Politics

[ab2cmiller]

Probably would have been more effective had people actually not taken anti vax stances. Been through this already in the covid thread I’m not going back into it. Lol

You are the one that claimed it is a vaccine capable of stopping the spread. It is not. It is an utter lie.

 

[sixstar]

Probably would have been more effective had people actually not taken anti vax stances. Been through this already in the covid thread I’m not going back into it. Lol

Reminder: vaccine uptake exceeded the supposed herd immunity threshold. Didn't even come close to working. As predicted by many (suppressed) voices, variants feasted on the OAS fixation of those who had received shots. Omicron disproportionately infected the "vaccinated" at much higher rates than those who did not get the shot. Again, propaganda tried to hide foundational virology and immunology to force citizens to do something despite obvious risks and consequences. But you will continue to claim that it's all in the name of public health. Lying to people by repeating "safe and effective" despite overwhelming contrary evidence is not public health.

 

[TorontoGold]

"Overall, the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients"

Effect of Vaccination on Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England | NEJM

Correspondence from The New England Journal of Medicine — Effect of Vaccination on Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England

www.nejm.org

Studies are out there that show initial vaccine response to transmission was statistically significant on reducing transmission. Since stronger variants have come out, transmission effectiveness has waned.

 

[ACamp1900]

Reminder: vaccine uptake exceeded the supposed herd immunity threshold. Didn't even come close to working. As predicted by many (suppressed) voices, variants feasted on the OAS fixation of those who had received shots. Omicron disproportionately infected the "vaccinated" at much higher rates than those who did not get the shot. Again, propaganda tried to hide foundational virology and immunology to force citizens to do something despite obvious risks and consequences. But you will continue to claim that it's all in the name of public health. Lying to people by repeating "safe and effective" despite overwhelming contrary evidence is not public health.

‘If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it’

Tell that to my father and uncle who are both dead and buried after being forced off quality health care plans into exchange plans that in no way met their health care needs,….

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You are the one that claimed it is a vaccine capable of stopping the spread. It is not. It is an utter lie.

Please show where i said this..... didnt claim a vaccine is capable of stopping the spread. Shame on you. No one would ever say that. lol If you are talking about vaccines being able to reduce transmission, symptoms and fatalties... then yes that is something vaccines do.

 

[sixstar]

"Overall, the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients"

Effect of Vaccination on Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England | NEJM

Correspondence from The New England Journal of Medicine — Effect of Vaccination on Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England

www.nejm.org

Studies are out there that show initial vaccine response to transmission was statistically significant on reducing transmission. Since stronger variants have come out, transmission effectiveness has waned.

Study completely omits the inevitability of variants. That's like saying, "I built my house in Florida to withstand January rainstorms" while ignoring the inevitability of the impact of a Summer-season hurricane.

And that's just one study; reminder that one study doesn't definitively resolve a scientific investigation. There are several studies and large scale data sets from that same time period showing - not just rapidly waning efficacy - but nearly NEGLIGIBLE efficacy when you remove the "2 week to be considered vaccinated" window.

The "2 weeks before you are considered vaccinated" window - btw - has never been asserted before. That was a construct to hide the immunosuppressive effects of getting the shot.

‘If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it’

Tell that to me father and uncle who are both dead and buried after being forced off quality health care plans into exchange plans that in no way met their health care needs,….

Why were they forced off their health care plans?

 

[ab2cmiller]

No it’s not. Public health is imperative for all citizens. Stopping the spread of deadly diseases Is important. I’d expect the pro life crowd to be on board with this and Be uncontroversial.

This is how fucked ip our world is lol. Vaccines are fascist. Taking away womens decision making capabilities is totally cool. Smgdh

Please show where i said this..... didnt claim a vaccine is capable of stopping the spread. Shame on you. No one would ever say that. lol If you are talking about vaccines being able to reduce transmission, symptoms and fatalties... then yes that is something vaccines do.

See above. If you are going to argue, at least argue in good faith. The shame my friend is on you.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

See above. If you are going to argue, at least argue in good faith.

Semantics... vaccines arent the only thing utilized to "stop" spreading of disease which we have managed to do in the past numerous times over ( polio, measles, rhubella, mumps, measles..)...... masks, hand washing, limiting contact with people etc... but ok... probably could have used a better word there.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Semantics... vaccines arent the only thing utilized to "stop" spreading of disease which we have managed to do in the past numerous times over ( polio, measles, rhubella, mumps, measles..)...... masks, hand washing, limiting contact with people etc... but ok... probably could have used a better word there.

Semantics. LOL. So you are saying that it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Got it.

 

[sixstar]

Semantics... vaccines arent the only thing utilized to "stop" spreading of disease which we have managed to do in the past numerous times over ( polio, measles, rhubella, mumps, measles..)...... masks, hand washing, limiting contact with people etc... but ok... probably could have used a better word there.

The COVID shot EUA was based SOLELY on prevention of infection. Stopping the spread.

Public health and media pivoted to reduction in disease severity / death when the sterilization claims were too obvious to continue hiding.

Importantly, the EUA was not based on reduction in severity of illness because the trials upon which the EUA was based actually showed higher death rates in the vaxxed cohort. All facts - look it up.

 

[TorontoGold]

Study completely omits the inevitability of variants. That's like saying, "I built my house in Florida to withstand January rainstorms" while ignoring the inevitability of the impact of a Summer-season hurricane.

And that's just one study; reminder that one study doesn't definitively resolve a scientific investigation. There are several studies and large scale data sets from that same time period showing - not just rapidly waning efficacy - but nearly NEGLIGIBLE efficacy when you remove the "2 week to be considered vaccinated" window.

The "2 weeks before you are considered vaccinated" window - btw - has never been asserted before. That was a construct to hide the immunosuppressive effects of getting the shot.



Why were they forced off their health care plans?

The study relies on multilinear regression analysis in their interpretations of the statistical information they are processing. You can't introduce variables into the study with unsupported values. Obviously, if a stronger variant was to come out then you'd see all of these scientists say agree that the vaccine would have reduced effectiveness against it. I'm not sure if you've ever done econometric analysis, but as someone who has, you can't add in variables or values with no support and expect to return reliable results.

Of course it doesn't, but as the person claiming that there is no proof, the onus is on you to support that position. If I can spend 5 min finding a reliable study that pokes holes in your theory, then that reduces the creditability of your position. You are welcome to support your position.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Semantics. LOL. So you are saying that it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Got it.

No. Im not. We managed to stop polio, rhubella, measles etc from spreading through mandated vaccine programs implemented to the whole country. That was my intent with saying that in the first statement though I see it wasnt clear. Apologies. We did do that for those communicable diseases but COVID was a different thing and the vaccine for covid was never supposed to STOP it and I have never claimed that the COVID vaccine would stop the spread. Sorry its not clear from my posts. I meant that if more people had taken the COVID vax then our results with COVID would have been better and i think it would have been worse without those getting vaxed

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The study relies on multilinear regression analysis in their interpretations of the statistical information they are processing. You can't introduce variables into the study with unsupported values. Obviously, if a stronger variant was to come out then you'd see all of these scientists say agree that the vaccine would have reduced effectiveness against it. I'm not sure if you've ever done econometric analysis, but as someone who has, you can't add in variables or values with no support and expect to return reliable results.

Of course it doesn't, but as the person claiming that there is no proof, the onus is on you to support that position. If I can spend 5 min finding a reliable study that pokes holes in your theory, then that reduces the creditability of your position. You are welcome to support your position.

#Ivermectin4theWin (im kidding)

 

[Irish#1]

Her Party the Brothers of Italy is a neo fascist party per the history books. She has a Militant far right history as well and has praised Mussolini publically.

How a party of neo-fascist roots won big in Italy

The Brothers of Italy party has won the most votes in Italy’s national election. The party has its roots in the post-World War II neo-fascist Italian Social Movement.

apnews.com

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PARTY’S LOGO?

The party has at the center of its logo the red, white and green flame of the original MSI that remained when the movement became the National Alliance. While less obvious than the bundle of sticks, or fasces, that was the prominent symbol of Mussolini’s National Fascist Party, the tricolor flame is nevertheless a powerful image that ties the current party to its past.

HOW DO ITALIANS FEEL ABOUT IT?

In general, the party’s neo-fascist roots appear to be of more concern abroad than at home. Some historians explain that by noting a certain historical amnesia here and Italians’ general comfort living with the relics of fascism as evidence that Italy never really repudiated the Fascist Party and Mussolini in the same way Germany repudiated National Socialism and Hitler.

While Germany went through a long and painful process reckoning with its past, Italians have in many ways simply turned a willful blindness.

Brothers of Italy, which Meloni has led since 2014, has an underlying and sinister familiarity. The party formed a decade ago to carry forth the spirit and legacy of the extreme right in Italy, which dates back to the Italian Social Movement (MSI), the party that formed in place of the National Fascist Party, which was banned after World War II. Now, just weeks before the 100th anniversary of the March on Rome—the October 1922 event that put Mussolini in power—Italy may have a former MSI activist for its prime minister and a government rooted in fascism. In the wordsof Ignazio La Russa, Meloni’s predecessor as the head of the Brothers of Italy: “We are all heirs of Il Duce.”

Right wingers all over the world are crying out to be fascists lol but Italy is uniquely distrustful of government in general and also suffer from political amnesia and history…. So time will tell how this shakes out for them.

Try again

 

[sixstar]

Semantics... vaccines arent the only thing utilized to "stop" spreading of disease which we have managed to do in the past numerous times over ( polio, measles, rhubella, mumps, measles..)...... masks, hand washing, limiting contact with people etc... but ok... probably could have used a better word there.

Neither polio, nor measles, nor rhubella, nor mumps, nor measles are a coronavirus.
Again, humanity has never developed a sterilizing vaccine for a coronavirus. Never. They mutate too rapidly.

The study relies on multilinear regression analysis in their interpretations of the statistical information they are processing. You can't introduce variables into the study with unsupported values. Obviously, if a stronger variant was to come out then you'd see all of these scientists say agree that the vaccine would have reduced effectiveness against it. I'm not sure if you've ever done econometric analysis, but as someone who has, you can't add in variables or values with no support and expect to return reliable results.

Of course it doesn't, but as the person claiming that there is no proof, the onus is on you to support that position. If I can spend 5 min finding a reliable study that pokes holes in your theory, then that reduces the creditability of your position. You are welcome to support your position.

So its okay to definitively state that the vaccine prevents infection knowing that your scientific method ignores the single most important factor that has prevented humanity from developing a sterilizing vaccines for a coronavirus? I've spent my entire career in research and development, and I would call that a flawed approach.

What proof do you want from me? Data and actuals comprehensively demonstrate that the vaccine is ineffective at controlling spread.

No. Im not. We managed to stop polio, rhubella, measles etc from spreading through mandated vaccine programs implemented to the whole country. That was my intent with saying that in the first statement though I see it wasnt clear. Apologies. We did do that for those communicable diseases but COVID was a different thing and the vaccine for covid was never supposed to STOP it and I have never claimed that the COVID vaccine would stop the spread. Sorry its not clear from my posts. I meant that if more people had taken the COVID vax then our results with COVID would have been better and i think it would have been worse without those getting vaxed

Literally, the first line from the paper that Toronto posted:
"Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevents infection and reduces the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in vaccinated persons."

Also, you can find ample video evidence of Fauci, Biden, and Walensky all claiming that the vaccine prevented spread. C'mon now.

 

[TorontoGold]

Neither polio, nor measles, nor rhubella, nor mumps, nor measles are a coronavirus.
Again, humanity has never developed a sterilizing vaccine for a coronavirus. Never. They mutate too rapidly.



So its okay to definitively state that the vaccine prevents infection knowing that your scientific method ignores the single most important factor that has prevented humanity from developing a sterilizing vaccines for a coronavirus? I've spent my entire career in research and development, and I would call that a flawed approach.

What proof do you want from me? Data and actuals comprehensively demonstrate that the vaccine is ineffective at controlling spread.



Literally, the first line from the paper that Toronto posted:
"Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevents infection and reduces the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in vaccinated persons."

Also, you can find ample video evidence of Fauci, Biden, and Walensky all claiming that the vaccine prevented spread. C'mon now.

Yes, because prevention is not a binary measure of Yes/No, it's never been claimed to be 100%. If you've spent your entire career in R&D, can you explain an instance in which you've provided a conclusion with statistical support including a variable in which you've added for a future event that you're not able to reliably measure? In a speculative article of course it would brutal to not include the effect of a future variant, but that's not what this is.

Your position is that it does not prevent transmission. As long as there is a degree of transmission protection provided, then your position is incorrect.

Anything >1% reduction is a net positive for society, I don't know the negative outcome %'s of people that are vaccinated but any reduction in spread that's greater than it would be good for society. It's like taking the position that seat belts shouldn't be in cars because they do not fully prevent negative outcomes in car crashes. They don't do a perfect job but they still provide a net benefit to society.

 

[sixstar]

Yes, because prevention is not a binary measure of Yes/No, it's never been claimed to be 100%. If you've spent your entire career in R&D, can you explain an instance in which you've provided a conclusion with statistical support including a variable in which you've added for a future event that you're not able to reliably measure? In a speculative article of course it would brutal to not include the effect of a future variant, but that's not what this is.

Your position is that it does not prevent transmission. As long as there is a degree of transmission protection provided, then your position is incorrect.

Anything >1% reduction is a net positive for society, I don't know the negative outcome %'s of people that are vaccinated but any reduction in spread that's greater than it would be good for society. It's like taking the position that seat belts shouldn't be in cars because they do not fully prevent negative outcomes in car crashes. They don't do a perfect job but they still provide a net benefit to society.

Yes, my position is that the shot does not prevent transmission, and this is backed by actual raw data.

UK's health agency, UKHSA, used to provide the best COVID data reports of all countries worldwide. Their data - before it was taken down - actually showed transmission rates 200 - 400% higher in vaccinated than unvaccinated. So, the shot was not even slowing spread; rather, spread was substantially accelerated in the cohorts who had received the shot.

Some virologists and immunologists have even postulated that the non-sterilizing shots are accelerating mutation as the virus learns to circumvent the shot's single point of protection. TBD.

And it's one thing to say "get the shot because it lowers transmission rate by a percentage", while it's another thing to state - as Fauci, Walensky, and Biden all did - that the shot is a "dead end for the virus" and that "you will not spread COVID if you get the shot"

That messaging - from the outset - was knowingly false and misleading to accomplish Government desires.

So then back to the original topic - threats to remove personal liberties if one refused to get the shot - with full knowledge that the shot could not provide herd immunity - were objectively fascist.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Downtowns across the country weren't boarded up the last election in case my party lost. The recent headlines of politically motivated murder weren't from my side of the aisle. My leader didn't stand up on a red stage flanked by marines to call political opponents fascist.

The only building they needed to board up was the Capitol.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Please show where i said this..... didnt claim a vaccine is capable of stopping the spread. Shame on you. No one would ever say that. lol If you are talking about vaccines being able to reduce transmission, symptoms and fatalties... then yes that is something vaccines do.

What do you expect from fascists.

 

[TorontoGold]

Yes, my position is that the shot does not prevent transmission, and this is backed by actual raw data.

UK's health agency, UKHSA, used to provide the best COVID data reports of all countries worldwide. Their data - before it was taken down - actually showed transmission rates 200 - 400% higher in vaccinated than unvaccinated. So, the shot was not even slowing spread; rather, spread was substantially accelerated in the cohorts who had received the shot.

Some virologists and immunologists have even postulated that the non-sterilizing shots are accelerating mutation as the virus learns to circumvent the shot's single point of protection. TBD.

And it's one thing to say "get the shot because it lowers transmission rate by a percentage", while it's another thing to state - as Fauci, Walensky, and Biden all did - that the shot is a "dead end for the virus" and that "you will not spread COVID if you get the shot"

That messaging - from the outset - was knowingly false and misleading to accomplish Government desires.

So then back to the original topic - threats to remove personal liberties if one refused to get the shot - with full knowledge that the shot could not provide herd immunity - were objectively fascist.

Ok post the study then? If you're able to provide all this support, why don't you just do it?

Which virologists and immunologists? Name names.

Having a full vaccinated population absolutely is a dead end for the virus. Reducing negative outcomes, less transmission, and load on the hospitals would end the virus. This is provided by a vaccine. Having a healthy working population is absolutely crucial to any society, there is a reason that Trump supported fast tracking the vaccine (honestly something that we may look back on in a decade as a big medical breakthrough).

Government wasn't able to achieve the desires because there are bad faith actors who are convincing the intellectually stunted that it's a grand conspiracy for control and that it won't actually benefit them. Grifters have taken the charge to sell placebos to morons for financial gain.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Ok post the study then? If you're able to provide all this support, why don't you just do it?

Which virologists and immunologists? Name names.

Having a full vaccinated population absolutely is a dead end for the virus. Reducing negative outcomes, less transmission, and load on the hospitals would end the virus. This is provided by a vaccine. Having a healthy working population is absolutely crucial to any society, there is a reason that Trump supported fast tracking the vaccine (honestly something that we may look back on in a decade as a big medical breakthrough).

Government wasn't able to achieve the desires because there are bad faith actors who are convincing the intellectually stunted that it's a grand conspiracy for control and that it won't actually benefit them. Grifters have taken the charge to sell placebos to morons for financial gain.

How can it be a dead end for the virus if according to your study it only was 40-50% effective in reducing household transmission???? Certainly would slow it, but far from a dead end. As Sixstar has argued from the start, thinking that we could control or stamp out a coronavirus was always a pipe dream.

 

[sixstar]

Ok post the study then? If you're able to provide all this support, why don't you just do it?

Which virologists and immunologists? Name names.

Having a full vaccinated population absolutely is a dead end for the virus. Reducing negative outcomes, less transmission, and load on the hospitals would end the virus. This is provided by a vaccine. Having a healthy working population is absolutely crucial to any society, there is a reason that Trump supported fast tracking the vaccine (honestly something that we may look back on in a decade as a big medical breakthrough).

Government wasn't able to achieve the desires because there are bad faith actors who are convincing the intellectually stunted that it's a grand conspiracy for control and that it won't actually benefit them. Grifters have taken the charge to sell placebos to morons for financial gain.

UK HSA Vaccine Surveillance Report. They used to publish it on a weekly basis (stopped in April due to pressure that their data was "being used by anti-vaxxers to dissuade the public from taking the shot"). Oddly enough, the data is the data. You can read all about it and you can find all VSRs up through April 2022 on UK HSA's website.

This was the data from the last report they posted in April 2022. Top row is cases per 100k, mid row is hospital admissions per 100k, and bottom row is deaths per 100k, categorized by age to mitigate Simpson's paradox. Left-most X-axis starts the 2nd week of January and increases on a week-by-week basis so you can see the trend over time. You can see how the vax rapidly waned over time, and how, by the time they stopped posting the data, unvaxx was outperforming vaxxed almost across the board. Where is your narrative in the face of the national COVID database? And ask yourself - why didn't the US ever post data with this type of transparency?

Many virologists and immunologists - all of which were viciously attacked and labeled conspiracy theorists by mainstream media. This includes Robert Malone (who holds many of the foundational patents of mRNA technology) and Dr. Michael Yeadon, who was previously Pfizer's chief scientist and vice president of the allergy and respiratory research division. There are many, many more.

A fully vaccinated population is not a dead end for the virus. All you need to do is simply look at Gibraltar, which claimed 100% vaccination rate in 2021. So why did total cases rise exponentially DEC'21 - FEB'22? And why are their current active cases currently at an all-time high?

You keep speaking in absolutes, yet the data absolutely does not back up any of your assertions.

Gibraltar COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Gibraltar Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

And people who stand for personal liberty are not bad faith actors. Until the Government and their MSM mouthpieces conduct PSYOPS to convince the general public that they are. And just look at how successful the PSYOP was with you.

Ah yes, Ivermectin, horse medicine. HAW HAW stupid rednecks and greedy grifters. What if I told you that Ivermectin has been evaluated in 92 controlled studies, including 42 RCTs, with more than 134k patients, and has shown a sustaining non-epitope-specific improvement far greater than the vax has seen over the same time frame? Don't believe me: feel free to read each of the 92 studies, all consolidated into the hyperlink here:

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of 293 studies

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of 293 studies

c19ivermectin.com

That's full transparency - it even includes the studies that showed no benefit.

You can see the same data for Remdesivir, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir here:

Remdesivir: Remdesivir for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 55 studies
Paxlovid: Paxlovid for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 19 studies
Molnupiravir: Molnupiravir for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 21 studies

Interesting that each of these three approved drugs have performed far worse in studies than IVM. On the other hand, haw haw you're a horse if you take IVM.

 

[TorontoGold]

How can it be a dead end for the virus if according to your study it only was 40-50% effective in reducing household transmission???? Certainly would slow it, but far from a dead end. As Sixstar has argued from the start, thinking that we could control or stamp out a coronavirus was always a pipe dream.

Because a reduction in transmission means that "vaccines don't reduce transmission" is wrong and an incorrect statement. You can be against vaccine mandates but to claim they don't reduce transmission is wrong.

UK HSA Vaccine Surveillance Report. They used to publish it on a weekly basis (stopped in April due to pressure that their data was "being used by anti-vaxxers to dissuade the public from taking the shot"). Oddly enough, the data is the data. You can read all about it and you can find all VSRs up through April 2022 on UK HSA's website.

This was the data from the last report they posted in April 2022. Top row is cases per 100k, mid row is hospital admissions per 100k, and bottom row is deaths per 100k, categorized by age to mitigate Simpson's paradox. Left-most X-axis starts the 2nd week of January and increases on a week-by-week basis so you can see the trend over time. You can see how the vax rapidly waned over time, and how, by the time they stopped posting the data, unvaxx was outperforming vaxxed almost across the board. Where is your narrative in the face of the national COVID database? And ask yourself - why didn't the US ever post data with this type of transparency?

Many virologists and immunologists - all of which were viciously attacked and labeled conspiracy theorists by mainstream media. This includes Robert Malone (who holds many of the foundational patents of mRNA technology) and Dr. Michael Yeadon, who was previously Pfizer's chief scientist and vice president of the allergy and respiratory research division. There are many, many more.

A fully vaccinated population is not a dead end for the virus. All you need to do is simply look at Gibraltar, which claimed 100% vaccination rate in 2021. So why did total cases rise exponentially DEC'21 - FEB'22? You keep speaking in absolutes, yet the data absolutely does not back up any of your assertions.

Gibraltar COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Gibraltar Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

And people who stand for personal liberty are not bad faith actors. Until the Government and their MSM mouthpieces conduct PSYOPS to convince the general public that they are. And just look at how successful the PSYOP was with you.

You mean the reports that put out monthly? Since you enjoyed the April 2022 one you can catch yourself up on the ones issued after COVID-19 vaccine weekly surveillance reports (weeks 39 to 35, 2021 to 2022)

If you're going to conspiracy at least make sure the reports aren't available for me to find in 30 seconds lmao. I went back through the website and didn't see that chart on any of the April 2022 reports? Maybe the government scrubbed the data hmmmmmm

Ah, Robert Malone who made the claim that vaccines are leading to AIDS. Yes, definitely the type of expert you should listen to. - No relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS

Michael Yeadon? Ah this trusted medical professional. "Kids are 50 times more likely to die from the vaccine than the virus. " PolitiFact - Kids ‘50 times more likely to be killed’ by COVID-19 vaccines? Pants on Fire

Yeah the PSYOP that has lead to anti-vaxxers dying at significantly higher rates. United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status

 

[ab2cmiller]

You didn't answer my point...... you said that a fully vaccinated population was a dead end for the virus...... You sighted a study that said household transmission was reduced if you were vaccinated.

So I ask again, how can a reduction in household transmission of 40 - 50% result in a dead end for the virus.

 

[Irish#1]

It's been pretty entertaining in here today.

 

[sixstar]

Because a reduction in transmission means that "vaccines don't reduce transmission" is wrong and an incorrect statement. You can be against vaccine mandates but to claim they don't reduce transmission is wrong.


You mean the reports that put out monthly? Since you enjoyed the April 2022 one you can catch yourself up on the ones issued after COVID-19 vaccine weekly surveillance reports (weeks 39 to 35, 2021 to 2022)

If you're going to conspiracy at least make sure the reports aren't available for me to find in 30 seconds lmao. I went back through the website and didn't see that chart on any of the April 2022 reports? Maybe the government scrubbed the data hmmmmmm

Ah, Robert Malone who made the claim that vaccines are leading to AIDS. Yes, definitely the type of expert you should listen to. - No relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS

Michael Yeadon? Ah this trusted medical professional. "Kids are 50 times more likely to die from the vaccine than the virus. " PolitiFact - Kids ‘50 times more likely to be killed’ by COVID-19 vaccines? Pants on Fire

Yeah the PSYOP that has lead to anti-vaxxers dying at significantly higher rates. United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status

Yes, that exact report that has removed the raw data. Publishing the report, sans raw data, since April 2022.

Your ad hominem attacks aside, data analysis is not conspiracy. The data is the data. I'm just reading it.

Also, you might want to look into the VAERS reports covering all of the reported autoimmune disorder side effects before you link a MSM "fact check"

Michael Yeadon's numbers are backed by data. You should actually read his data before you post a biased fact check.

Keep in mind that the US has never - ever - posted raw data, and that our data is a global outlier. Wonder why. Also, notice how that graph ignores all "partially vaccinated" - ask yourself why.

 

[TorontoGold]

Alright, I'll walk you through the logic;

If everyone got vaccinated

1) Initial vaccine developed, results in reduction of transmission
2) Further vaccines developed to address any possible variants and further reduce transmission
3) Process continues until no longer an issue

This process wasn't able to happen for the reasons we've seen above as some believe a bi-partisan vaccine is a PSYOP or they just want to be a contrarian.

 

[sixstar]

I see your logic. But how does that explain Gibraltar?

Gibraltar one year ago: everyone was vaccinated
Gibraltar today: all-time high in active COVID cases - even higher than pre-vax period.

Also, back to the original point: there is no logical reason - given the data we had then and that we have now - that the government should mandate that all citizens take a vaccine for a rapidly mutating coronavirus.

And you can attempt to discredit Malone and Yeadon all you want. Fact remains: they were more correct than anyone in the US government who claimed that a two-dose shot would stop the spread.

 

[TorontoGold]

I see your logic. But how does that explain Gibraltar?

Gibraltar one year ago: everyone was vaccinated
Gibraltar today: all-time high in active COVID cases - even higher than pre-vax period.

Also, back to the original point: there is no logical reason - given the data we had then and that we have now - that the government should mandate that all citizens take a vaccine for a rapidly mutating coronavirus.

And you can attempt to discredit Malone and Yeadon all you want. Fact remains: they were more correct than anyone in the US government who claimed that a two-dose shot would stop the spread.

Likely due to waning antibodies? I'm sure though.

I am 100% in disagreement to that. Hospital admittances, deaths, spread would have been much worse without vaccines. I can't fathom taking the position that they aren't helpful, and by extension a mandate isn't beneficial. If that's the position that you and Ab2c are taking then fine so be it.

Malone argued that COVID-19 vaccines lead to aids, and Yeadon said kids are 50 times more likely to die from the vaccine than the virus. Those are not the people you should be trusting.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

🤣🤣🤣🤣