What do you think the FLCCC's motives are?
Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV
- Thread starter AcesHigh
- Start date
- Status
What do you think the FLCCC's motives are?
That's because people are dumb enough to use veterinary doses meant for large animals, obviously. Is there evidence that the .2mg/kg recommended has resulted in adverse events?
Why not just let Rogan and his guests speak freely, and let whoever wants to listen to Neil Young's ****** music listen to it?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
I was hoping I'd turn into the Hulk.
Rogan and disinformationists like him (and you) are speaking freely. Young is speaking freely as well, concerned that he's sharing a platform with a disinformationist that is spreading the bull **** that is killing the credulous.
This has been explained multiple times to multiple posters; that they ignore it just goes to show that their real intent here is to spread disinformation.
How do you reconcile the singular cause of death on a death certificate with the idea that there are "innumerable other possible causes" of death, for which I agree with you?
That's reasonable, but that doesn't solve the improper categorization of death and illness problem that leads to bad data.
Right. But my point is that since I'm skeptical about how the mortality and "vaccine" data for Covid is being categorized and tabulated, and given that I know that there are 22,193 "vaccine reported deaths" as of this posting (openvaers.com/), and given the 1% VAERS reporting rate as detailed by the US Government Lazarus report, it seems very very safe to assume that vaccine caused deaths are a multiple of the 22,193 related deaths figure cited, even if we assume that the actual vaccine-caused deaths are a small fraction of that 22,193. This is due to the 99% underreporting rate being a confounding factor.
Last edited:
See?
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
I do see that given the situation your solution is, unfortunately, the best.
Well, the original posts are there for all to see, but I don't have to give the dangerous disinformation any more exposure by quoting them in full or even in part.
My last post was in reponse to the disinformationinst's continual attempt to misrepresent VAERS. No reason to quote the attempt to reset the already debunked disinformation.
Last edited:
Yeah, I know. I had another chart on Ivermectin meta-studies and I couldn't figure out where that should go either.
You don't believe anything that debunks your disinformation.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
- Philip K. Dick
That quote applies to you just as well as anyone else, neither are you the master of reality. You're just a guy who accepts what authorities and media tell him, without question.
The reality is that I have natural immunity to Covid, and I've been successfully living my life as if it doesn't exist.
Bald assertion.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,893
Given that Tippit never tests, he has no credible evidence of immunity.
I mean, given that I don't social distance, don't wear a mask, and have been living in public for the duration of the pandemic, including shopping, movies, playing poker, casino gambling, sporting events, what do you think the likelihood is?
I have been sick twice since the pandemic began, the first time was almost in all certainty Covid, given the uniqueness of the symptoms, and the second was this November, when I had mild cold-like symptoms. So either I had a common cold the second time, or it was Omicron whose symptoms were mitigated by my likely prior Alpha infection and immunity.
The reason that I never test, is because the symptoms were never so severe that I absolutely needed to know, combined with the likelihood of false positives or negatives. In other words, the same reason you (hopefully) don't test every time you get a common cold. I'm not equating Covid to the common cold (although Omicron seems to have similarities), I'm saying that the symptoms didn't warrant any further analysis. Maybe I just got lucky, or maybe the disease is only 2.6x more lethal than Influenza even given what are likely ridiculously inflated mortality stats.
Then there is the issue of not wanting people to stick swabs with dubious chemicals up my nose, and my warranted distrust of any and all deathcare providers.
Oh, and here is evidence from Dr. John Campbell (by way of the CDC) that "vaccination" confers no benefit upon the unvaccinated but previously infected group:
Time to throw Campbell under the bus if he hasn't been already?
If you played the Covid lottery and won, as I have, it turns out you don't need to play the experimental gene therapy lottery, because it confers no benefit, only risk.
Time to throw Campbell under the bus if he hasn't been already?
If you played the Covid lottery and won, as I have, it turns out you don't need to play the experimental gene therapy lottery, because it confers no benefit, only risk.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Deaths will only be attributed to a vaccine on a death certificate if there is no doubt that was the cause. Otherwise the immediate cause of death (heart failure, blood clot, breast cancer) will be given.
Just because a death is reported to VAERS that doesn't mean it was definitely vaccine related. If there is any doubt at all about what caused a death it will be reported 'just in case'. So a death that was caused by a disease that was present before the vaccination, or a road accident death etc, won't be reported, but anything else might well be. So if there is a sudden increase in deaths due to a particular cause that will become apparent, and doctors will check to see if the incidence is indeed higher than would normally be expected. That's how they found the blood clot thing. That's what this database is for.
In the article Bubba linked, which started this discussion, it is claimed that VAERS is showing upticks in many different causes of death including, for example, breast cancer (which is why I included that in the above list). But the VAERS database is messy and unreliable so before concluding that vaccines are increasing the incidence of breast cancer it first has to be established that's a real uptick, e.g. by looking at the actual incidence of breast cancer this year compared to previous years. Last I heard the only such correlation that had been reliably made was that rare blood clot thing.
Disinformationist hyperbole.
- Status