Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Foster Zygote]

What experimental gene therapy?

At this point I'm tempted to say that he's actually trying to gaslight himself.

 

[DetectedMotion]

Lynda Wharton - according to a quick Google she is an acupuncturist and naturopath. Sorry, not really a good source of information in my humble opinion.

What about the other link with the Hatchard report?

 

[Steve]

and how do they know that?
gut feeling?

Allow me:

They "think for themselves". Without needing, or believing, any supporting evidence compiled or supplied by any consensus, particularly scientific, whatsoever. If they do deign to reference any of what they consider "evidence" they ensure that that evidence is provided by one single individual, a free-thinker like themselves, so it cannot be contaminated by any sort of consensus of opinion. Such evidence must be provided through that most reliable of media - a personal blog, twitter post or the like. Published peer reviewed studies and papers are pre-emptively recognized as manipulative and are to be summarily dismissed. But the most important element is definitely individual thought completely uncontaminated by the thoughts or ideas of other people.

There is an exception to the sanctity of individual thought - If a large group of qualified, people properly educated in a relevant field, apply and discuss their individual thinking to reach a consensus then the individual thoughts of each of the individuals involved in reaching that consensus are immediately recognized and dismissed as wrong, even nefarious. If a small group of unqualified people with no education in a relevant field happen by chance to realize that they have similar thoughts contrary to general consensus those individual thoughts are uncritically recognized as "TRVTH".

 

[DetectedMotion]

Any? IIRC, yes - a couple very rare problems that happen dramatically more often and seriously in unvaccinated people who become sick with covid. So getting vaccinated is very slightly more dangerous than not getting vaccinated, provided that one is not at risk of catching covid... which is the case for pretty much no one at this point.

Since the vaccines were initially emergency use only and the Covid 19 was a novel virus, right? There was not a big testing sample group early on with any of the vaccines from Phizer, Moderna or J & J and certainly not much on mice.
These drugs were experimental, so the science needs to have these questions answered in order to improve upon the vaccination effectiveness.
The Hatchard report from New Zealand is a critical report to check out. Early on NZ locked down and did not open back up until most of their population was fully vaccinated and the report is a very telling one that's worth a serious look.
https://youtu.be/VVxmAIKjYM4

 

[DetectedMotion]

Nonsense. The Ministry has closely monitored vaccine reactions from day 1. So far, there are two deaths with the coroner that may be vaccine-related.



Conspiracy section is thataway ->

Unqualified people spouting gibberish and lies. Nice work.

I'm surprised you haven't included the utterly fake news that 5 kids collapsed after receiving the vaccine on the first day of <12 vaccines.
______________________________

Has someone hung out a "Conspiracy Nutters Welcome" sign on the thread?

Dude this is where the Mods moved my post to...so thataway seems to be here.
So you have data that disputes the Hatchard report?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Since the vaccines were initially emergency use only

What significance do you attach to this?
Is it your contention that corners were cut in the testing and approval process? If so, do you have (non-YouTube) evidence for this?

and the Covid 19 was a novel virus, right?

Hence the name 'Covid-19'. Yes. Again, what significance do you attach to this fact? Is this troubling you in some way?

There was not a big testing sample group early on with any of the vaccines from Phizer, Moderna or J & J and certainly not much on mice.

What were the sizes of the testing groups, and how did they differ from the sizes of any other testing group?

These drugs were experimental,

Well, at some point, everything was experimental.
Beyond my assumption that you are regurgitating a soundbite fed to you by some dodgy conspiracy website, what exactly do you mean by 'experimental'? Which parts of which vaccines are 'experimental'?

so the science needs to have these questions answered in order to improve upon the vaccination effectiveness.

What questions do you think science needs to have answers to?

The Hatchard report from New Zealand is a critical report to check out. Early on NZ locked down and did not open back up until most of their population was fully vaccinated and the report is a very telling one that's worth a serious look.

The Hatchard Report is a website, not an actual report.
Looking at it, it is the usual mix of previously-debunked crap, and appeals to buy such gems as "Your DNA Diet: An ayurvedic blueprint for health and wellness", subtitled "Leveraging the power of consciousness and plants to heal ourselves and our world".
Written, it should be noted, by someone with no medical or nutritional qualifications whatsoever. 'Wellness' is one of those weasel words, used to sell snake oil to the gullible, by the way- a definite red flag there.
And so it goes on. 'Mass formation hypnosis', another hot talking point of the truly ill-informed, etc., etc.
This is not science: this is misinformation.
So, a few thoughts for you to mull over.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Here are the reporting requirements for the Covid "vaccines", from HHS:

VAERS Reporting Requirements for COVID-19 Vaccines

It states that any serious AE is required by law to be reported, whether or not the reporter thinks it's vaccine related. However, there is no time interval listed. It seems highly unlikely to me that if the "vaccines" are affecting Type I Interferon response which may lead to future higher incidence of cancers, that reporters will decide to file a VAERS report in the interval required for the cancer to develop. If it's going to be detected, it won't be through VAERS.

From your link:

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients.

I know a friend personally who had an adverse reaction that he characterized as moderate, where he passed out and had extremely low blood pressure, and there was no VAERS record submitted.

Once again:

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients.

Tippit, why did neither you nor your friend, nor anyone else involved, not submit a report to VAERS?

For the tens of thousands of people who have died at the hands of the experimental gene therapies, and the millions who have had severe adverse reactions, and who were denied effective treatments, the system is clearly not working.

If you had any evidence at all for these assertions, you might have a point.
However, you don't, so you don't.

 

[Resume]

Here . . .

Is more disinformation.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Dude this is where the Mods moved my post to...so thataway seems to be here.
So you have data that disputes the Hatchard report?

Hello, good sir, let me explain your problem to you:

You (among billions of other humans) have convinced yourself that whatever appears on that computer monitor is automatically true.

Just take a deep breath and repeat the following (about 100-500 times per day):

Just because it is on THE INTERNET it is not necessarily true.


Very simple, right?

Oh, and just in case someone else convinced you to blindly believe any bs just because it it is on THE INTERNET: Punch this someone in the face..

 

[Resume]

So you have data that disputes the Hatchard report?

What sort of data is necessary to dispute bare assertions?

 

[Resume]

Anti-vax cement head joins his anti-vax sister in being croaked from COVID.

Steven "Wayne" Treadwell, 56, Vincent, AL, Legacy SAV, anti-vaxxer, dead from COVID
It's family Day here at the Vax!


According to this obituary Wayne died on January 23, 2022. He died from COVID. Wayne is a legacy entry as his twin sister Jane Treadwell made an appearance here back in Sept, 2021. She was SAV's first Nurse as I recall, and a professor as well. Wayne here has no such career distinction. In fact, I can't figure out what he did for a living. However, he is another example of someone who's family member suffered terribly from COVID and died from it, but remained anti-vaxx and then died himself.

These unfathomable decisions these people are making during this pandemic seem like something new to me. Or maybe it's the dire life and death consequences caused by this Pandemic combined with the visibility of Social Media that is merely shining a bright spot light on just how incomprehensibly wrong people can be despite being hit in the face with evidence that has effected their friends and families so deeply. These anti-vaxxers are definitely part of a cult. What other possible explanation is there?

 

[Tippit]

What experimental gene therapy?

The ones that use lipid nanoparticles to deliver to and program your ribosomes with synthetic messenger RNA to produce a genetically modified (GMO) version of the wild virus spike protein, for the hopeful purpose of generating an immune response which clearly fails to prevent transmission of the virus, and may reduce your risks of hospitalization and death due to Covid infection, while adding future unknown risks.

 

[Resume]

Gene therapy is a debunked lie.

 

[Tippit]

For vaccine effects that don't become apparent for years VAERS is, of course, of little use, but that's hardly surprising as that's not what it's for. So no early warning of those. But such effects, if they exist, will certainly show up in the massive amounts of data that are collected and analysed every year. People tend to notice when rates of illness and death increase for no readily apparent reason.

If the mortality data nor the VAERS data cannot necessarily be trusted to give us accurate inferences, which data specifically are you referring to?

ETA: There have been a few posts suggesting that the fact that only some percentage of possibly vaccine related adverse events are reported to VAERS (with the important word possibly usually omitted) is an issue. This once again displays a misunderstanding of what VAERS is for. A representative sample of such events is all that's needed to see if there is an unusually high incidence of any particular type of event.

We know that the roughly 22,000 deaths that are vaccine related, are not all vaccine caused. But we also know that the reporting rate is some fraction of 100%, possibly even a small fraction. The death of a young healthy person in temporal proximity to receiving a jab is highly suspicious, and suggestive of a problem with the "vaccine", and it seems likely that a reasonably high fraction of those 22,000 related cases are caused by the vaccines, and if we divide that number by the reporting rate, whatever you think that is, we're likely to get an estimate that ranges into the tens of thousands of vaccine-caused fatalities, tens of millions of adverse events, and millions of injuries. Do you understand the basic assumptions and the arithmetic behind this?

 

[Tippit]

First we were lied to that the "vaccines" would prevent infection, and now, it's beginning to look like the claim that they reduce the likelihood of severe illness or death is a lie too:

Nearly 40 percent of all Illinois COVID deaths in the last month are breakthroughs.

So what's going on? Is their efficacy waning, or was it never there to begin with?

 

[Pixel42]

If the mortality data nor the VAERS data cannot necessarily be trusted to give us accurate inferences, which data specifically are you referring to?

If vaccines cause breast cancer then the number of cases of breast cancer will increase. The data for the incidence of breast cancer during 2021 will show that increase.

If vaccines cause any adverse events then the number of cases of those particular adverse events will increase.The data for the incidence of those adverse events during 2021 will show those increases.

That's how they discovered that a couple of vaccines were causing a small increase in the incidence of a certain rare type of blood clot. They were alerted to the possibility by just a small number of reports of it, and when they looked at the data for the incidence of that particular adverse event they discovered that it was indeed higher than usual.

We know that the roughly 22,000 deaths that are vaccine related, are not all vaccine caused. But we also know that the reporting rate is some fraction of 100%, possibly even a small fraction. The death of a young healthy person in temporal proximity to receiving a jab is highly suspicious, and suggestive of a problem with the "vaccine", and it seems likely that a reasonably high fraction of those 22,000 related cases are caused by the vaccines, and if we divide that number by the reporting rate, whatever you think that is, we're likely to get an estimate that ranges into the tens of thousands of vaccine-caused fatalities, tens of millions of adverse events, and millions of injuries. Do you understand the basic assumptions and the arithmetic behind this?

I understand the basic misunderstanding of the purpose of the VAERS data that is leading you to think this is meaningful, but I've given up trying to explain it to you.

 

[carlitos]

First we were lied to that the "vaccines" would prevent infection, and now, it's beginning to look like the claim that they reduce the likelihood of severe illness or death is a lie too:

Nearly 40 percent of all Illinois COVID deaths in the last month are breakthroughs.

So what's going on? Is their efficacy waning, or was it never there to begin with?

That is a disturbing read, but it doesn't prove what you claim (waning or no efficacy). If 40% of the deaths are breakthrough deaths, but 70% of the state is vaccinated, that's still a lot less than the % of population.

 

[Resume]

So 60+% of the COVID deaths are among the unvaccinated, who make up 40% of the population?

 

[Tippit]

If vaccines cause breast cancer then the number of cases of breast cancer will increase. The data for the incidence of breast cancer during 2021 will show that increase.

I want to make it clear that when you mentioned breast cancer, i only used it as an example in an analogy. I am making no specific claims about "vaccines" or breast cancer. What I have read, is that the "vaccines" may interfere with type I Interferons, and how they are responsible for the body's "cancer surveillance".

If vaccines cause any adverse events then the number of cases of those particular adverse events will increase.The data for the incidence of those adverse events during 2021 will show those increases.

Hopefully. I think we both agree that it won't be the mortality or the VAERS data, so the data will have to come from somewhere that you haven't yet specified. Proprietary hospital data?

I understand the basic misunderstanding of the purpose of the VAERS data that is leading you to think this is meaningful, but I've given up trying to explain it to you.

My point is that given the number of vaccine-related deaths (22,193), and the reporting rate (alleged by the Lazarus Report to be only 1% back around 2007-2010), using some conservative estimates for what fraction of the vaccine-related are actually vaccine caused, and what the actual reported/unreported rates might be, we can easily get estimates of vaccine-caused deaths that range into the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people, based on what we already know from VAERS. Do you deny the math? What would you estimate that the vaccine-caused deaths are, out of that 22,193? What do you think the reporting rate for VAERS is in 2022?

Even if we assume that NONE of the 22,193 associated/related deaths are vaccine-caused, given even conservative estimates of the reporting rate we're talking about numbers of vaccine-associated deaths in the tens or even hundreds of thousands, which would seem to be problematic, unless you think that all of those deaths are just coincidental.

 

[marting]

First we were lied to that the "vaccines" would prevent infection, and now, it's beginning to look like the claim that they reduce the likelihood of severe illness or death is a lie too:

Nearly 40 percent of all Illinois COVID deaths in the last month are breakthroughs.

So what's going on? Is their efficacy waning, or was it never there to begin with?

What's going on? Perhaps a math refresher is in order.

92% of those over 65 are vaccinated in Illinois. Around 85% of those over 50.

Given 10000 people at risk of death (pretty much only older people) there are around 1000 unvaxxed and 9000 vaxxed. If vaccines provided 90% protection against death for those at risk and 2% in the age group died if unvaxxed or not previously infected, that would mean 18 dead that were vaxxed and 20 dead that were unvaxxed. That would be just a bit over 50% were unvaxxed. But not quite 40% were actually vaxxed which means vaccines are actually more than 90% effective against death.