You Either Keep Getting Your Booster Shots Or Admit You Were Wrong

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I have two pieces of information ...

OK, good for you...

a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Sure they do, but not efficiently and, as it has been posted before, not everything called a vaccine has done that so, I will ask again, what would keep the mRNA jabs from being called vaccines under the old definition?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Speaking of narratives you need to see more closely to the safe and effective assertion that was never proven anywhere other than the headlines of the mainstream propaganda.

We keep going back to that, but you never define anything and when I hold you to a point you are dead wrong. Such as your 1 per 100,000 is dangerous point you have said 100 times now. What is my narrative? That we have common drugs that kill 75 per 100,000 and are still seen as safe?

And then continues with all the debunked arguments about herd immunity

So why do you keep adding me to this part when I have said over and over this has never been my point. I have said a number of times that herd immunity depends on the virus and it would be extremely had to do with the flu, cold, Sar-2 etc type viruses. So what are you looking from me on this?

I have also said a number of times that the immunity of a vaccine is all based on the type of virus too and some vaccines will not only do nothing to prevent you from getting the virus but will not keep you from dying with a 99% that you will die, but still called a vaccine long before 2020.

I will take the analysis

Post the number of deaths due to heart attack in ages from 18 to 29 in Isriel, from 2015 to 2022 then we can both look at the data.

The authors of the paper I linked where the severe adverse reactions are 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinees have argued the following

The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

Clearly pointing that the vaccines may not be safe and effective due to excess risk of serious adverse reactions.

The person who is wrong isn't me. You seem to be in a denial continuously and just as on several occasions your arguments are in a turmoil.

What drug kills 75 per 100,000?
Imagine you apply this percentage to 5.5 billion + people who have taken the vaccines?! You will have 750,000 per 1,000,000,000

and around 4,125,000 vaccine deaths in 5.5 billion people.

In comparison we have around 6,800,000 deaths from Covid-19.

What on Earth are you talking about?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You are going in cycles trying to hold to something and you don't seem to 'find anything in the adea'. Perhaps you can email him and you will get some more detailed explanation...

I looked at everything he has written on, and management of safety and quality of manufacturing of biological products isn't there...is that clearer?

And I looked at the classes he teaches and there nothing there about biological products and surely there isn't anything to his labeling of "MIT Expert on Drug Safety". Seems you and others just add crap at will to make something fit.


let me repost this again... where is the 30 years of experience again? His only work has been an officer Israeli Defense Forces, school and professor it seems.

He received a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Tel-Aviv University (Israel) in 2001, and a PhD in Operations Research from Cornell University in 2005. Levi spent almost 12 years in the Israeli Defense Forces in the Intelligence Wing and was designated as an Extra Merit Officer.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
But can you explain why the mRNA jabs wouldn't have fit under the old definition posted here?

Because they don't provide immunity which is literally the point.

It's like selling a car without wheels. It can't function as a car.

The argument had become even more interesting as the other member claims there is a drug what kills 75 people in 100,000 who will take it without naming which drug it is. By his standards is a safe drug and hence vaccines can have a similar profile.

Imagine 75 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...
Or even 20 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...

Scale up to 5.5 billion who have taken these products.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You are going in cycles trying to hold to something and you don't seem to 'find anything in the adea'. Perhaps you can email him and you will get some more detailed explanation...

I looked at everything he has written on, and management of safety and quality of manufacturing of biological products isn't there...is that clearer?

And I looked at the classes he teaches and there nothing there about biological products and surely there isn't anything to his labeling of "MIT Expert on Drug Safety". Seems you and others just add crap at will to make something fit.


let me repost this again... where is the 30 years of experience again? His only work has been an officer Israeli Defense Forces, school and professor it seems.

He received a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Tel-Aviv University (Israel) in 2001, and a PhD in Operations Research from Cornell University in 2005. Levi spent almost 12 years in the Israeli Defense Forces in the Intelligence Wing and was designated as an Extra Merit Officer.

You are mistaken again. He is an expert in risk assessment and management.

I have more than 30 years of experience as a practitioner and an academic in using data analytics to assess and manage risk, particularly in the context of health systems and health policies, as well as the management of safety and quality of manufacturing of biological products

You haven't looked at anything as I am the one who has brought this to your attention and the one who has created the thread a few days ago.

Clearly not a layman or a ...pilot!

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0


Because they don't provide immunity which is literally the point.

It's like selling a car without wheels. It can't function as a car.

I keep asking this, so maybe you will answer. What about all the vaccines that do not provide immunity too, but have also been called a vaccine for decades? People seem to cherry pick a few viruses based on DNA and not RNA that we DO get 100% immunity from them mainly because they are a DNA based virus.

a reply to: Xtrozero


What drug has 75 deaths per 100,000 who take it?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I have two pieces of information ...

OK, good for you...

You can use the paper by the cardiologist to get a better understanding on why these products are not safe and effective and must be withdrawn from the market.

Results:

In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The argument had become even more interesting as the other member claims there is a drug what kills 75 people in 100,000 who will take it without naming which drug it is. By his standards is a safe drug and hence vaccines can have a similar profile.

Imagine 75 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...
Or even 20 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...

Scale up to 5.5 billion who have taken these products.

I did name it before and others, but you ignored my question.


Scale all you want, so what is your point? As I said ALL drugs are based on risk to reward... We would not want to force everyone in America to take aspirin every day for no need, nor get Chemo without the higher risk of having the cancer that needs it.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3


What drug has 75 deaths per 100,000 who take it?

I believe I posted it is taken for arthritis...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You are mistaken again. He is an expert in risk assessment and management.

These are words off his bio... Maybe he magically expanded in the last year to all you say...

He received a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Tel-Aviv University (Israel) in 2001, and a PhD in Operations Research from Cornell University in 2005. Levi spent almost 12 years in the Israeli Defense Forces in the Intelligence Wing and was designated as an Extra Merit Officer.

You haven't looked at anything as I am the one who has brought this to your attention and the one who has created the thread a few days ago.

I looked at everything he published as an article, and I looked at the classes he teaches. There is nothing in them to link to what you suggest he is. That is all I am saying. You brought him up and I went to go look at him... simple as that...

Clearly not a layman or a ...pilot!

Boy that hurts... lol

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero


What drug has 75 deaths per 100,000 who take it?

This may be what a study is showing at this point in time, but it's way higher than that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The argument had become even more interesting as the other member claims there is a drug what kills 75 people in 100,000 who will take it without naming which drug it is. By his standards is a safe drug and hence vaccines can have a similar profile.

Imagine 75 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...
Or even 20 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...

Scale up to 5.5 billion who have taken these products.

I did name it before and others, but you ignored my question.


Scale all you want, so what is your point? As I said ALL drugs are based on risk to reward... We would not want to force everyone in America to take aspirin every day for no need, nor get Chemo without the higher risk of having the cancer that needs it.

I haven't seen anything . Just a number out of nowhere but imagine that number applied to the mRNA products?! You will be having millions dead from these products and the number is comparable to the number of those died from Covid-19.

So your argument is just nonsensical as 75 deaths in 100,000 vaccinees is a huge number which will make any product not suitable for any use in the first place. It is like having 7 to 8 deaths for every 1000 people you vaccinate. That would be a lethal product.

And if you have a little more than that you will end up with more people dying from the vaccine rather than from the disease itself.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The argument had become even more interesting as the other member claims there is a drug what kills 75 people in 100,000 who will take it without naming which drug it is. By his standards is a safe drug and hence vaccines can have a similar profile.

Imagine 75 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...
Or even 20 deaths per 100,000 vaccinees...

Scale up to 5.5 billion who have taken these products.

I did name it before and others, but you ignored my question.


Scale all you want, so what is your point? As I said ALL drugs are based on risk to reward... We would not want to force everyone in America to take aspirin every day for no need, nor get Chemo without the higher risk of having the cancer that needs it.

The scale up is relevant as drugs maybe taken only by a specific group in the population i.e a group that has many less members in comparison to the group of mRNA vaccinees. The mRNA products have been used by a very large number of the entire population of the planet. Hence when you apply these numbers you must take into account how many they use it.

The numbers again

Apply this percentage to 5.5 billion + people who have taken the vaccines and you will have 750,000 per 1,000,000,000

and around 4,125,000 vaccine deaths in 5.5 billion people.

In comparison we have around 6,800,000 deaths from Covid-19.

That would be a lethal product that must have never been released in the population in the first place.

Even if the deaths were 1 in 100,000 you will end up with around 55,000 dead from the 'vaccine'... Can you name me another vaccine that has killed so many people?

Do you see the issue with mass vaccinations?!

And we have only talked about deaths without considering the debilitating conditions and the severe adverse reactions i.e multiple times the number of deaths.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero


What drug has 75 deaths per 100,000 who take it?

This may be what a study is showing at this point in time, but it's way higher than that.

I can't say what the exact number is at this point in time. But the other member seems not to understand the danger of mass vaccinations. Even if there was 1 death per 1 million vaccinees then we will be having 5,500 deaths around the world from these products given they at least 5.5 billion people have been vaccinated. And multiple times the number of debilitating conditions and severe adverse reactions.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Do you see the issue with mass vaccinations?!

And we have only talked about deaths without considering the debilitating conditions and the severe adverse reactions i.e multiple times the number of deaths.

If you had read the 100+ posts from me on this subject, you would see I have always been against the mandates and have explained in detail many times as to how I see a correct use of the vaccine.

We haven't even talked about the adverse reactions to the actual virus either, but hey that isn't a place you all want to go.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I can't say what the exact number is at this point in time. But the other member seems not to understand the danger of mass vaccinations. Even if there was 1 death per 1 million vaccinees then we will be having 5,500 deaths around the world from these products given they at least 5.5 billion people have been vaccinated. And multiple times the number of debilitating conditions and severe adverse reactions.

I don't think anyone here has supported the mandates. I have even said a number of times, that you also replied to, that we would not even want to mandate aspirin much less this vaccine. What would be the death rate of just aspirin if we mandated that everyone no matter what had to take it every day, and you fought me tooth and nail on that thought. I think now you are seeing the light in ALL drugs are dangerous and so you use them within the risk to reward thought process.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

What drug has 75 deaths per 100,000 who take it?

The difference between you and me is I remember about 90% of what you say here, and you can't remember what you replied to 10 times last week...lol

Obtuse

As I type in "aspirin 15.3 deaths per 100,000"

I see this on line 1




Why are you trying to be so difficult in all this?

Let me blow your mind even more...

Using Vioxx for arthritis pain carried a risk of 76 deaths per 100,000 people per year.
Using Tysabri, known generically as natalizumab, to treat multiple sclerosis raises the death rate by 65 per 100,000 people a year.

Want me to go on with a 100 more common drugs on the market? 15.3 is very safe...BTW so your BS 1 per 100,000 being super dangerous is something you need to rethink about.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Do you see the issue with mass vaccinations?!

And we have only talked about deaths without considering the debilitating conditions and the severe adverse reactions i.e multiple times the number of deaths.

If you had read the 100+ posts from me on this subject, you would see I have always been against the mandates and have explained in detail many times as to how I see a correct use of the vaccine.

We haven't even talked about the adverse reactions to the actual virus either, but hey that isn't a place you all want to go.

Imagine you have as many deaths as you claimed isn't a huge number such as 75 in 100,000 what happens when you vaccinate 5.5 billion people or even more.

Imagine how many debilitating conditions you will get and severe adverse reactions.

The product is bunk and dangerous and must be withdrawn.

Already several calls to be withdrawn from the market.