Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

349,840 Views | 4543 Replies | Last: 14 min ago by Zippergate
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

oski003 said:

movielover said:

You're changing topics. Keep the control group non vaxxed.


+1000 . Nobody said we had to do a 5-10 year trial before giving a Covid vaccine to the public.
Then why did you bring up the 5-10 year trial figure?


Because the trial participants should all be monitored throughout the length of the trial, regardless of when they give EUA. Instead, they ENDED the trial prematurely by removing the control group. Vaccine development absent a present pandemic takes years because they are checking for long term safety signals. They did not do that here.
Haloski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Damn, guys. All I said was that the hospital study and the takeaways in the quote were not quite representative of reality.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Haloski said:

Damn, guys. All I said was that the hospital study and the takeaways in the quote were not quite representative of reality.
Not representative how?

Would this qualify as misrepresentation?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2418619-covid-19-vaccines-seem-to-cut-the-risk-of-heart-attacks-and-strokes/
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Haloski said:

Damn, guys. All I said was that the hospital study and the takeaways in the quote were not quite representative of reality.


Your post was fine, imo. There are some extreme anti-covid vax views I disagree with and there is indeed misinformation out there in both sides. I took issue with the ignorant goose-stepping peanut gallery that came behind you to ridicule folks criticizing the covid vax.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Two new qualifiers in this article that weren't part of your original statement.
- Health care
- DOJ

Maybe your original statement is just indefensible. I don't know because I don't have a list of the most fined corporations in America. Can you provide from Russia's Internet Research Agency?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Two new qualifiers in this article that weren't part of your original statement.
- Health care
- DOJ

Maybe your original statement is just indefensible. I don't know because I don't have a list of the most fined corporations in America. Can you provide from Russia's Internet Research Agency?


Dajo9, guess what, Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent corporations in America.

Pfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.
Sep 2, 2009 -
Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine - The Guardian

https://corporatewatch.org/pfizer-six-scandals-to-remember/

Haloski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

Haloski said:

Damn, guys. All I said was that the hospital study and the takeaways in the quote were not quite representative of reality.
Not representative how?

Would this qualify as misrepresentation?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2418619-covid-19-vaccines-seem-to-cut-the-risk-of-heart-attacks-and-strokes/


I'm not going to even bother reading that link at this time as it has absolutely nothing to do with the one I initially responded to. Let's discuss that one first and we can move on the next, which may or may not be misrepresenting whatever it's taking about for all I know.

What's your takeaway from that link you posted?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

Two new qualifiers in this article that weren't part of your original statement.
- Health care
- DOJ

Maybe your original statement is just indefensible. I don't know because I don't have a list of the most fined corporations in America. Can you provide from Russia's Internet Research Agency?


Dajo9, guess what, Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent corporations in America.

Pfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.
Sep 2, 2009 -
Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine - The Guardian

https://corporatewatch.org/pfizer-six-scandals-to-remember/




That's great. Thanks for the non sequiter.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

Two new qualifiers in this article that weren't part of your original statement.
- Health care
- DOJ

Maybe your original statement is just indefensible. I don't know because I don't have a list of the most fined corporations in America. Can you provide from Russia's Internet Research Agency?


Dajo9, guess what, Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent corporations in America.

Pfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.
Sep 2, 2009 -
Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine - The Guardian

https://corporatewatch.org/pfizer-six-scandals-to-remember/




That's great. Thanks for the non sequiter.


Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. It is actually your motto. I have demonstrated that Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent corporations in the USA. Hopefully, you can swallow your pride and actually acknowledge something.

Here is the first sentences of an NIH article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875889/

"The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, outraged many Canadian health researchers. Pfizer has been a "habitual offender," persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sure the Russian propagandist appreciates you deflecting for him. He gets his information from Russian sources. Thats the point. Right or wrong. That's how propaganda works. Mix in the false with the true.

You getting all excited because the propagandist may have said a truth (I wouldn't know because I don't have a ranking) is beside the point. The point is the Russian propagandist.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I'm sure the Russian propagandist appreciates you deflecting for him. He gets his information from Russian sources. Thats the point. Right or wrong. That's how propaganda works. Mix in the false with the true.

You getting all excited because the propagandist may have said a truth (I wouldn't know because I don't have a ranking) is beside the point. The point is the Russian propagandist.



Oh, your point is you just wanted to call someone a Russian propagandist. Can't you just do that in the thread dedicated to Russia? Thanks for kind of acknowledging that Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent US corporations. It is very interesting and sad that you are more interest in defending your personal attack than actually caring about the substance of what was said.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

I'm sure the Russian propagandist appreciates you deflecting for him. He gets his information from Russian sources. Thats the point. Right or wrong. That's how propaganda works. Mix in the false with the true.

You getting all excited because the propagandist may have said a truth (I wouldn't know because I don't have a ranking) is beside the point. The point is the Russian propagandist.



Oh, your point is you just wanted to call someone a Russian propagandist. Can't you just do that in the thread dedicated to Russia? Thanks for kind of acknowledging that Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent US corporations.


Not just someone. I wanted to call the Russian propagandist a Russian propagandist. And I'll feel free to do it wherever the Russian propagandist turns up.

At what age did you see yourself becoming a fierce defender of Russian propagandists? Would your father be proud?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I'm sure the Russian propagandist appreciates you deflecting for him. He gets his information from Russian sources. Thats the point. Right or wrong. That's how propaganda works. Mix in the false with the true.

You getting all excited because the propagandist may have said a truth (I wouldn't know because I don't have a ranking) is beside the point. The point is the Russian propagandist.


Get shown up as a bonehead in an argument?? Invoke Russia...
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

dajo9 said:

I'm sure the Russian propagandist appreciates you deflecting for him. He gets his information from Russian sources. Thats the point. Right or wrong. That's how propaganda works. Mix in the false with the true.

You getting all excited because the propagandist may have said a truth (I wouldn't know because I don't have a ranking) is beside the point. The point is the Russian propagandist.


Get shown up as a bonehead in an argument?? Invoke Russia...


Sorry bonehead, I started my discussion here by pointing out your Russian ties. That IS my discussion here. All the strawmen from you and ConcernTroll003 (whose Dad, I bet, never defended Russia) won't change that.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

I'm sure the Russian propagandist appreciates you deflecting for him. He gets his information from Russian sources. Thats the point. Right or wrong. That's how propaganda works. Mix in the false with the true.

You getting all excited because the propagandist may have said a truth (I wouldn't know because I don't have a ranking) is beside the point. The point is the Russian propagandist.



Oh, your point is you just wanted to call someone a Russian propagandist. Can't you just do that in the thread dedicated to Russia? Thanks for kind of acknowledging that Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent US corporations.


Not just someone. I wanted to call the Russian propagandist a Russian propagandist. And I'll feel free to do it wherever the Russian propagandist turns up.

At what age did you see yourself becoming a fierce defender of Russian propagandists? Would your father be proud?


He is proud that I am an independent thinker and not a lemming who always sides with my tribe. He is proud that I focus on what is actually said as opposed to who actually said it.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

I'm sure the Russian propagandist appreciates you deflecting for him. He gets his information from Russian sources. Thats the point. Right or wrong. That's how propaganda works. Mix in the false with the true.

You getting all excited because the propagandist may have said a truth (I wouldn't know because I don't have a ranking) is beside the point. The point is the Russian propagandist.



Oh, your point is you just wanted to call someone a Russian propagandist. Can't you just do that in the thread dedicated to Russia? Thanks for kind of acknowledging that Pfizer is one of the most fined fraudulent US corporations.


Not just someone. I wanted to call the Russian propagandist a Russian propagandist. And I'll feel free to do it wherever the Russian propagandist turns up.

At what age did you see yourself becoming a fierce defender of Russian propagandists? Would your father be proud?


He is proud that I am an independent thinker and not a lemming who always sides with my tribe. He is proud that I focus on what is actually said as opposed to who actually said it.


Why would you give any credence to a proven liar and foreign propagandist? I wouldn't care if Putin88 said the sky is blue. There are better sources for that info than somebody who has burned all their credibility on a dishonest anti-America agenda. But you are fine with all that. Sad.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Karen003 working overtime! Must have gotten a new pair of kneepads cuz the rest of BI conservative clowns are getting mad service today.

Go fluffer003! Your cult needs you! (Don't forget the Chapstick)
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear, old reliable. We know we can count on you for content-free ad hominem.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.aussie17.com/p/breaking-shocking-surge-in-stillbirths?r=aiop6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web


"The jump in 2022's statistics was indeed startling, with a 22.8% increase in perinatal mortality and a 41% spike in stillbirths. However, eyebrows really began to risenot in amazement but in sheer incredulitywhen it came to light that the definition of stillbirths had been conveniently revised midway through 2022.
Anyway….enter 2023.
With definitions apparently left untouched this year, the comparison with 2022's figures becomes straightforward, revealing an even more pronounced increase: 175 cases of perinatal mortality and 146 stillbirths. These figures show a staggering 25% growth in perinatal mortality and a 32% rise in stillbirths."
...

"We urgently need to find out what is causing the sharp increase in Perinatal and stillbirths mortality post vaccination.

Just this month, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a new study that found mRNA vaccines in the placenta (remember the time when they said it was supposed to stay in the arms? Good times!)"


dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The crazy thing about Putin88 is he doesn't even try to claim he isn't a Russian propagandist anymore. He knows the MAGAts on this board have his back.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As I have stated numerous times, but clearly some have difficulty remembering stuff: I don't waste time providing content or evidence or details or facts when addressing GOP cultists like you. You clowns see the world as binary, white/black, yes/no, right/wrong. And you are so possessive of your opinions that you refuse to entertain opposing facts or opinions.

Goes double for religiously devoted anti vaxxers who pretend they have all the answers and only their sources are valid.

Just some of the many reasons I see you clowns as nothing more than liars, hypocrites, and the morons who fund and vote for them.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

The crazy thing about Putin88 is he doesn't even try to claim he isn't a Russian propagandist anymore. He knows the MAGAts on this board have his back.

Your brand of juvenile narcissism mixed with warmed over McCarthy xenophobia is tiresome and pathetic.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

As I have stated numerous times, but clearly some have difficulty remembering stuff: I don't waste time providing content or evidence or details or facts when addressing GOP cultists like you. You clowns see the world as binary, white/black, yes/no, right/wrong. And you are so possessive of your opinions that you refuse to entertain opposing facts or opinions.

Goes double for religiously devoted anti vaxxers who pretend they have all the answers and only their sources are valid.

Just some of the many reasons I see you clowns as nothing more than liars, hypocrites, and the morons who fund and vote for them.
Well, thank goodness you're here to set us all straight with your infallible, black-and-white judgments based on something I'm sure.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

AunBear89 said:

As I have stated numerous times, but clearly some have difficulty remembering stuff: I don't waste time providing content or evidence or details or facts when addressing GOP cultists like you. You clowns see the world as binary, white/black, yes/no, right/wrong. And you are so possessive of your opinions that you refuse to entertain opposing facts or opinions.

Goes double for religiously devoted anti vaxxers who pretend they have all the answers and only their sources are valid.

Just some of the many reasons I see you clowns as nothing more than liars, hypocrites, and the morons who fund and vote for them.
Well, thank goodness you're here to set us all straight with your infallible, black-and-white judgments based on something I'm sure.

The fact that people like aunbear approach a topic like mRNA vaccines from such a terminally polarized tribalistic mindset shows how bad the level of discourse has gotten.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I doubt very much that either of you i recognize the vast amount of unintended irony in your statements.







Morons gonna moron.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Haloski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Haloski said:

Zippergate said:

Haloski said:

Damn, guys. All I said was that the hospital study and the takeaways in the quote were not quite representative of reality.
Not representative how?

Would this qualify as misrepresentation?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2418619-covid-19-vaccines-seem-to-cut-the-risk-of-heart-attacks-and-strokes/


I'm not going to even bother reading that link at this time as it has absolutely nothing to do with the one I initially responded to. Let's discuss that one first and we can move on the next, which may or may not be misrepresenting whatever it's taking about for all I know.

What's your takeaway from that link you posted?


?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I wonder what the Top Ten advise with regard to the Covid vaccine? I'm assuming they are on all four squares with Dr. Ladapo and the consensus expert medical opinion published on Substack.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scientific truth is not reached by consensus, it is based on scientific evidence. Lysenko had near unanimous support for his disastrous theories. Semmelweis was ridiculed and opposed for his life-saving hand-washing protocol. I'm sure the really bright bulbs here could come up with better examples but I think a good analog might be the medical establishment's multi-decade refusal to clearly acknowledge the dangers of smoking. As with the vaccines, the reasons were political and heavily influenced by financial conflicts of interest.

Here's an excellent summary:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK294310/

"While 60% of physicians smoked in 1949, this figure declined to 30% by 1964 (Garfinkel and Stellman 1976). Surveys of Massachusetts physicians during the 1950s found that by 1954 a majority of physicians (55% of smokers and 63% of nonsmokers) believed that "heavy smoking of cigarettes may lead to lung cancer" (Snegireff and Lombard 1954, p. 1042)."

...(even the average doctor was aware of the potential links by the early 50s)

"Additionally, the tobacco industry's power as a source of revenue for many print publications influenced the content of smoking and health media coverage (USDHHS 1989; NCI 2008). After the broadcast advertising ban, cigarette advertising and marketing continued to grow, but shifted to print publications, outdoor billboards, sponsorship of sports, placement of brand implants in movies, and a number of other methods. According to Advertising Age, the five major tobacco companies spent $62 million on magazine advertising in 1970, the year before the ban, but by 1976 they were spending $152 million (Smith 1978). Some publications became highly dependent on this revenue. An article in the Columbia Journalism Review noted a trend: "In magazines that accept cigarette advertising," Smith (1978) wrote, "I was unable to find a single article, in seven years of publication, that would have given readers any clear notion" of the nature and extent of the health effects of cigarette smoking, including news magazines like Time and Newsweek. As late as 1983, a Newsweek 16-page special supplement on "personal health care" prepared with AMA failed to explicitly identify cigarette smoking as a major health hazard. The same issue carried 12 pages of cigarette advertisements worth about $1 million in revenue for the magazine (Warner 1985a). An analysis of magazine coverage over a 22-year period found that a sample of major magazines reduced their coverage of smoking and health issues by 65% in the years after the broadcast advertising ban went into effect (Warner and Goldenhar 1989), and another study found that magazines which accepted an average amount of cigarette advertising were 38% less likely to carry stories on smoking and health than magazines that did not accept cigarette advertising (Warner et al. 1992).

Although many individual physicians rapidly accepted the smoking and health findings, AMA, the leading professional medical organization, took more than two decades to take a clear stand on the issue. In 1964, after the release of the report of the Surgeon General, AMA published a 7-page brochure for the general public titled "Smoking: Facts You Should Know," which described a range of "suspected health hazards" but portrayed experts as divided on the issue (AMA 1964). At the time, AMA officials also opposed federal efforts to mandate warning labels, advertising restrictions, or other public education efforts around smoking (Haseltine 1964). Historians have noted that AMA's position on smoking during the 1960s and 1970s was influenced by its need for support from congressional allies, particularly in southern tobacco-growing states, as well as its opposing Medicare and proposed national health insurance legislation during those years (Kluger 1996; Rothstein 2003; Proctor 2011)."

...

The definitive, unequivocal verdict from the AMA on smoking didn't come out until 1978. That report, generously funded by the tobacco industry, took 14 years to produce. The point is this: the experts sometimes get it wrong for prolonged periods of time, and it is not for a lack of knowledge. Politics, institutional inertia, and industry capture are the causes and we have all these factors in spades with the so-called Covid vaccines. Read RFK Jr's book on the chilling effect that the disbursement of government grants and industry research money has on what research gets done, what gets published, etc. It is not the least bit surprising that the institutions you list don't want to break rank with their peer organizations or the government authorities on this issue. Their financial survival depends on toeing whatever line the Pharma Industrial Complex puts before them. What IS surprising is the staggering number of doctors worldwide who have taken a stand, often at great cost to their careers.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just outstanding

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/this-senate-panel-on-the-vaccines?r=aiop6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

"A lot of work has gone into producing each of the vaccine panels he's hosted. On Monday, he hosted "Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?" When it was all said and done, I believe this panel was the most effective presentation I have seen for explaining what happened throughout COVID-19 and waking people up to how much they have been lied to. Because of this I strongly encourage you to watch or share his presentation with people who you think might be open to understanding exactly what was done to all of us. "
First Page Refresh
Page 130 of 130
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.