Viruses / Vaccines 2

AW124797 · July 2023

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

cblock4life said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

Poncier said:

mickeyrat said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

AW124797 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

Nothing new here..
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0

here we go..
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-biontech-covid-vaccine-to-face-damages-trial/a-65886978

also nothing new here..
https://nypost.com/2023/03/13/tens-of-millions-of-dollars-in-us-grants-went-to-wuhan-labs/

64 million does in Germany and this woman sues because the vaccine caused her to suffer upper-body pain, swollen extremities, fatigue and sleeping disorder.

Sure, millions of deaths or this woman's "upper body pain". This is a tough call.

Trial my friend..ah, and you forget to mention she is a doctor, a scientist as you like to call..lol..
Any comments for your government money went to China's labs??.. Did Fauci knew that??..

You're completely missing the point. I don't care if she's Madonna or the Pope or a scientist - the fact remains, she's convinced that the vaccine did this to her, and she has no evidence to make that claim with. If she had evidence, she would take the next steps towards accountability - aka a lawsuit.

The fact remains? What are you talking about? BioNTech is facing hundreds of lawsuits in Germany and she is the first one. Completely missing the point is right.

I apologize - I made a snarky remark, and didn't realize that she had started a lawsuit. To that, I say great! Let's get a legal answer to whether this is their fault or not.

I'm sure you guys will completely acknowledge and accept the outcome of these suits which ever direction they rule.

You made a snarky remark without reading the article. It's completely fair if our acknowledgment and acceptance is on par with your bias and ignorance.

so you'll only accept the results if they come out in your favour. right on brand.

No. I just spun it around to highlight the hypocrisy. It's amusing and sad.

it's not hypocrisy. he admitted he missed a detail that was posted. that is not the same as saying what you said about acknowledgement and acceptance.

Please. It's not "a detail." It's the main theme of that article. All you need to do is check the title. Evidently, he didn't bother.

1. The original poster has not earned any scrutinizing of his content - as he doesn't scrutinize it before posting anyways.
2. I already said I didn't read it in enough detail - ready to move on?
3. My bias is towards theories with evidence (i.e. facts), and while I try to remain ignorant of conspiracies, places like this make that difficult.
4. I ate my crow with respect to my pathetic reading and comprehension capacity, so now you've "won", so can we move on to my other question? If these lawsuits prove fault on behalf of BioNTech, etc., I'd eat more crow. If they don't, will you accept those results or just continue down the slippery eel path of a typical conspiracy theorist - heightening the acceptable burden of proof as it reaches your prior set of standards?

I'll move on after I add that I'm still certain you didn't read that article initially. You just checked few comments here and already presumed the lawsuit lady was full of shit. Also, please elaborate on theories with facts. How is POTENTIAL hospitalizations fantasy argument more factual than claiming something is ineffective after being infected 3 times with Covid despite 2 doses of covid vaccine and 3 boosters? And how is that a conspiracy if someone thinks the vaccine is futile after having Covid 3 times?

Let's use our brains a little, even giving your statements initial credibility:

1. The original vaccine was designed for the original strain, so like a flu vaccine, after mutation it is less effective.
2. Virus vaccines are not for the rest of your life. It doesn't matter how many times you get one, the effectiveness wanes over time. Getting 3 boosters over three years has nothing to do with the virus you did or did not get in year four (or even three).

How is #1 helping you here? If you use your brain, would you take an outdated shot on four/five occasions for a strain that was long gone before its vaccine was rolled out?

2. Again, let's use our brains here a little. For mickeyrat it lasted 3 months. It's a bit short, isn't it?

to repeat, it was never supposed to prevent. politicians told you that. did the manufacturers?

The manufacturers most definitely told us the vaccines were around 95% effective at preventing transmission of Covid-19 in the early days of vaccine rollout. That was the story line at the time until evidence and mutations showed that it wasn't the case.

That's about right. This CDC report shows that in real world trials (nursing homes), it was 75% effective against transmission. Some places showed as high as 95%. Once the Delta mutation took over, that went down to the 50's, but it was still highly effective against hospitalization and death. Which to me, seems worthwhile considering how rare and insignificant the side effects were.

In fairness, this information was from so called "scientists" and not my favorite You Tubers or goat girl on Twitter. They are normally my 'go to' source.

Punchline:

Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in nursing home residents early after vaccine introduction. However, the effectiveness among this population in recent months has been significantly lower. To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes, these findings highlight the critical importance of COVID-19 vaccination of staff members, residents, and visitors and adherence to rigorous COVID-19 prevention strategies. An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine might be considered for nursing home and long-term care facility residents to optimize a protective immune response

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm

You forgot all those..
''Nobody would be safe until is full vaccinate''
''This is the pantemic of the unvaccinate''
''100% safe and effective''..
short memory..

Where’s that proof that the vaccine is anything but safe? You keep talking about promoting safety, but you’ve yet to show anything conclusive that the vaccines are dangerous. Just lawsuits in progress and shadow figures that don’t get covered by mainstream media.

On the former - a lawsuit in progress means fuck all other than someone has logic based allegation. IT IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING!

On the latter, choose a conclusion: either the world is ALL in on the lie and are suppressing these concerns on ALL of their respective news networks; or there isn’t ample evidence to call it news and thus they don’t.

Bravo benjs……most anti-vaccinators have put their tails between their legs and moved on…accepted they’re alive thanks to all of us who were vaccinated. As I’ve said before, a simple thank you would suffice.

Independent organization but probably in on the conspiracy (yeah right)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations

🥱 bored with the conspiracy theories.

Lolz
I love this thread.

Lolz all you want. It’s telling that you guys just laugh and never respond with anything of merit. Typical trolls.

Right, I just responded to your "ever heard of statistical significance" comment with a proper study link. Who is trolling who?

AW124797 · July 2023

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

mrussel1 · July 2023

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

He's right. This was an observational study and your conclusion was not the point of the study. The variables weren't controlled, no data graph of individual characteristics were provided, etc. That means this part was not designed for peer review. You can read follow up interviews with the authors who talk about that this outcome was surprising and unlikely to be accurate because the test wasn't designed to attack that question. But they provided the information so other scientists could do additional research.

seanwon · July 2023

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

cblock4life said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

Poncier said:

mickeyrat said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

AW124797 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

Nothing new here..
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0

here we go..
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-biontech-covid-vaccine-to-face-damages-trial/a-65886978

also nothing new here..
https://nypost.com/2023/03/13/tens-of-millions-of-dollars-in-us-grants-went-to-wuhan-labs/

64 million does in Germany and this woman sues because the vaccine caused her to suffer upper-body pain, swollen extremities, fatigue and sleeping disorder.

Sure, millions of deaths or this woman's "upper body pain". This is a tough call.

Trial my friend..ah, and you forget to mention she is a doctor, a scientist as you like to call..lol..
Any comments for your government money went to China's labs??.. Did Fauci knew that??..

You're completely missing the point. I don't care if she's Madonna or the Pope or a scientist - the fact remains, she's convinced that the vaccine did this to her, and she has no evidence to make that claim with. If she had evidence, she would take the next steps towards accountability - aka a lawsuit.

The fact remains? What are you talking about? BioNTech is facing hundreds of lawsuits in Germany and she is the first one. Completely missing the point is right.

I apologize - I made a snarky remark, and didn't realize that she had started a lawsuit. To that, I say great! Let's get a legal answer to whether this is their fault or not.

I'm sure you guys will completely acknowledge and accept the outcome of these suits which ever direction they rule.

You made a snarky remark without reading the article. It's completely fair if our acknowledgment and acceptance is on par with your bias and ignorance.

so you'll only accept the results if they come out in your favour. right on brand.

No. I just spun it around to highlight the hypocrisy. It's amusing and sad.

it's not hypocrisy. he admitted he missed a detail that was posted. that is not the same as saying what you said about acknowledgement and acceptance.

Please. It's not "a detail." It's the main theme of that article. All you need to do is check the title. Evidently, he didn't bother.

1. The original poster has not earned any scrutinizing of his content - as he doesn't scrutinize it before posting anyways.
2. I already said I didn't read it in enough detail - ready to move on?
3. My bias is towards theories with evidence (i.e. facts), and while I try to remain ignorant of conspiracies, places like this make that difficult.
4. I ate my crow with respect to my pathetic reading and comprehension capacity, so now you've "won", so can we move on to my other question? If these lawsuits prove fault on behalf of BioNTech, etc., I'd eat more crow. If they don't, will you accept those results or just continue down the slippery eel path of a typical conspiracy theorist - heightening the acceptable burden of proof as it reaches your prior set of standards?

I'll move on after I add that I'm still certain you didn't read that article initially. You just checked few comments here and already presumed the lawsuit lady was full of shit. Also, please elaborate on theories with facts. How is POTENTIAL hospitalizations fantasy argument more factual than claiming something is ineffective after being infected 3 times with Covid despite 2 doses of covid vaccine and 3 boosters? And how is that a conspiracy if someone thinks the vaccine is futile after having Covid 3 times?

Let's use our brains a little, even giving your statements initial credibility:

1. The original vaccine was designed for the original strain, so like a flu vaccine, after mutation it is less effective.
2. Virus vaccines are not for the rest of your life. It doesn't matter how many times you get one, the effectiveness wanes over time. Getting 3 boosters over three years has nothing to do with the virus you did or did not get in year four (or even three).

How is #1 helping you here? If you use your brain, would you take an outdated shot on four/five occasions for a strain that was long gone before its vaccine was rolled out?

2. Again, let's use our brains here a little. For mickeyrat it lasted 3 months. It's a bit short, isn't it?

to repeat, it was never supposed to prevent. politicians told you that. did the manufacturers?

The manufacturers most definitely told us the vaccines were around 95% effective at preventing transmission of Covid-19 in the early days of vaccine rollout. That was the story line at the time until evidence and mutations showed that it wasn't the case.

That's about right. This CDC report shows that in real world trials (nursing homes), it was 75% effective against transmission. Some places showed as high as 95%. Once the Delta mutation took over, that went down to the 50's, but it was still highly effective against hospitalization and death. Which to me, seems worthwhile considering how rare and insignificant the side effects were.

In fairness, this information was from so called "scientists" and not my favorite You Tubers or goat girl on Twitter. They are normally my 'go to' source.

Punchline:

Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in nursing home residents early after vaccine introduction. However, the effectiveness among this population in recent months has been significantly lower. To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes, these findings highlight the critical importance of COVID-19 vaccination of staff members, residents, and visitors and adherence to rigorous COVID-19 prevention strategies. An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine might be considered for nursing home and long-term care facility residents to optimize a protective immune response

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm

You forgot all those..
''Nobody would be safe until is full vaccinate''
''This is the pantemic of the unvaccinate''
''100% safe and effective''..
short memory..

Where’s that proof that the vaccine is anything but safe? You keep talking about promoting safety, but you’ve yet to show anything conclusive that the vaccines are dangerous. Just lawsuits in progress and shadow figures that don’t get covered by mainstream media.

On the former - a lawsuit in progress means fuck all other than someone has logic based allegation. IT IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING!

On the latter, choose a conclusion: either the world is ALL in on the lie and are suppressing these concerns on ALL of their respective news networks; or there isn’t ample evidence to call it news and thus they don’t.

Bravo benjs……most anti-vaccinators have put their tails between their legs and moved on…accepted they’re alive thanks to all of us who were vaccinated. As I’ve said before, a simple thank you would suffice.

Independent organization but probably in on the conspiracy (yeah right)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations

🥱 bored with the conspiracy theories.

Lolz
I love this thread.

Lolz all you want. It’s telling that you guys just laugh and never respond with anything of merit. Typical trolls.

That comment deserves nothing but Lolz, it's ludicrous. I'm vaccinated, boosted, and will continue to be. But to claim if not for vaccinated people, everybody else would be dead? Lolz. From a virus that had a survival rate of over 98%, even before vaccinations were available? And that includes immune compromised people, the number is much higher if you are not. Lolz.

Bentleyspop · July 2023

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

He's right. This was an observational study and your conclusion was not the point of the study. The variables weren't controlled, no data graph of individual characteristics were provided, etc. That means this part was not designed for peer review. You can read follow up interviews with the authors who talk about that this outcome was surprising and unlikely to be accurate because the test wasn't designed to attack that question. But they provided the information so other scientists could do additional research.

Shhhh
Fact based evidence that gives scientific results is anathema to the QtRUmplicans.

And anyone with half a brain knows that facts, like numbers and the weather, have a liberal bias.

23scidoo · July 2023

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

cblock4life said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

Poncier said:

mickeyrat said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

AW124797 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

Nothing new here..
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0

here we go..
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-biontech-covid-vaccine-to-face-damages-trial/a-65886978

also nothing new here..
https://nypost.com/2023/03/13/tens-of-millions-of-dollars-in-us-grants-went-to-wuhan-labs/

64 million does in Germany and this woman sues because the vaccine caused her to suffer upper-body pain, swollen extremities, fatigue and sleeping disorder.

Sure, millions of deaths or this woman's "upper body pain". This is a tough call.

Trial my friend..ah, and you forget to mention she is a doctor, a scientist as you like to call..lol..
Any comments for your government money went to China's labs??.. Did Fauci knew that??..

You're completely missing the point. I don't care if she's Madonna or the Pope or a scientist - the fact remains, she's convinced that the vaccine did this to her, and she has no evidence to make that claim with. If she had evidence, she would take the next steps towards accountability - aka a lawsuit.

The fact remains? What are you talking about? BioNTech is facing hundreds of lawsuits in Germany and she is the first one. Completely missing the point is right.

I apologize - I made a snarky remark, and didn't realize that she had started a lawsuit. To that, I say great! Let's get a legal answer to whether this is their fault or not.

I'm sure you guys will completely acknowledge and accept the outcome of these suits which ever direction they rule.

You made a snarky remark without reading the article. It's completely fair if our acknowledgment and acceptance is on par with your bias and ignorance.

so you'll only accept the results if they come out in your favour. right on brand.

No. I just spun it around to highlight the hypocrisy. It's amusing and sad.

it's not hypocrisy. he admitted he missed a detail that was posted. that is not the same as saying what you said about acknowledgement and acceptance.

Please. It's not "a detail." It's the main theme of that article. All you need to do is check the title. Evidently, he didn't bother.

1. The original poster has not earned any scrutinizing of his content - as he doesn't scrutinize it before posting anyways.
2. I already said I didn't read it in enough detail - ready to move on?
3. My bias is towards theories with evidence (i.e. facts), and while I try to remain ignorant of conspiracies, places like this make that difficult.
4. I ate my crow with respect to my pathetic reading and comprehension capacity, so now you've "won", so can we move on to my other question? If these lawsuits prove fault on behalf of BioNTech, etc., I'd eat more crow. If they don't, will you accept those results or just continue down the slippery eel path of a typical conspiracy theorist - heightening the acceptable burden of proof as it reaches your prior set of standards?

I'll move on after I add that I'm still certain you didn't read that article initially. You just checked few comments here and already presumed the lawsuit lady was full of shit. Also, please elaborate on theories with facts. How is POTENTIAL hospitalizations fantasy argument more factual than claiming something is ineffective after being infected 3 times with Covid despite 2 doses of covid vaccine and 3 boosters? And how is that a conspiracy if someone thinks the vaccine is futile after having Covid 3 times?

Let's use our brains a little, even giving your statements initial credibility:

1. The original vaccine was designed for the original strain, so like a flu vaccine, after mutation it is less effective.
2. Virus vaccines are not for the rest of your life. It doesn't matter how many times you get one, the effectiveness wanes over time. Getting 3 boosters over three years has nothing to do with the virus you did or did not get in year four (or even three).

How is #1 helping you here? If you use your brain, would you take an outdated shot on four/five occasions for a strain that was long gone before its vaccine was rolled out?

2. Again, let's use our brains here a little. For mickeyrat it lasted 3 months. It's a bit short, isn't it?

to repeat, it was never supposed to prevent. politicians told you that. did the manufacturers?

The manufacturers most definitely told us the vaccines were around 95% effective at preventing transmission of Covid-19 in the early days of vaccine rollout. That was the story line at the time until evidence and mutations showed that it wasn't the case.

That's about right. This CDC report shows that in real world trials (nursing homes), it was 75% effective against transmission. Some places showed as high as 95%. Once the Delta mutation took over, that went down to the 50's, but it was still highly effective against hospitalization and death. Which to me, seems worthwhile considering how rare and insignificant the side effects were.

In fairness, this information was from so called "scientists" and not my favorite You Tubers or goat girl on Twitter. They are normally my 'go to' source.

Punchline:

Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in nursing home residents early after vaccine introduction. However, the effectiveness among this population in recent months has been significantly lower. To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes, these findings highlight the critical importance of COVID-19 vaccination of staff members, residents, and visitors and adherence to rigorous COVID-19 prevention strategies. An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine might be considered for nursing home and long-term care facility residents to optimize a protective immune response

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm

You forgot all those..
''Nobody would be safe until is full vaccinate''
''This is the pantemic of the unvaccinate''
''100% safe and effective''..
short memory..

Where’s that proof that the vaccine is anything but safe? You keep talking about promoting safety, but you’ve yet to show anything conclusive that the vaccines are dangerous. Just lawsuits in progress and shadow figures that don’t get covered by mainstream media.

On the former - a lawsuit in progress means fuck all other than someone has logic based allegation. IT IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING!

On the latter, choose a conclusion: either the world is ALL in on the lie and are suppressing these concerns on ALL of their respective news networks; or there isn’t ample evidence to call it news and thus they don’t.

Bravo benjs……most anti-vaccinators have put their tails between their legs and moved on…accepted they’re alive thanks to all of us who were vaccinated. As I’ve said before, a simple thank you would suffice.

Independent organization but probably in on the conspiracy (yeah right)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations

🥱 bored with the conspiracy theories.

Lolz
I love this thread.

Lolz all you want. It’s telling that you guys just laugh and never respond with anything of merit. Typical trolls.

How about your resbonds??..it is commented only if it suits you..

AW124797 · July 2023

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

He's right. This was an observational study and your conclusion was not the point of the study. The variables weren't controlled, no data graph of individual characteristics were provided, etc. That means this part was not designed for peer review. You can read follow up interviews with the authors who talk about that this outcome was surprising and unlikely to be accurate because the test wasn't designed to attack that question. But they provided the information so other scientists could do additional research.

He's right? Haha. Your interpretation of the study has nothing to do with his claims that "NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection." Dude didn't bother to read again or had trouble understanding and came up with another false comment. Master troll.

AW124797 · July 2023

Bentleyspop said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

He's right. This was an observational study and your conclusion was not the point of the study. The variables weren't controlled, no data graph of individual characteristics were provided, etc. That means this part was not designed for peer review. You can read follow up interviews with the authors who talk about that this outcome was surprising and unlikely to be accurate because the test wasn't designed to attack that question. But they provided the information so other scientists could do additional research.

Shhhh
Fact based evidence that gives scientific results is anathema to the QtRUmplicans.

And anyone with half a brain knows that facts, like numbers and the weather, have a liberal bias.

I like this pattern where Trump is thrown into the mixer here and there for shits and giggles or no good reason, but can somebody please explain again here that most antivaxxers are liberal?

mrussel1 · July 2023

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

He's right. This was an observational study and your conclusion was not the point of the study. The variables weren't controlled, no data graph of individual characteristics were provided, etc. That means this part was not designed for peer review. You can read follow up interviews with the authors who talk about that this outcome was surprising and unlikely to be accurate because the test wasn't designed to attack that question. But they provided the information so other scientists could do additional research.

He's right? Haha. Your interpretation of the study has nothing to do with his claims that "NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection." Dude didn't bother to read again or had trouble understanding and came up with another false comment. Master troll.

He's right inasmuch as your conclusion is not consistent with that of the authors.

AW124797 · July 2023

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

He's right. This was an observational study and your conclusion was not the point of the study. The variables weren't controlled, no data graph of individual characteristics were provided, etc. That means this part was not designed for peer review. You can read follow up interviews with the authors who talk about that this outcome was surprising and unlikely to be accurate because the test wasn't designed to attack that question. But they provided the information so other scientists could do additional research.

He's right? Haha. Your interpretation of the study has nothing to do with his claims that "NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection." Dude didn't bother to read again or had trouble understanding and came up with another false comment. Master troll.

He's right inasmuch as your conclusion is not consistent with that of the authors.

It's not my conclusion. Authors labeled it as the unexpected finding. You can't spin and deflect that one.

mickeyrat · July 2023

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

copy paste the part of the study done AT cleveland clinic( a hospital with increased exposure to airbourne illness than your average workplace) not done BY cleveland clinic that asserts what you state above.....

looking for the specific language used. having skimmed it myself I must have missed that part.

what I did note was a diffentiation between who had what strain. omicron being dominant doesnt mean the other varients werent still present leading to greater vaccine efficacy on those strains that I recall were closer to the og strain the original vax was based on.

anecdotally, I have not had covid since shot 5 given dec 2022, the only one that is bivalent vax... after 4th, all og vax, I did get covid and the symptoms were so mild I could have gone to work much sooner than I was allowed.

being a truck driver, my exposure to folks from other areas is greater than the average citizen.

mrussel1 · July 2023

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

AW124797 said:

benjs said:

AW124797 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Actually, the greatest risk comes from the vaccinated.

Oh right.. we're "shedding" something? Do I have that correct?

From my personal experience, the only people I know that have gotten COVID in the last few months are the heavily vaccinated and boosted.

I bet few people are vaccinated right now. It wears out of your system. I haven't had a vaccine in almost a year, so I would not be surprised to get it. But at this point, the strains have mutated into something far less deadly.

A girl that works for me called me two days ago and she told me she needed to work from home this week because she tested positive. She felt fine but only tested because her neighbors tested positive and she was around them, so she did the responsible thing. She hadn't received a vaccine since last fall. So this isn't unusual.

81% of Americans have received at least one dose at some point, so it stands to reason that most people you talk to have received a vaccine at some point. But they are no more protected (or barely) than someone who never got one. This is all just logic here.

JB has a very good point. A higher number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received increases the risk of infection with COVID-19, according to a Cleveland Clinic study. Cleveland Clinic is ranked as the No. 2 hospital in the world.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292

Jesus, you’re like RFK Jr. You half-ass read an article that disproves your theory, and claim it proves you correct. Did you even read this? NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection - it said with later strains the REDUCTION OF RISK was less than earlier strains. That is NOT the same as increasing risk.

Hold on a second here. Few weeks ago, we have both established that your reading (with understanding) problems are evident. I suggest you read the study again, but very carefully this time. You can skip the difficult part in the middle if necessary and concentrate on last three paragraphs. Good luck.

He's right. This was an observational study and your conclusion was not the point of the study. The variables weren't controlled, no data graph of individual characteristics were provided, etc. That means this part was not designed for peer review. You can read follow up interviews with the authors who talk about that this outcome was surprising and unlikely to be accurate because the test wasn't designed to attack that question. But they provided the information so other scientists could do additional research.

He's right? Haha. Your interpretation of the study has nothing to do with his claims that "NOWHERE does it say that it increased the risk of infection." Dude didn't bother to read again or had trouble understanding and came up with another false comment. Master troll.

He's right inasmuch as your conclusion is not consistent with that of the authors.

It's not my conclusion. Authors labeled it as the unexpected finding. You can't spin and deflect that one.

Yes, a finding that was uncontrolled. I already explained that the author stated that they didn't control for any variables. That's why there isn't a data table. They released that part so others could conduct a proper test if they chose.

TJ25487 · July 2023

New York Times and CDC now reluctantly admit that covid deaths were over-counted, pandemic was over-hyped

By Ethan Huff // Jul 20, 2023

For years, the establishment has been telling us all that the official story surrounding the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) is true, and that anything to the contrary is just a "conspiracy theory." Now, all of a sudden, both The New York Times and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are changing the script.

Seemingly out of nowhere, the Times is calling out the CDC for overcounting covid deaths while overhyping the so-called "pandemic," which in and of itself appears to have been a couple normal flu seasons rebranded as something bigger and scarier than it actually was.

In its latest reporting, the Times suggests that the official data on the CDC's website is "probably an exaggeration" in that "it includes some people who had a virus when they died even though it was not the underlying cause of death" – in other words, everything we have been saying all along is truer than ever.

The CDC itself admits nearly one third of all official covid deaths as of late fall into the erroneous category for this very reason. One third of the people who have been logged as more covid death statistics died with a positive covid test rather than from covid itself.

(Related: Did you know that the CDC is a private corporation falsely referred to as a public health agency?)

Nearly half of all "covid" hospitalizations had nothing to do with covid

Another little tidbit of truth that came from The Atlantic has to do with pediatric hospitalizations for covid, which were also wildly overblown.

Two separate studies, that report explains, found that 40 to 45 percent of covid hospitalizations had nothing to do with covid. Sure, the patients may have tested positive for it, but a closer look reveals that nearly one in two of them were admitted for some other reason, including cancer treatment or psychiatric episode.

The Atlantic published a pretty straightforward title for its article about this: "Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number Is Losing Meaning." Ouch.

It turns out that next to nothing that was officially presented to the masses during covid was accurate. So much of the plandemic was a lie that it is difficult to find anything that was honest and true from that ugly and unsettling era of medical fascism.

While the scamdemic itself is over, the hundreds of millions of people who got "vaccinated" for it still have all those spike proteins and other proteins floating around in their systems, while all the while their DNA is being reprogrammed as part of the gene therapy component.

The jabs were just as much a lie as the covid death numbers that preceded them, in other words. The world was hoodwinked to an astounding degree by the globalists behind the covid hoax, and the fallout from it is still underway.

"It is excellent that the truth is being revealed, finally," someone wrote on Twitter in response to these latest revelations. "Many of us knew the counts were incorrect, inflated, bogus ... all along."

"Died in a car accident? No problem! It was covid," wrote another about a very real type of scenario that occurred on the regular throughout the plandemic as the authorities tried to scare people with fake covid death numbers.

"... and the rest where deaths were covid was the 'last straw' infection in already dying people," suggested another about how many "covid" deaths were just deaths from old age and other natural causes.

"That's why the covidians stopped quoting death numbers months and months ago," wrote another.

The latest news about the covid scam can be found at Plague.info.

mrussel1 · July 2023

Thanks for a stupid opinion article. These are so helpful. I guess this was just a statistical anomaly and unfortunate coincidence.

Image: https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/2022/lifeExpectancy_graphic_d1.png

TJ25487 · July 2023

mrussel1 said:

Thanks for a stupid opinion article. These are so helpful. I guess this was just a statistical anomaly and unfortunate coincidence.

Thank you for your stupid fucking opinion on my opinion article. I didn't get the memo that the Ten Club Forum was now only taking independently, three times verified fact based comments and articles. The above article has plenty of facts in it as well as opinions based on the facts as interpreted by the author. Can I please PM you with my submissions for approval before I post them from now on???

mrussel1 · July 2023

TJ25487 said:

mrussel1 said:

Thanks for a stupid opinion article. These are so helpful. I guess this was just a statistical anomaly and unfortunate coincidence.

Thank you for your stupid fucking opinion on my opinion article. I didn't get the memo that the Ten Club Forum was now only taking independently, three times verified fact based comments and articles. The above article has plenty of facts in it as well as opinions based on the facts as interpreted by the author. Can I please PM you with my submissions for approval before I post them from now on???

You can do whatever the fuck you want. But it's more interesting for a person formulate their own opinion rather than posting and cribbing someone else's.

JB16057 · July 2023

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

mrussel1 said:

Thanks for a stupid opinion article. These are so helpful. I guess this was just a statistical anomaly and unfortunate coincidence.

Thank you for your stupid fucking opinion on my opinion article. I didn't get the memo that the Ten Club Forum was now only taking independently, three times verified fact based comments and articles. The above article has plenty of facts in it as well as opinions based on the facts as interpreted by the author. Can I please PM you with my submissions for approval before I post them from now on???

You can do whatever the fuck you want. But it's more interesting for a person formulate their own opinion rather than posting and cribbing someone else's.

There are multiple opinion pieces posted to this message board every day. You only call out the ones that don't fit your opinion.

mrussel1 · July 2023

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

mrussel1 said:

Thanks for a stupid opinion article. These are so helpful. I guess this was just a statistical anomaly and unfortunate coincidence.

Thank you for your stupid fucking opinion on my opinion article. I didn't get the memo that the Ten Club Forum was now only taking independently, three times verified fact based comments and articles. The above article has plenty of facts in it as well as opinions based on the facts as interpreted by the author. Can I please PM you with my submissions for approval before I post them from now on???

You can do whatever the fuck you want. But it's more interesting for a person formulate their own opinion rather than posting and cribbing someone else's.

There are multiple opinion pieces posted to this message board every day. You only call out the ones that don't fit your opinion.

I don't know if that's true or not. I don't read every thread, but it's true that I call out the things that annoy me. I am only human.

TJ25487 · July 2023

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

mrussel1 said:

Thanks for a stupid opinion article. These are so helpful. I guess this was just a statistical anomaly and unfortunate coincidence.

Thank you for your stupid fucking opinion on my opinion article. I didn't get the memo that the Ten Club Forum was now only taking independently, three times verified fact based comments and articles. The above article has plenty of facts in it as well as opinions based on the facts as interpreted by the author. Can I please PM you with my submissions for approval before I post them from now on???

You can do whatever the fuck you want. But it's more interesting for a person formulate their own opinion rather than posting and cribbing someone else's.

Oh so now I have to be "more interesting" in my posts of my opinions and they all have to be mine and nobody else's? You must be fun to live with.

TJ25487 · July 2023

Comprehensive study: There are ZERO Amish kids suffering from cancer, diabetes or autism – WHY IS THAT?

The current population of Amish folks in America is quickly approaching 400,000, with the largest concentrations of 90,000 in Pennsylvania and 82,000 in Ohio. Amish have settled in as many as 32 US states, and have an average of 7 kids per family, so the population is growing rapidly. In a brand new, comprehensive study (as of June 2023), presented by Steve Kirsch to the Pennsylvania State Senate, it was calculated that for Amish children, who are strictly 100 percent not vaccinated (fully unvaccinated), typical chronic conditions barely exist, if any at all.

These chronic conditions, also called preventable diseases and disorders, that nearly many vaccinated children and swaths of Americans suffer from, include auto-immune disease, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, ADHD, arthritis, cancer, and of course… wait for it… autism (think ASD and Asperger’s Syndrome).

Expert panelists testified how healthy Amish children are compared to vaccinated American children

Maybe scaring people off vaccines is a good thing, for all those pro-jab-fanatics who think every natural health advocate is a “conspiracy theorist” who spreads disease and disorder by talking about dirty vaccines, vaccine injuries and vaccine-induced deaths. During testimony, expert health advocates shared WHY there’s never been any reports published regarding the health of Amish children in general, saying “After decades of studying the Amish, there’s no report because the report would be devastating to the narrative. It would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and saying nothing and burying all the data.”

Dr. Peter McCullough, a top cardiologist in America, with mountains of peer-reviewed, published work, testified before the U.S. Senate and before legislatures throughout the U.S., regarding dangers of vaccines, including the COVID-19 gene-mutating jabs. Speaking of the pandemic, the Amish did NOT lock down, they did NOT put on bacteria-breeding masks, and they most certainly did NOT “vaccinate” for the Wuhan Lab Flu. They ignored every single CDC and Fauci-propagandized mandate and protocol, including the deadly clot shots (because they knew better than to get injected with millions of toxic, sticky spike proteins and graphite nanoparticles).

Guess what happened? The Amish had a survival rate of COVID 90 times higher than the rest of America. Nobody wants to talk about this, except natural health advocates. If you post anything about it on social media, you immediately get banned, blacklisted and labeled “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

Why is it so important to AVOID vaccines like the plague? Just take a look at all the insane ingredients used in vaccines, including preservatives, emulsifiers, adjuvants, genetically modified bacteria, mutated viruses and sterility-causing chemicals. This is all listed right out in the open. No human should ever have any of this injected into their blood and muscle tissue, bypassing the normal defensive shields of the body, including the skin, lungs and digestive tract.

These toxic, sometimes lethal ingredients include mercury (high doses in the multi-dose flu jab), human blood (albumin from abortions), deadly pig viruses called circovirus (in Rotateq Rotavirus jabs), eagle blood, dog blood, infected green monkey kidney cells, sucralose, monosodium glutamate (MSG), cow blood, chicken blood, eggs, dairy, antibiotics, peanut oil (yes, residuals remain, hence all the deathly peanut allergies), latex (from the stoppers on the needles and vials that the needles penetrate), aluminum and much more.

Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental gene therapy injections that lead directly to vascular clots, hypertension, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, strokes and death.

Sources for this article include:

Pandemic.news

VigilantFox.substack.com

SenatorMastriono.com