Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Wow... yeah my kids (less than 12) aren't getting the vaccine when it comes out and God help the schools if they decide to mandate it. Of course you never see headlines on the news saying you have a 175 times greater risk of dying from the covid vaccine than the flu vaccine.

Do any of the die-hard proponents of the C19 vax think this is concerning? I'd like to read your thoughts.

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/scary-reports-deaths-following-covid-19-vaccination-arent-what-they-seem
 

All that says is that many people died after receiving the vaccine, not necessarily because of the vaccine… need a lot more information to learn something from those numbers. It would be nice if we had the no kidding number of deaths from the vaccine, but it’s probably hard to directly link deaths.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MCO said:

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/scary-reports-deaths-following-covid-19-vaccination-arent-what-they-seem
 

All that says is that many people died after receiving the vaccine, not necessarily because of the vaccine… need a lot more information to learn something from those numbers. It would be nice if we had the no kidding number of deaths from the vaccine, but it’s probably hard to directly link deaths.

In a perfect world, with no lying institutions, then yes more evidence is needed. However, it’s well known by people of all spectrums that the institutions have been lying to us throughout the “pandemic”. These covid drugs should be halted immediately until they are shown to be safe (if ever) AND that they’re even needed. How much longer should we allow the institutions to seize power of our liberties and kill/disable our folk while pretending to hold the moral high ground and say we just need more institution approved evidence? (Rhetorical question). At some point, one must call out the lies they’re being gaslit with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Wow... yeah my kids (less than 12) aren't getting the vaccine when it comes out and God help the schools if they decide to mandate it. Of course you never see headlines on the news saying you have a 175 times greater risk of dying from the covid vaccine than the flu vaccine.

Do any of the die-hard proponents of the C19 vax think this is concerning? I'd like to read your thoughts.

It's more important that god help schools that produce graduates so devoid of critical thinking skills that they report and/or consume raw VAERS data (or any summary conclusions based on the same) as indicative of anything.

Not to mention the summary conclusions drawn by the linked website, even if you incorrectly assume VAERS data to reflect cause-effect conditions, are an affront to the entire discipline that is mathematics.

You don't see this being reported by actual news agencies because, despite the abysmally low bar in the industry right now, it would still be journalistic suicide to report such face value nonsense.

Now lets all go to VAERS and self report that we died from the COVID-19 vaccine as a goof so that next week you show up in the esteemed vaersanalysis.info summary...because, yeah, you can submit a report to VAERS no questions asked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Wow... yeah my kids (less than 12) aren't getting the vaccine when it comes out and God help the schools if they decide to mandate it. Of course you never see headlines on the news saying you have a 175 times greater risk of dying from the covid vaccine than the flu vaccine.

Do any of the die-hard proponents of the C19 vax think this is concerning? I'd like to read your thoughts.

No, because it's the same specious reasoning that led to people thinking vaccines cause autism. 

Young men, as a demographic, are far more likely to have myocardial issues than others, whether they get the vaccine or not. The correlation of getting the vaccine and then having an incident, especially given the huge number of vaccines and the relatively small number of incidents, tells you nothing about causes. 

https://heart.bmj.com/content/99/22/1681

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Not to mention the summary conclusions drawn by the linked website, even if you incorrectly assume VAERS data to reflect cause-effect conditions, are an affront to the entire discipline that is mathematics.

Quote

The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16689555/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because flat-earthers exist mean one shouldn’t trust their senses in the face of a corrupted medical/federal-government hegemony?


It was a statement; it’s up to you if it’s a suggestion.

Honestly, I wasn’t trying to start a conversation with you. I’m sure all of your senses are spot on all the time…so no worries.

~Bendy


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sim said:

The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%)

I don't have the patience to go through every problem with the point you think you're making with this, but just one thing...

When you're trying to leverage something to make yourself sound official on this topic, probably don't make it the abstract from a 2006 study that itself used data from studies conducted in the 1990s.  You know, because that was a time when if you got the sniffles a couple days after your diphtheria vaccination, you first had to be enough of a pussy to book an appointment with your medical provider over it, and then they had to give enough fucks to fill out the reporting documentation and submit it on your behalf after you left the office.  Whereas today anybody can submit a report in two minutes while they're on the shitter.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I don't have the patience to go through every problem with the point you think you're making with this, but just one thing...

When you're trying to leverage something to make yourself sound official on this topic, probably don't make it the abstract from a 2006 study that itself used data from studies conducted in the 1990s.  You know, because that was a time when if you got the sniffles a couple days after your diphtheria vaccination, you first had to be enough of a pussy to book an appointment with your medical provider over it, and then they had to give enough fucks to fill out the reporting documentation and submit it on your behalf after you left the office.  Whereas today anybody can submit a report in two minutes while they're on the shitter.

FOX 3, CLOSE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 7:54 AM, Negatory said:

I have officially come full circle based on data. I not sure if I still support current vaccination efforts. All of this data I found - wasn’t given to me by a biased news source.

1) COVID spread is unimpeded by vaccination within months. Numerous studies show that:

03F9596F-3128-4D50-A3F8-4832A3A9B9CC.thumb.jpeg.8b70d1781258dc6c6f0c9bddd7a13332.jpeg

You’ll see that for those age 40-80+, vaccinated folks actually were MORE likely to have the virus.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022238/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_39.pdf

Source: UK health surveillance. You can look at last week or the next week as well. This is not cherry picked - the data shows the same numbers multiple weeks in a row. Check out the other weeks, you’ll see similar data.

2nd Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

 

2) The rate of hospitalization and death is similar to that of the flu. No shit. And I used to make fun of everyone who said that.

COVID hospitalizations:

E2FAAA9A-AEBC-4B23-9429-546BE3B5851F.thumb.jpeg.ece5e5faa497f3239a760fb63c58226c.jpeg

COVID DeathsDD8A97B4-2705-4AA7-8578-62150E7D034E.thumb.jpeg.5e00c813e971494794b19e54f37a5723.jpeg

Source: same as above

CDC data on flu hospitalizations/mortality per 100k (couldn’t crop it well on mobile):

A312A95A-BEFE-4BED-8960-22B3D288C7D6.thumb.jpeg.8edc6e7875db9d9fdcab46ae9ae054f3.jpeg

F1F188D8-115F-4681-9C80-5320DBE236AD.thumb.jpeg.2f89ed13c523b77bf1dfacd603504e5c.jpeg

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

 

So for an average person age 18-49, your risk of hospitalization for COVID is somewhere in the realm of 15-20 per 100000. For 2017-18 flu, the hospitalization rate for that age group was nearly twice as high at 36 per 100000. For death of those 18-49, its maybe twice as bad for Covid, around 2 per 100k, whereas flu was only 0.8. I am starting to lose any motivation to continue vaccination efforts whatsoever for those that are not at risk.

It doesn’t and won’t provide herd immunity. And people without risk factors that are normal ages don’t need it.

The counterpoint will be that it’s for the old. Well, first of all, that counterpoint is already invalid because getting the COVID vaccine as a 40 year old male does literally nothing to protect the old as it has been demonstrated to have virtually no effect on transmission after a few months. So a mandate for those under 50 I think still makes 0 sense.

 

But let’s look at it for those 50+. Hospitalization rate for COVID for those 50+ is on the order of 80-100 per 100000. For 17-18 flu for those over 50 it was on the order of 500+ per 100000. Wtf. For deaths, COVID is on the order of 80 per 100000. Flu was slightly lower, maybe 50 per 100000. But they are way closer than initially thought.

BL: COVID actually has turned into nothing more than a bad flu. And a bad flu that is actually easier on children than the actual bad flu. It’s not even a hyperbole. And we’re discussing additional mandatory boosters for healthy folks age 0-30. Just wanted to say that the data has changed my mind, significantly. It’s actually almost maddening.

Have to point out a flaw in my analysis. The rates of infection between vaxxed/unvaxxed could easily be biased by "anti-vaxxers" being significantly less likely to get tested for COVID. That means that the actual rate of cases per 100k could be significantly higher than just a population analysis.

Would need to see results from a random sampling of the population to get a more accurate view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Have to point out a flaw in my analysis. The rates of infection between vaxxed/unvaxxed could easily be biased by "anti-vaxxers" being significantly less likely to get tested for COVID. That means that the actual rate of cases per 100k could be significantly higher than just a population analysis.

Would need to see results from a random sampling of the population to get a more accurate view.

A way to answer your question is to compare death rates of vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers. That said, I don't think there are data points out there that capture that metric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

A way to answer your question is to compare death rates of vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers. That said, I don't think there are data points out there that capture that metric.

Death rates are less susceptible to selection bias. If you die, there is a high chance that you will be counted in the data. If you get COVID but don't go to the hospital, it relies on you getting tested on your own (for the most part).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correcting errors I made. My data comparison on COVID vs the Flu was bad. I presented COVID case rates / 100k over a 4 week period (the UK study) compared to case rates / 100k over a 52 week period (CDC flu season data). That means, if you actually want to make an apples to apples comparison of the two, you have to multiply the infection/hospitalization/death rate of the 4 week study by 52/4 or 14.

Turns out when you do that, for kids <18, yeah, COVID = the flu. But for populations older than 18, COVID actually is an order of magnitude worse.

Here's a good source for cumulative hospitalization rate for COVID. Check out any 1 year timeline (I pulled from 7 Mar 20 to March 6 21):

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

0-4: ~45/100k

5-17: ~28/100k

18-49: ~275/100k

50-64: ~690/100k

65+: ~1500/100k

Again, the CDC data on 17-18 flu:

image.thumb.png.4aeb80386fcbcbd72e2aa5b6cd3580e4.png

Still not as different as some sources have led you to believe. For hospitalizations, flu is actually worse for ages 0-4 and 5-17. But COVID is significantly worse in the 18-64 year group, ~3-5 times worse. Strangely, COVID is only about 50% worse for the 65+ age group.

Also, I couldn't find a really clean source to present death rates. But rough looks show that those do seem to be significantly higher for COVID than the flu (on the order of 10 times higher for 18-65+). Don't want to present that without having a good source, so I'll just defer that discussion.

With that being said, combined evidence that transmission is significantly less impacted by vaccination than originally thought, I still wouldn't push for children to get mandatory vaccinations. And I still am leaning towards not making vaccines mandatory for anyone.

I stand by my belief that herd immunity is a dumb myth. Still haven't seen anything convincing me that transmission is affected enough to warrant mandates. And recent masking studies point to masks only being between 10-20% effective. We should stop wearing those now.

Sorry for bad data.

Edited by Negatory
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mark1 said:

to make yourself sound official on this topic, probably don't make it the abstract from a 2006 study that itself used data from studies conducted in the 1990s. 

Let me expend a little... you make your own conclusion. 

Government mandates an entity to report ADR. 

Quote

" The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16689555/ 

Quote

While the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System [VAERS] may be lauded as the ‘‘front line’’ of vaccine safety, the lack of enforcement provisions and effective monitoring of reporting practices preclude accurate assessments of the extent to which adverse events are actually reported. Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events 

https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt977/CRPT-106hrpt977.pdf

This entity is not doing reporting. 

 

Government makes it easier for an entity to report.

Quote

VAERS accepts reports from anyone. Patients, parents, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCP) are encouraged to report adverse events after vaccination to VAERS even if it is not clear that the vaccine caused the adverse event. In addition, HCP are required to report certain adverse events after vaccination.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Government tries to use automation and better system to report. 

Quote

Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
 

To verify reports are not false, government requires... 

Quote

The CDC and FDA require additional information on selected VAERS reports for the public health purpose of helping to ensure the safety of U.S. licensed vaccines. You or your health care provider may be contacted for follow-up information by VAERS staff after your report is received. These selected reports are followed up by a team of health care professionals to obtain additional information (such as medical records and autopsy reports) to provide as complete a picture of the case as possible.

 

And then Project Veritas shown;

                                      Hospitals discourage its staff to report

                                      Hospital staff do not have time (or lazy) to do report that takes 30 - 60 minute.  

(no link provided) 

 

No conclusion provided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Negatory said:

Have to point out a flaw in my analysis. The rates of infection between vaxxed/unvaxxed could easily be biased by "anti-vaxxers" being significantly less likely to get tested for COVID. That means that the actual rate of cases per 100k could be significantly higher than just a population analysis.

Would need to see results from a random sampling of the population to get a more accurate view.

Considering how much money we've spent, it's been a huge frustration since about May 2020 that the govt hasn't been running a huge series of studies and tests to get meaningful data on COVID. Seems like most information is coming from other countries.

 

Also, I'm not particularly concerned with case rate. As with most diseases, severe hospitalization and death is the important metric.

 

Regarding the flu, it's always been dangerous for seniors to get influenza, so that fits with the rates you posted. And very young kids as well. COVID is worse, but COVID is also very new. The susceptible population is currently adjusting (dying) to the "new normal." COVID-19 just happens to skip over kids entirely. Lucky for us really.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I don't have the patience to go through every problem with the point you think you're making with this, but just one thing...

When you're trying to leverage something to make yourself sound official on this topic, probably don't make it the abstract from a 2006 study that itself used data from studies conducted in the 1990s.  You know, because that was a time when if you got the sniffles a couple days after your diphtheria vaccination, you first had to be enough of a to book an appointment with your medical provider over it, and then they had to give enough s to fill out the reporting documentation and submit it on your behalf after you left the office.  Whereas today anybody can submit a report in two minutes while they're on the shitter.

Not as easy to submit a report in two minutes while you're on the shitter if you're dead.  Who submitted the reports for the dead people?  Was cause of death officially determined to be a side effect of the vaccine or does death in general get an automatic submission into the VAERS system after being vaccinated?  With an almost equal sampling size between the COVID-19 vaccine and the flu vaccine, you have to wonder why the statistics are showing the C19 jab having a 175x more chance of death.  It's not even close, so where's the disconnect?  Are we claiming a "conspiracy" because it's so easy to submit a report these days?  Again, that doesn't explain the deaths.  Less than 50% of the people in the US get a flu shot every year.  Most of those are kids (because they're required to get it to enter school) and old people (because they're afraid of dying from it).  We don't see old people dying after getting their flu shot in this data regardless of any other possible causes of death that could have triggered a bogus submission to VAERS.

It is known that the C19 vaccines are highly concentrated because they designed it for old people and old people have weakened immune systems requiring a more potent immune response.  Of course I cannot find the article I read several weeks ago, but the C19 vaccine Pfizer was developing for children has 1/3 the dosage of the adult flavor and mentioned that they tested the child dosage on middle-aged adults and got the same immune response from the child dosage as they did with the adult dosage with less side-effects.  At the time, the vaccine developers did not have the time to research lower dosages during the race for an FDA approval for emergency use, hence why we all get a vaccine designed for >65 year olds.  There is a reason why they have a "high dose" flu vaccine specifically for old people.

Edited by TheNewGazmo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Not as easy to submit a report in two minutes while you're on the shitter if you're dead.  Who submitted the reports for the dead people?  Was cause of death officially determined to be a side effect of the vaccine or does death in general get an automatic submission into the VAERS system after being vaccinated?  With an almost equal sampling size between the COVID-19 vaccine and the flu vaccine, you have to wonder why the statistics are showing the C19 jab having a 175x more chance of death.  It's not even close, so where's the disconnect?  Are we claiming a "conspiracy" because it's so easy to submit a report these days?  Again, that doesn't explain the deaths.  Less than 50% of the people in the US get a flu shot every year.  Most of those are kids (because they're required to get it to enter school) and old people (because they're afraid of dying from it).  We don't see old people dying after getting their flu shot in this data regardless of any other possible cause of death that could have triggered a submission to VAERS.

Dude stop. It's Safe and Effective™️.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.

While I probably wouldn't enjoy being "ambushed" at my home, I don't know if I'd sprint (scurry or waddle) down the street into my house if I was completely innocent either.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.

Ambush? LOL... right 🤣. The journalist seemed polite in their question and tone. She had genuine fear in her eyes as she knows what she's been complicit with. Maybe Dr. Fauci will be lecturing us on medical testing ethics next.

1632501713780.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Is it wrong/inappropriate for journalists (or anyone else for that matter) to do so?

To track down someones home address and confront them by surprise while they're walking, and film them without permission? Yes, that is professionally inappropriate.  
 

It's wrong when protesters accost republicans in DC restaurants and this is wrong too.  Respect for public and private life boundaries should exist for people you agree and disagree with.


Here's a crazy idea. Go to the Pfizer offices and get a statement from the company. I'm sure they have an attentive and very well staffed PR department.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

Ambush? LOL... right 🤣. The journalist seemed polite in their question and tone. She had genuine fear in her eyes as she knows what she's been complicit with. Maybe Dr. Fauci will be lecturing us on medical testing ethics next.

1632501713780.jpg

 So If you disagree with someone enough, it's now okay to go to their house and fuck with them on their personal time? Is this not exactly the logic the left uses? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

While I probably wouldn't enjoy being "ambushed" at my home, I don't know if I'd sprint (scurry or waddle) down the street into my house if I was completely innocent either.

I certainly wouldn't reward this behavior with an interview. 

Y'all seem pretty content with invading someone's personal property for folks claiming to support personal freedom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I certainly wouldn't reward this behavior with an interview. 

Y'all seem pretty content with invading someone's personal property for folks claiming to support personal freedom. 

Well from the looks of the video they never went on her property, but it still is well outside the bounds of professional journalism. 
 

Funny how these baseops freedom champions are all for civility and respectful discourse, unless it's someone they don't like.  In that case, chase that bitch and keep filming! And make some demeaning comments about her weight while we're at it!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...