Instead of banning certain members...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another good article

 

Attachments

  • table 1.png
    table 1.png
    81.9 KB · Views: 129
  • tblll2.png
    tblll2.png
    59.3 KB · Views: 121
Digging into this whole covid mess has made me profoundly sad. Almost everyone i love and care about has been jabbed and many of them have fallen ill. There is no satisfaction in being proven right with this hideous mess......
This is the absolute Truth.. Its a sad situation for many.. If I am wrong or as I should say We are wrong... That would be awesome... Its not a matter of who is right and who is wrong.. Its a matter of information and understanding. Its not about argueing its about a discussion.. I pray I am wrong (sorry to all the Christian haters)... Actually hope I am wrong.. Time will tell.. and the problem is that if and when (which I believe I am correct at this point in time and as it goes by it is cemented that these shots are bad news) it will be to late and some wont even know as it will be the end.

Get off Google and search died suddenly and it will open your eyes.. Look at all the sports athletes who have passed in the last year and a half.. That will BLOW your mind.


 
You lack basic understanding of scientific method and why the conclusions you are drawing are garbage as a result. That misunderstanding is at an extremely fundamental level if you consider what you just described as anything useful in a population. There's a right and wrong way to draw valid conclusions and as I noted what you are describing is wrong at an extremely basic level.
Government data regarding 15,000,000 people on their vaccination status and case rates.
Feel free to give your invented excuses, or try a reasoned response regarding possibilities :) Or just take the cowardly route again.
 

Attachments

  • ebike  covid.png
    ebike covid.png
    99.5 KB · Views: 126
Last edited:
Another good article

Check out the language:
"In this review, we found the adverse reactions reported in the 11 trials were mild to moderate with few severe reactions which were unrelated to the test vaccine"

That language means that most of the serious adverse reactions WERE related to the vaccine, because .... few of the severe reactions were unrelated to the vaccine. 😄
 
One trouble with the propaganda is that people who do not want to take the vaccines are painted with broad brush, fired from work, etc. I'm unvaxxed and have not been ill at all.When I felt a suggestion of a cold possibly coming on, I treated it as infection and by the next day all was clear. I treated by my usual routine for possible colds, which is to use baby aspirator with body temperature water to clear nasal passages until completely free flow-through from one side and out the other. I take an aspirin and go to bed. If I get one cold per decade I'm perhaps overestimating. I also took one dose of ivermectin each of the few times I thought I might be coming down with an infection.

I was super masked when they told us to not wear a mask. I gradually reduced the layering until now I never wear one.



Good thinking. Looking at the Ontario data, which shows the boostered are at about double the cases compared to the fully vaxxed..it does look like some damage is being done.




And when it's being administered by parking lot tent newbs doing thousands per day......NOPE.
As an "aside", I've been subjected to improper shot placement by MDs repeatedly, and seen them do it to children, injecting into the wrong butt muscle. I had always thought that it was normal for such shots to feel like you got kicked by a horse, producing pain all the way down to the toes.
I was in favor of the vax mandates (briefly), when we were told-- and it looked like-- vaccines prevented infection almost completely, or that asymptomatic infections in vaccinated people could not be transmitted to others. When it became clear that they didn't-- after the Provincetown incident-- I changed my mind.

What really bugged me was reading in Rheumatology Today about how to manage the "vaccine hesitant." It was just a list of sound bites that sounded like they were written by some PR company that doctors could use for people with Lupus and similar disorders to reassure them that the vaccine was safe-- with absolutely no explanation of why it was supposed to be safe. Nothing about the Interferon pathway, T cells, B cells, double-stranded DNA, anti-RNP, Smith Antibodies.

You're right about the 'broad brush,' too, IMHO. I hate the label 'vaccine hesitant.' It's insulting. Why talk down to people? Why not admit what we don't know? That's not good for anybody!

Would we really have had a lower vaccination rate if we'd been more transparent about the risks? I don't think so, I think the vaccination rate might actually have been higher-- particularly among groups for whom the vaccine is probably safer! And if we'd been more transparent, we could change policy faster if it turns out that multiple vaccinations really do translate to significantly higher risk.

Instead, the formula is always the same: People are stupid. Don't go off message, just keep saying the same thing over and over again. That doesn't leave a lot of room to change the standard of care quickly when this little b*tch starts mutating and behaving in ways no one expected.

We see things very differently on many, even most, issues, but on this one, you're not alone. It makes me feel less hopeless when it's possible to have a healthy exchange of ideas with someone I usually disagree with. Ride hard, ride fast, and stay safe out there, man!
 
Sigmund Freud thought the evidence for the existence of God was the love of a mother. I suspect not just human mothers.
 
Would we really have had a lower vaccination rate if we'd been more transparent about the risks? ...

I don't know about that.

Honestly if you consider three groups of people:
  1. People who didn't think COVID-19 was serious or that their personal risk to it was very high
  2. People who vehemently opposed wearing masks
  3. People who vehemently opposed getting vaccinated
... I'd bet that you have considerable overlap between those groups. And that makes perfect sense. Why would you want to wear a mask or take a vaccine if you judge that there is no need to do so? But my point is that what I think we've seen with a lot of the material about vaccine risks is motivated reasoning by people who were never going to willingly take any COVID vaccine in the first place. So no, I don't think a different approach would have increased vaccination rates here in the Untied States of America.
 
I don't know about that.

Honestly if you consider three groups of people:
  1. People who didn't think COVID-19 was serious or that their personal risk to it was very high
  2. People who vehemently opposed wearing masks
  3. People who vehemently opposed getting vaccinated
... I'd bet that you have considerable overlap between those groups. And that makes perfect sense. Why would you want to wear a mask or take a vaccine if you judge that there is no need to do so? But my point is that what I think we've seen with a lot of the material about vaccine risks is motivated reasoning by people who were never going to willingly take any COVID vaccine in the first place. So no, I don't think a different approach would have increased vaccination rates here in the Untied States of America.
Again reading comprehension disability strikes Mr Coffee.. he turns "would we really have had a lower vaccination rate" into a query about INCREASING rates "So no, I don't think a different approach would have increased vaccination rates"
,,,, and Mulezen trots alongside.
 
Fauci and the NIH not only gain of function but this!
Contagious Vaccines: A Warning https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_...es-a-warning_4540495.html?utm_source=andshare

Funny how the RED Cross started out skeptical of blood donations from the vaxed. But now blood products are teaming with the spike protiens. Very hard to avoid contamination anymore.
Canadian RedCross was permanently banned from any blood business because they knowingly distributed HIV-tainted blood from Governor Bill Clinton's profitable prisoner bleeding program....so they turned to psych help in disasters and lawsuits against anyone using the ambulance symbol..video games etc....which morphed again into providing horrid meals at outrageous expense to pandemic-mandated isolation hotel stays. Serving meat to vegetarians with no recourse for the veggie person to get a new meal.. For returning Canadians airlifted out of Wuhan to an airbase, they served their meals on the floor outside the rooms. The floor. With people coughing in the hallways. They just couldn't have provided a little table to set the meal on. Nope,on the carpet.

Recently, the misuse of the red cross emblem in video games has received media attention. But the issue of protecting the red cross emblem is not new. Despite the efforts of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement over many years, the emblem has been improperly displayed by individuals, businesses and organizations in a vast range of uses from first aid suppliers through to children’s toys. Unfortunately, many people mistakenly assume that the red cross is in the “public domain” and can be used by anyone.

In fact, the red cross emblem is an important symbol of humanitarian protection. It is recognized as such in both Canadian and international law which prohibit its unauthorized use. Misuse of this valued symbol distorts its meaning and its protective value for victims of conflict and the aid workers that assist them.
 
Last edited:
Check out the language:
"In this review, we found the adverse reactions reported in the 11 trials were mild to moderate with few severe reactions which were unrelated to the test vaccine"

That language means that most of the serious adverse reactions WERE related to the vaccine, because .... few of the severe reactions were unrelated to the vaccine. 😄
Does it? I agree, it is poorly worded. Should I assume you didn't read any further?(like the next paragraph or follow the link and look at table 1) or maybe you've been afflicted with the same malady you've accused Mr Coffee of?

I don't really have a problem with specific concerns or criticisms, but you don't do yourself any favors when you turn everything black and white. If there's anything we should agree on it's that there are plenty of shades of gray in this situation...

BTW, you've gotten a lot of mileage out of the Public Health Ontario chart, maybe you should send them a fruit basket or something😉
 
Well, a few thousand will run in the Grandma's Marathon tomorrow. How many will drop dead?
More than one I'll betcha (was unheard of in the past).
 
Last edited:
Does it? I agree, it is poorly worded. Should I assume you didn't read any further?(like the next paragraph or follow the link and look at table 1) or maybe you've been afflicted with the same malady you've accused Mr Coffee of?

It would be a nonsensical assumption, because I'm laughing at their language as used - not interpreting it to be what they mean. You lose again.
 
BTW, you've gotten a lot of mileage out of the Public Health Ontario chart, maybe you should send them a fruit basket or something😉
Nope. Because the Premier used a personal team of invested persons to inform him wrongly in a way that supported stricter measures, instead of using his government officials, public health failed in their duty again and again. When the graph was first published on YouTube, they almost immediately scrapped the page and scrapped the group "unvacccinated" in the next iteration, dumping the infected from vaccine groups who became cases within 2 weeks of the shot, into the unvaccinated group to make the new "not fully vaccinated group".
That raised the case count in the former group "unvaccinated"as well as destroying the control grouping.
They would be called "rats", but they have too lax ethical boundaries. That being said, they are praised as being one of the best data presenters in the west - which is really saying something about the other cheaters and nincompoops.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back