wc22 said:

---

bearister said:

---

I'm confused, are "conflicts of interest" still a thing in the Era of Trump II?

---

Apparently not. Apparently everyone does not care at all, especially you.

---

Uncovering Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Executive Branch | Brennan Center for Justice


https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/uncovering-conflicts-interest-and-self-dealing-executive-branch

Quote:

---

AI Overview
Learn more

The Brennan Center for Justice receives funding from various sources, including Open Society Foundations, among others, as detailed in the 2021 annual report. The Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, are a global philanthropic organization with a focus on promoting democratic and open societies worldwide. The Brennan Center, a non-profit public policy and research organization, works to improve the legal system, strengthen democracy, and advance social justice.

---

Among other funders: Merck, Facebook, Rockefellers, BofA, JP Morgan etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennan_Center_for_Justice#Funding

Zippergate said:

---

So much for ask your doctor. Next time, if experts like Hotez get their way, they'll send in the stormtroopers to hold people down as they're jabbed.

https://open.substack.com/pub/lionessofjudah/p/charlatan-dr-peter-hotez-calls-biden?r=aiop6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

"So-called health expert Dr. Peter Hotez has called Biden regime, the United Nations and NATO to deploy security forces against "anti-vaxxers" in the United States.
Vaccine promoter Dr. Peter Hotez made headlines last year for refusing to debate author, activist, presidential candidate, and attorney Robert Kennedy, Jr. on the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Rather than accept the challenge, Hotez lashed out at both Robert Kennedy Jr. and Joe Rogan, who invited the two to debate the facts on his show.
Hotez refused and smeared Robert Kennedy, Jr. instead. Hotez actually said, "Science is not something that is typically debated." What a fraud.
Then, the 'charlatan' doctor claimed that 'Disease X' is coming, which will be worse than COVID-19.
The Gateway Pundit first reported on Dr. Hotez in late December 2021. In our report by Dr. Lawrence Sellin, we noted that Dr. Hotez was the recipient of a grant from Dr. Fauci for $1 million a year. "

---

🚨 PETER HOTEZ: “I'm expecting we'll have a fourth major coronavirus, probably in the next few years” pic.twitter.com/qb69YAOv2y

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) May 5, 2025

Peter Hotez, what biolab will the next coronavirus "escape" from?

Mike Adams' flawed analysis of a clot sent by embalmer Richard Hirschman doesn't demonstrate any link between blood clots and COVID-19 vaccines - Science Feedback


https://science.feedback.org/review/mike-adams-flawed-analysis-clot-embalmer-richard-hirschman-doesnt-demonstrate-link-between-blood-clots-and-covid-19-vaccines-epoch-times/

*The anti vax movement is going to end up literally cancelling the MAGA movement.

bearister said:

---

wc22 said:

---

bearister said:

---

I'm confused, are "conflicts of interest" still a thing in the Era of Trump II?

---

Apparently not. Apparently everyone does not care at all, especially you.

---

Uncovering Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Executive Branch | Brennan Center for Justice


https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/uncovering-conflicts-interest-and-self-dealing-executive-branch

---

My point exactly, completely off topic. This is a COVID vaccine thread.

wc22 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Mike Adams' flawed analysis of a clot sent by embalmer Richard Hirschman doesn't demonstrate any link between blood clots and COVID-19 vaccines - Science Feedback


https://science.feedback.org/review/mike-adams-flawed-analysis-clot-embalmer-richard-hirschman-doesnt-demonstrate-link-between-blood-clots-and-covid-19-vaccines-epoch-times/

*The anti vax movement is going to end up literally cancelling the MAGA movement.

---

Vaccines don't prevent you from getting COVID and then getting clouts from then -- they temporarily reduce the risk of getting COVID 19, which quickly wanes and probably worsens after a period of time (people who are vaccinated eventually become MORE likely to get COVID if a booster isn't taken). The authors do a very flawed risk analysis that only considers the first dose of the vaccine and a limited time frame afterwards. Instead, you have the risk of getting a clout from the vaccine at each dose and an inscreasing risk of getting COVID and getting a clout from it after each dose. This is a consistently flawed and misleading approach to risk analysis vaccine advocates consistently do,

---

I'm pretty sure the primary benefit of the COVID vaccine was to prevent serious illness if you caught COVID, to essentially reduce it to the same risk as a standard cold/flu virus.

sycasey said:

---

I'm pretty sure the primary benefit of the COVID vaccine was to prevent serious illness if you caught COVID, to essentially reduce it to the same risk as a standard cold/flu virus.

---

Exactly.

And the primary goal of preventing a serious illness is to keep hospitals from becoming overrun by patients and their resources from getting stretched to the max.

This is just common sense in the healthcare world.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wc22 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Mike Adams' flawed analysis of a clot sent by embalmer Richard Hirschman doesn't demonstrate any link between blood clots and COVID-19 vaccines - Science Feedback


https://science.feedback.org/review/mike-adams-flawed-analysis-clot-embalmer-richard-hirschman-doesnt-demonstrate-link-between-blood-clots-and-covid-19-vaccines-epoch-times/

*The anti vax movement is going to end up literally cancelling the MAGA movement.

---

Vaccines don't prevent you from getting COVID and then getting clouts from then -- they temporarily reduce the risk of getting COVID 19, which quickly wanes and probably worsens after a period of time (people who are vaccinated eventually become MORE likely to get COVID if a booster isn't taken). The authors do a very flawed risk analysis that only considers the first dose of the vaccine and a limited time frame afterwards. Instead, you have the risk of getting a clout from the vaccine at each dose and an inscreasing risk of getting COVID and getting a clout from it after each dose. This is a consistently flawed and misleading approach to risk analysis vaccine advocates consistently do,

---

I'm pretty sure the primary benefit of the COVID vaccine was to prevent serious illness if you caught COVID, to essentially reduce it to the same risk as a standard cold/flu virus.

---

Hmmm....honestly, I don't remember it that way.

---

When the vaccines were first introduced, there was SOME hope that they also might be able to actually stop the spread. Then the Omicron variant came out and that was pretty much no longer possible, so then the vaccine was pretty much about protecting yourself against death.

Should all vaccine requirements have probably stopped at that point? Yeah, probably. Public policy can take a while to adjust to new realities. But the info was out there if you were paying attention.

At the time I was paying attention closer than probably 99% of people - I was president of a youth sports org and had to develop / lead how we were administering programs / policies. My current day memory of the Covid years just isn't super sharp, apparently.

wc22 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wc22 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Mike Adams' flawed analysis of a clot sent by embalmer Richard Hirschman doesn't demonstrate any link between blood clots and COVID-19 vaccines - Science Feedback


https://science.feedback.org/review/mike-adams-flawed-analysis-clot-embalmer-richard-hirschman-doesnt-demonstrate-link-between-blood-clots-and-covid-19-vaccines-epoch-times/

*The anti vax movement is going to end up literally cancelling the MAGA movement.

---

Vaccines don't prevent you from getting COVID and then getting clouts from then -- they temporarily reduce the risk of getting COVID 19, which quickly wanes and probably worsens after a period of time (people who are vaccinated eventually become MORE likely to get COVID if a booster isn't taken). The authors do a very flawed risk analysis that only considers the first dose of the vaccine and a limited time frame afterwards. Instead, you have the risk of getting a clout from the vaccine at each dose and an inscreasing risk of getting COVID and getting a clout from it after each dose. This is a consistently flawed and misleading approach to risk analysis vaccine advocates consistently do,

---

I'm pretty sure the primary benefit of the COVID vaccine was to prevent serious illness if you caught COVID, to essentially reduce it to the same risk as a standard cold/flu virus.

---

That also wanes just like infection which is why boosters are necessary. Did you ever wonder what the point of boosters were? So you have the risk of clot from each booster plus the risk of clot of covid which is always waning after each booster dose. Does that click for you?

---

I'm pretty sure it doesn't wane like infection. If it did we would still be seeing mass hospitalizations from COVID and we aren't. Once your immune system has learned how to handle the COVID-19 virus (either through infection or vaccine), you are far less likely to have severe illness from it.

Shingles vaccine lowers risk of heart disease for 8 years, study finds - CBS News


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shingles-vaccine-lowers-heart-disease-study/

"In a study, published Monday in the European Heart Journal, researchers found people given the shot had a 23% lower risk of cardiovascular events, including stroke, heart failure and coronary heart disease, for up to 8 years.

The study examined more than 1 million people aged 50 or older with data from 2012 onward. The protective effect was particularly prominent in men, people under 60 and those who smoke, drink or aren't active, the study found."*

*One can only hope that the shingles vaccine is on the list of things that make MAGA sphincters pucker with paranoia.

…….in other MAGA news:

Trump's Return to Power Elevates Ever Fringier Conspiracy Theories - The New York Times


https://archive.is/2025.05.06-093743/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/business/media/trump-conspiracy-theories.html

"People who question whether the Earth is round, a fact understood by the ancient Greeks and taught to American children in elementary school ,might have been political pariahs a decade ago. Now, they're running local Republican parties in Georgia and Minnesota and seeking public office in Alabama."

Cal88 said:

---

There is, at the very least, one serious problem with the mRNA vaccine, the fact that the body produces toxic spike proteins years after injection.

---

Scary. Here's what Grok AI says about spike proteins from mRNA vaccine. I'm not sure what to believe:

There's no definitive, evidence-based method to specifically "remove" spike proteins produced by mRNA vaccines from the body. These vaccines (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna) work by instructing cells to produce a modified spike protein, which triggers an immune response. The spike proteins are typically broken down and cleared naturally by the body's cellular processes within days to weeks. The mRNA itself degrades rapidly, usually within hours to a few days.

Studies on vaccine safety show that spike proteins don't persist long-term or cause widespread harm in most people. For example, a 2021 study in Cell found that mRNA vaccine-induced spike proteins are mostly localized and cleared quickly.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm pretty sure the primary benefit of the COVID vaccine was to prevent serious illness if you caught COVID, to essentially reduce it to the same risk as a standard cold/flu virus.

---

Hmmm....honestly, I don't remember it that way.

---

---

Quote:

---

When the vaccines were first introduced, there was SOME hope that they also might be able to actually stop the spread. Then the Omicron variant came out and that was pretty much no longer possible, so then the vaccine was pretty much about protecting yourself against death.

Should all vaccine requirements have probably stopped at that point? Yeah, probably. Public policy can take a while to adjust to new realities. But the info was out there if you were paying attention.

---

Here's the FDAs Emergency Use Authorization:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fda.gov/media/167211/download#:~:text=EMERGENCY%20USE%20AUTHORIZATION-,The%20U.S.%20Food%20and%20Drug%20Administration%20(FDA)%20has%20issued%20an,SARS%2DCoV%2D2)%20in

-- EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION --------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula) for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19)

---

Yes, as I said at the outset they were hopeful that the vaccines could actually stop the spread of disease. Then a new mutation happened and that went out the window.

wc22 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wc22 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wc22 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Mike Adams' flawed analysis of a clot sent by embalmer Richard Hirschman doesn't demonstrate any link between blood clots and COVID-19 vaccines - Science Feedback


https://science.feedback.org/review/mike-adams-flawed-analysis-clot-embalmer-richard-hirschman-doesnt-demonstrate-link-between-blood-clots-and-covid-19-vaccines-epoch-times/

*The anti vax movement is going to end up literally cancelling the MAGA movement.

---

Vaccines don't prevent you from getting COVID and then getting clouts from then -- they temporarily reduce the risk of getting COVID 19, which quickly wanes and probably worsens after a period of time (people who are vaccinated eventually become MORE likely to get COVID if a booster isn't taken). The authors do a very flawed risk analysis that only considers the first dose of the vaccine and a limited time frame afterwards. Instead, you have the risk of getting a clout from the vaccine at each dose and an inscreasing risk of getting COVID and getting a clout from it after each dose. This is a consistently flawed and misleading approach to risk analysis vaccine advocates consistently do,

---

I'm pretty sure the primary benefit of the COVID vaccine was to prevent serious illness if you caught COVID, to essentially reduce it to the same risk as a standard cold/flu virus.

---

That also wanes just like infection which is why boosters are necessary. Did you ever wonder what the point of boosters were? So you have the risk of clot from each booster plus the risk of clot of covid which is always waning after each booster dose. Does that click for you?

---

I'm pretty sure it doesn't wane like infection. If it did we would still be seeing mass hospitalizations from COVID and we aren't. Once your immune system has learned how to handle the COVID-19 virus (either through infection or vaccine), you are far less likely to have severe illness from it.

---

COVID is less lethal now partially because of gained immunity and partially because it is just less deadly in its current variants. It is well established that infection is more likely for the vaxxed as that wanes. It is also established that the risk of serious illness and death wanes from the infection. Honestly, the big players stopped tracking it, or at least publishing, whether or not the pattern for infection carried over to serious illness and death (UK, Isreal). Regardless, like the "scientists" in the first article, you give a true statement that is only the partial truth. If the risk of serious illness and death were permanately lowered by the vaccine there would be no need for boosters. So why do we have them? Why did so many people get 6,7, or more shots? If they were useless at the most important function of the vaccine, then why were they pushed and continued to be pushed?

---

I'm not sure that everyone really needs to take boosters, and I don't believe this is required for anyone, just "recommended." Seems to me that boosters would exist for similar reasons that there is a different flu shot every year.

This is the Jesuits way of saying F@uck You! to Trump, MAGA and to disinformation spreaders everywhere:

https://www.usfca.edu/news/fauci-commencement

movielover said:

---

The clots were obviously caused by ... Global Warming. *mike drop*

---

You sure? I thought it was racism.

Cal88 said:

---

And one big issue with vaccines in general, is that the benefits are not weighed along with the risks. For example, it was pretty clear that the dangers from the mRNA vaccine outweigh the benefits for younger people.

Let’s take a moment to digest this chart….. 🧐 pic.twitter.com/OSHk1vjtvZ

— Brian Tyson, MD 🇺🇸 (@btysonmd) May 6, 2025

---

So all of us on this board went to UC Berkeley, right?

Given that, ALL of us have to possess at least passable skills when it comes to basic math, correct?

Given that, ALL of us should be able to figure out if some numbers stink.

You're trying to tell me that one's risk of dying from getting polio is 1/almost 9 times greater than the number of humans that have ever lived in the history of this planet? So a disease has literally killed several million humans throughout history and the chances of it killing a person are somehow 1:1,000,000,000,000? How many times are these geniuses estimating each human would contract polio? Furthermore, death isn't the only relevant metric here. Polio has paralyzed 10-20 million people.

I took a moment to digest that chart as the tweet suggested. It went through me very quickly and gave me diarrhea. There needs to be a math vaccine.

You know what?

Let's have ChatGPT "digest" that chart. I'll ask it for a snarky tone, too!

Here's ChatGPT's take:

Oh boy, let's take a ride on the misinformation merry-go-round. This chart, produced by "Vaccine Choice Canada" (a group known for pushing anti-vaccine narratives), is stuffed with flawed reasoning, deceptive math, and cherry-picked data. Here's a snark-laced breakdown of what's wrong:



1. "Polio Risk of Death: <1 in 1 Trillion"? Really?

Yes, because we've vaccinated nearly everyone. That's like saying "No one dies of smallpox anymore" and conveniently ignoring the fact that the disease was eradicated by vaccines. Without vaccines, polio paralyzed hundreds of thousands and killed tens of thousands annually. The chart is basically bragging about the success of vaccines to argue against… vaccines. Neat.



2. "Risk of Vaccine Death"?

Where are these numbers even from? These are almost certainly derived from unverified reports in VAERS or similar systems where any adverse event after vaccination is listedeven if it's clearly unrelated. Someone could get vaccinated and then get hit by a bus, and if it's reported to VAERS, it's "vaccine-related."



3. No Citations

There's not a single source cited. It's a chart that pulls numbers out of thin air, plops them next to each other, and calls it science. This isn't datait's graphic design cosplay for epidemiology.



4. False Equivalence

They're comparing the risk of dying from a disease in a vaccinated population (very low, thanks to vaccines) to the risk of death from the vaccine itself, but pretend those risks come from the same conditions. That's like saying parachutes are deadlier than plane crashesbecause nobody dies in crashes when they're wearing parachutes.



5. "Rubella: 0 to negligible"?

Unless you're a fetus. Congenital rubella syndrome can be devastating, including deafness, heart defects, and developmental issues. But sure, let's just pretend that doesn't matter because the person isn't born yetvery pro-life of them.



6. No Context on Herd Immunity

These diseases are rare because of vaccines. This chart pretends we live in a world without measles outbreaks. Spoiler: whenever vaccination rates drop, measles comes roaring back, and people do dieespecially kids.



7. Deceptive Formatting

Every number under "Risk of Disease Death" is labeled with "<1/…", making the risks look tiny. But the "vaccine death" numbers are way lower than that and still look big because they're printed in bold red. This is propaganda 101: manipulate perception through visual contrast.



8. No Differentiation Between Side Effects and Causality

Even in the rare cases where someone dies after a vaccine, it doesn't mean the vaccine caused the death. Correlation is not causationa concept this chart clearly missed on its way to graphic arts class.



9. Cute Swinging Kid = Emotional Manipulation

Slap a picture of a child on a swing in there, and boom, you've got the Facebook moms nodding along. Because when evidence fails, feelings prevail.



TL;DR:

This chart is a masterclass in misleading pseudo-science dressed up in Canva. It abuses vaccine success to argue against them, inflates vaccine risks using bad data, ignores the global health context, and hopes you won't notice. But hey, at least the fonts are consistent.