'ed up, which I don't think they are. We are also seeing many cases of invalidated reporting since ANYONE can report ANYTHING in VAERS since EVERYONE now knows about it as it is a passive reporting system. We saw massive increase in its use at all levels and you are now still suggesting only 1 to 10% reporting especially for the more serious cases? I don't believe it, sorry.

We can also get extremely reliable numbers from sampling, so totals is not needed for anything really. That is where we get our x per 100,000... VAERS is not used for that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Under-reporting is still an issue though. It was an issue and it is still an issue. Not much has changed. I don't think everyone knows what VAERS is. This is your interpretation which could be very wrong. Most probably have no clue. Some are beginning to learn.

Every estimation that I have seen and heard talks about 1-10% of all cases of adverse reactions reported. Which makes underreporting a serious issue which has never been solved.

Your "talks" are bias based, and VAERS is not the end all be all reporting system. We have many countries doing their own reporting and numbers seem to match up rather well when talking X per 100,000. I would disagree that medium to severe reactions are being under reported. I'm sure mild reactions are... So if in todays world the medical profession is not reporting medium to sever then they are totally F'ed up, which I don't think they are. We are also seeing many cases of invalidated reporting since ANYONE can report ANYTHING in VAERS since EVERYONE now knows about it as it is a passive reporting system.

We can also get extremely reliable numbers from sampling, so totals is not needed for anything really.

No. There is nothing biased.
Underreporting was always an issue and it is still an issue. You may disagree but I don't think anyone will argue there is over-reporting of adverse reactions due to the vaccines.

In addition most people don't even know what VAERS means and not do they know where to speak if they have problems after vaccination. I don't think that many will suspect vaccination was associated the issue after so much indoctrination.



From my previous link

How can public health officials rely on a system that reports fewer than 1% of adverse effects? How can they dismiss placebo-controlled trials that raise serious possibilities of vaccine-caused illness?

16 July 2010
Allan S. Cunningham
Retired pediatrician
Cooperstown NY 13326

I believe you see the magnitude of the problem. The question was raised back in 2010 and existed for much longer. But what has changed in the last 12 years? Nothing much. Most people don't even know what VAERS is.


What you believe to be true or not is a different issue. The issue of underreporting cannot change because you choose not to believe it happens.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Actually there are reports of blood clots in all Covid-19 vaccines used.

For example the Astrazeneca vaccine is no longer available in the UK, the country that has created it, and it was withdrawn quietly from the market due to some 'rare' serious adverse reactions and deaths due to blood clots.

One 'safe and effective' vaccine gone.

I said "Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine and mainly in younger women at 1 per 100,000, others are much lower...

So I was wrong, Astrazeneca vaccine is 1.9 per 100,000 (Cambridge), J&J is second at 1 per 100,000

So what is your definition of safe and effective anything...

Vioxx for arthritis pain carried a risk of 76 deaths per 100,000
Aspirin 10.4 deaths per 100,000 men

As I said before the REAL issue was the mandates as every drug kills and the risk to the drug needs to be much lower than the medical condition it is helping.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I wouldn't rely on a crippled vaccine which should have never been released in the population. Young and healthy people up to the age of 45-50 with no comorbidities have no need for them. Natural immunity is superior. As the matter of fact no comparison.

Well it is not a matter of fact, but anyhow. So males ages 35-39 at 56 per 100,000 is OK when they are past the younger age for myocarditis that is 2 to 3 per 100,000 in the higher risk age groups? Remember that most cases are also minor.

As for the statistics I am well aware of them.

You seem to not use them much to make reasonable decisions.

Here are the stats for most age groups (both male and female)
Infection Fatality Rate but Pre-vaccination era.


They are slightly lower than the ones you have provided and the authors of this paper argue it could be much lower.

Mine were just males since I was focusing on myocarditis in younger males. So looking at my numbers when should males get the vaccine? Put your statistics hat on please...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Actually there are reports of blood clots in all Covid-19 vaccines used.

For example the Astrazeneca vaccine is no longer available in the UK, the country that has created it, and it was withdrawn quietly from the market due to some 'rare' serious adverse reactions and deaths due to blood clots.

One 'safe and effective' vaccine gone.

I said "Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine and mainly in younger women at 1 per 100,000, others are much lower...

So I was wrong, Astrazeneca vaccine is 1.9 per 100,000 (Cambridge), J&J is second at 1 per 100,000

So what is your definition of safe and effective anything...

Vioxx for arthritis pain carried a risk of 76 deaths per 100,000
Aspirin 10.4 deaths per 100,000 men

As I said before the REAL issue was the mandates as every drug kills and the risk to the drug needs to be much lower than the medical condition it is helping.

If a vaccine is withdrawn from the market after it has been branded as 'safe and effective' and a 'miracle' that has saved many many lives then I think actions speak more than words.

If a vaccine is pulled out of the market then that's not what we call safe and effective. It was pulled after concerns about 'rare' but serious blood clots.

Imagine if the Aspirin has 10+ deaths per 100,000 what really happens with these Covid 'vaccines'.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I did see what you have written that's why I haven't commented on it. I do strongly agree that herd immunity is not just very difficult to achieve but in this case impossible just as everyone has accepted after 3 years of rapidly mutating and very infectious variants.

OK not really debating that. BUT we all need to remember that the virus was totally NEW and that there was the problem.

Was it really new or was that just fearmongering?

It was still a coronavirus, which we have lived with for a very long time prior. We all have immune systems that should recognize at least most of a coronavirus which seems borne out by the fact that so many were asymptomatic/mild cases. Truly new and the vast majority would have succumbed.

We were also told for decades that there would never be a vaccine for a common cold/coronavirus due to it's rapid evolving nature then suddenly vaccines appeared to save the day. Amazing how many people forgot all about this.

Personally, I feel those in power took advantage of short term memories and inevitabilility of the herd to stampede.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I wouldn't rely on a crippled vaccine which should have never been released in the population. Young and healthy people up to the age of 45-50 with no comorbidities have no need for them. Natural immunity is superior. As the matter of fact no comparison.

Well it is not a matter of fact, but anyhow. So males ages 35-39 at 56 per 100,000 is OK when they are past the younger age for myocarditis that is 2 to 3 per 100,000 in the higher risk age groups? Remember that most cases are also minor.

As for the statistics I am well aware of them.

You seem to not use them much to make reasonable decisions.

Here are the stats for most age groups (both male and female)
Infection Fatality Rate but Pre-vaccination era.


They are slightly lower than the ones you have provided and the authors of this paper argue it could be much lower.

Mine were just males since I was focusing on myocarditis in younger males. So looking at my numbers when should males get the vaccine? Put your statistics hat on please...

No if you have seen my table with a very good paper you will see that I am using the statistics wisely. No need for vaccination if you are under the age of 50 and with no comorbidities.

Infection Fatality Rate but Pre-vaccination era.


0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs

For example in the 0-19 age group the infection fatality rate is 3 in a million. In the 20-29 it's 3 in 100,000.

If you have no comorbidities your chances are miniscule.

You need to realise the vaccines are for the over 65 with co-morbidities.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Personally, I don’t fear death…since it’s inevitable. What I do fear is some of the many possible ways in which my death can come about. Of the many possible ways….. I prefer the death in my sleep scenario of old age natural causes.

A Covid death is a death sometimes without reverent dignity for the individual…..

Let’s not forget, that at the height of early Covid….multiple human beings were carted into refrigerated 16 wheelers and then mass buried. Where’s the dignity in this? I’m going to assume this is fear no one wants.

How does a living loved one place a headstone on this……



Is this Fear Porn/mongering?…I guess it could be…if it’s not directly affecting a person.

For me personally? I’m pretty sure my last dying wish is not going to be ….to be buried in a mass pit side by side (or dumped) with unknown persons…..imo. I wouldn’t want my living loved ones to have that fear.

👽

a reply to: Xtrozero

You are mistaken again about the statistics used.

Take a look in Florida for example.

Dr Ladapo - Surgeon General
Department of Health Florida

content.govdelivery.com...

State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo Issues New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance

This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.

Let me repeat: The benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group (18-39 males).

In a few words the mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended in Florida for the 18-39 males.

So no, I wouldn't give it to males on this group. And definitely I wouldn't vaccinate children.
In addition I would vaccinate ANYONE below the age of 50 with these potentially hazardous products.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah. I know.
It has come down to anyone that wants to be my "leader". I have to ask, "who's paying you?"

I can pretty much govern/lead myself, without help.