I gots the Covid.

[BGnight]

PROOF: COVID vaccines cause prion diseases

Twitter suspended my account (likely forever since there is no appeal) due to one post on prion diseases. Here's the information they wanted to make sure you NEVER find out.

stevekirsch.substack.com

This is concerning...(for the vax...I mean experimental DNA altering gene therapy recipients)

 

[MattB]

You assume every case has been reported. I refer to fawfwow above and below. Wasted enough time here today. Going to go make a dollar, spend a dollar, and shake some hands.

What did you think my comment above means: " I have no doubt that the actual rate is lower than that as there are many people who have asymptomatic or mild cases and did not get tested and as such are not in the denominator."? That explicitly indicates that I assume not all cases have been reported.

 

[MattB]

PROOF: COVID vaccines cause prion diseases

Twitter suspended my account (likely forever since there is no appeal) due to one post on prion diseases. Here's the information they wanted to make sure you NEVER find out.

stevekirsch.substack.com

This is concerning...(for the vax...I mean experimental DNA altering gene therapy recipients)

Or maybe it is not true at all? You are about 10 months late to the misinformation party.

Can mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines cause prion disease or Alzheimer’s?

Antivax immunologist J. Bart Classen published a paper claiming that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause prion disease leading to neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's dementia. What are prio

sciencebasedmedicine.org

And the mRNA vaccines most decidedly do not alter one's DNA.

Is it true? Can COVID-19 vaccines alter my DNA?

No, COVID-19 vaccines do not alter your DNA. Find out more below.

www.health.gov.au

 

[Moserkr]

In other words, you realize that your snarky response contained significant errors, but you're not willing to admit you were wrong.

Got it.

Significant? Not really. This isnt a full time job and I made light of my mistake. Point still more than stands.

What did you think my comment above means: " I have no doubt that the actual rate is lower than that as there are many people who have asymptomatic or mild cases and did not get tested and as such are not in the denominator."? That explicitly indicates that I assume not all cases have been reported.

99.7 vs 99.6. Splitting angel hairs on a pin head as said before so well. Run the 2 year average for me now hahaha.

Thank God this virus isnt spread by passing gas, dont want to know how many people would willing put a plug up there to “stop the spread” lol. You guys can have this thread back. Life is too short to argue with narrow minded folk. I made my point over n over.

 

[AK Troutbum]

Why? Death is death.

And I'm wondering.......with heart disease still being the #1 cause of death in the U.S., do they just not end up in the ICU as much as Covid deaths do?

I can only speak from my experiences. I have seen almost as many deaths in the last year and a half as I have in the past 24 years prior to that, and just about every one of them was Covid related.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

So the current tangential math argument is whether the survival rate is somewhere between 98.6% and 99.99799.7%? Deaths divided by reported cases omits unreported cases and understates survival, and deaths divided by total population assumes everyone has had the disease/been exposed and overstates survival. But are we arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I agree, although I do tend to be a sticker for numbers. The bigger picture is that it's not "98.6% chance of surviving just fine with no impact" but the people yelling the survival rate focus on that. If you just say the survival rate, then you don't have to talk about hospitalization costs, long-term observed health effects, lost income, and you get to just slip the conversation about passing it to other people. You can't cough on someone else and give them heart disease.

But it's also an example of how bad we are at statistics. Who among us would buy ammo that had a 1 in 50 chance of blowing up our gun? 1:100? 1:1000 chance that it would cause erectile dysfunction? Nope.

Masks have been proven useless over and over, study after study. And it IS a "conspiracy". Literally everything about this scamdemic is for money, political power, destroying the middle class, and taking freedoms away. I'm absolutely amazed at how much blue pilling is in a hunting forum.

When were they proven ineffective and by whom? Because I can show you with a can of bodyspray that masks reduce droplet transmission. Washing your hands doesn't guarantee that you won't get butt germs in your mouth, but if everyone washes their hands after using the restroom then the odds of butt germs in your mouth go way down, the spread of diseases caused by butt germs in your mouth plummets, and way fewer people die of butt germ-related diseases.

You're absolutely right that this pandemic has been defined by people trying to secure power and profit financially, but you're misidentifying who it is that's lying to the public and profiting from it.

 

[fwafwow]

99.7 vs 99.6. Splitting angel hairs on a pin head as said before so well. Run the 2 year average for me now hahaha.

Where does the two year average come from? I concede I may be missing something. If one of the 800k (or 1M or whatever) deaths occurred in 2020, they are still dead this year. Are you suggesting that by using a cumulative death toll in the numerator, the survival rate is understated? I could see the percentage fluctuating as the denominator varies (assuming you don't use the entire population as the denominator), but I think that could cut both ways. But I don't know if survival rates of diseases are typically tied to a year or other time period.

 

[Moserkr]

Where does the two year average come from? I concede I may be missing something. If one of the 800k (or 1M or whatever) deaths occurred in 2020, they are still dead this year. Are you suggesting that by using a cumulative death toll in the numerator, the survival rate is understated? I could see the percentage fluctuating as the denominator varies (assuming you don't use the entire population as the denominator), but I think that could cut both ways. But I don't know if survival rates of diseases are typically tied to a year or other time period.

Current death toll TOTAL since the “pandemic” (recording) began is the 800,000ish number. So if we go by anniversary dates of March when lockdowns began, we are approaching the end of year 2. Im just saying that a running 1 year average seems to be around ~500,000 deaths. So if we ignore timeframes in doing numbers, it skews it to look worse of course. That was my point - we need averages. If we dont tie it to a yearly rate, then it just becomes another jumbled statistic. I still think even that is being generous with all the co-morbidities given the “covid death” title.

 

[ndayton]

When were they proven ineffective and by whom? Because I can show you with a can of bodyspray that masks reduce droplet transmission. Washing your hands doesn't guarantee that you won't get butt germs in your mouth, but if everyone washes their hands after using the restroom then the odds of butt germs in your mouth go way down, the spread of diseases caused by butt germs in your mouth plummets, and way fewer people die of butt germ-related diseases.

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/media/study-supports-widespread-use-better-masks-curb-covid-19

Masking works if using properly fitting N95 and even then according to the study it only stops about 50% aerosolized spray.
Also what's interesting is that with good filtration of air indoors is even more effective then the best masks.
Again according to this study.

But hey your method seems pretty sound too.

 

[Trr15]

One of the lesser known side effects of COVID, regardless of political affiliation, vaccination status, level of trust in government and big pharma, etc is what is called the COVID hardon. Lots of guys are afflicted with it.

 

[Troutnut]

it doesn't mean this consensus is wrong, but people who question the consensus - with valid evidence - should be encouraged to do so.

The "with valid evidence" part is HUGE here, though.

I think there actually is encouragement for people with valid evidence to question the consensus. Look at the response to the ultra-rare blood clotting issues with the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines. When presented with valid evidence, the scientific community looked to further understand the cause and effect, figure out who's at risk of having problems, educate at-risk people about symptoms to look out for, etc. Administration of both vaccines was halted in many places until the problem was better understood and the math still clearly favored people getting those vaccines vs risking Covid.

However, the reason something becomes a scientific consensus in the first place is that pretty much all the valid evidence is pointing in one direction. That doesn't mean they're never wrong, but it's extremely rare for an idea to reach this level of consensus and turn out to be flat-out wrong. It most likely needs minor tweaks, or in some cases adaptations as circumstances change (like new variants of the virus evolving with different properties). When the valid evidence is not conclusive, the mainstream scientific community is split on an issue, and there is no consensus. Scientists are extremely skeptical people, and proving others wrong is a great career move.

However, all of the pushback against vaccination right now is coming from people who don't have valid evidence. Much of it is just boneheaded, illogical bumper sticker slogans and Facebook memes. Some of it comes from non-experts like Rogan who just have no idea how to tell a rigorous scientific study from a sloppy one or interpret it in context of other studies' results. And some of it comes from malicious con men, like Rogan's failed biologist friend, who know they can make a lot of money using their degree and technical jargon to promote cherrypicked results from sloppy studies and give a scientific-sounding rationalization to the political biases of a paying audience.

We all make decisions and choices in life, and those can benefit us or hurt us, but they're our choices........at least our health choices used to be ours.

Smoking mostly only affects the smoker, although there are negative ripple effects like increasing the cost of health insurance for everyone. A highly contagious respiratory disease is a very different issue because you're putting other people at risk if you're not taking precautions yourself.

The other important thing about vaccination is that there's almost nothing personal about what's objectively the right decision for your own health. Except for extremely rare (1-in-100,000) allergies, getting vaccinated is the right move for everyone. The only personal aspect is whether or not somebody has fallen for the misinformation that's trying to confuse them about this fact.

I trust math.

Ok, good! My other degree is in math. I'm glad somebody helped you calculate that percentage correctly. Let's see what we've got so for in the US:

777,000 deaths
48,000,000 cases
329,500,000 population

1.6 % of confirmed cases end in death, so that's a 98.4 % survival rate for people with confirmed cases of the virus. Maybe you can round up to 99 % to account for people who had it but didn't get tested.

The "survival rate" of a virus usually refers to the number of people who survived getting the virus, not the number of people in the population who didn't die from it. Yes, 99.76 % of our population did not die from Covid yet. If you want to call that a survival rate, then you could say by the same logic that 9/11 had a 99.9989 % survival rate, yet I'm guessing you were rightfully pissed about that event and willing to take some big steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. It's ridiculous to downplay hundreds of thousands of unnecessary premature deaths just because that huge number is a small percentage of a much bigger number.

Meanwhile, the J&J vaccine was traced to 6 deaths from blood clots out of 7 million doses administered, for a survival rate of 99.9999 %. There are zero confirmed cases of deaths caused by the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines with hundreds of millions of doses administered, for a survival rate of 100 %.

Last I checked, 99.9999 and 100 % are greater than 99.76 %, so the math says getting vaccinated is a good idea.

I refuse to lose freedom for myself or others in the guise of safety. Mask and vax is your choice, not mine.

Don't be such a drama queen! Walking into a Wal Mart for ten minutes to get a harmless shot is not a "loss of freedom," it's a basic show of personal responsibility. And there's very little worth doing in crowded public indoor places that can't be done just as well with a mask on. But I prefer the woods and solitude over crowded indoor places anyway.

 

[Olympics777]

I can only speak from my experiences. I have seen almost as many deaths in the last year and a half as I have in the past 24 years prior to that, and just about every one of them was Covid related.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not saying you are wrong, as I am not a medical professional, but for what it’s worth my aunt and sister are both RNs at two different hospitals. They have both told me that they have seen people die of completely unrelated illnesses and they are marked as a Covid death. My sister says that at our local hospital there is very few Covid patients and just about every one is out in a day or two. Like I said, not saying you are wrong but I have heard drastically different things from different med professionals.

 

[blackdog]

There are zero confirmed cases of deaths caused by the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines with hundreds of millions of doses administered, for a survival rate of 100 %.

You might want to look through this document:
ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTS

Sure the 1223 'fatal' events (N=42086) haven't been proven to be 'caused' by the Pfizer vaccine, but that's sure as shit more than enough of a red flag to be concerned about. Seems to me, vaccine manufacturers, with ZERO potential liability for future adverse events, should have to prove efficacy AND safety before any product is released, through publicly available data. But i'm reasonably sure there's valid reason all the actual data is being hidden for 55 YEARS! Or not...................

 

[Fatcamp]

Not saying you are wrong, as I am not a medical professional, but for what it’s worth my aunt and sister are both RNs at two different hospitals. They have both told me that they have seen people die of completely unrelated illnesses and they are marked as a Covid death. My sister says that at our local hospital there is very few Covid patients and just about every one is out in a day or two. Like I said, not saying you are wrong but I have heard drastically different things from different med professionals.

If your family members facility isn't caring for serious covid patients it is probably because they are not equipped to do so and transfer them out if they look like they are going downhill. My hospital is on the receiving end of a similar situation, ie: smaller rural hospitals that lack a true ICU or PCU send off complicated patients.

 

[inyago]

We don't believe those stats put out by any government in the world..
Look at your own president and tell me you would believe anything he or his cabinet says..
So we come back to the death rate and its b/s to say all those deaths are from covid when we know they
were dying from another disease anyway.. and many had 2/3 terminal illnesses..
Covid will turn out to be the worlds largest criminal enterprise ever,and it started with fauci..
It is interesting that the us government will not subject him to a rigorous interrogation for his involvement..

 

[fwafwow]

Current death toll TOTAL since the “pandemic” (recording) began is the 800,000ish number. So if we go by anniversary dates of March when lockdowns began, we are approaching the end of year 2. Im just saying that a running 1 year average seems to be around ~500,000 deaths. So if we ignore timeframes in doing numbers, it skews it to look worse of course. That was my point - we need averages. If we dont tie it to a yearly rate, then it just becomes another jumbled statistic. I still think even that is being generous with all the co-morbidities given the “covid death” title.

I thought you were suggesting that somehow the 99.7% "survival rate" should then be modified by a yearly component. But if you are now talking total deaths vs. deaths/year, that's different maths.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/media/study-supports-widespread-use-better-masks-curb-covid-19

Masking works if using properly fitting N95 and even then according to the study it only stops about 50% aerosolized spray.
Also what's interesting is that with good filtration of air indoors is even more effective then the best masks.
Again according to this study.

But hey your method seems pretty sound too.

This only tests the effectiveness at stopping aerosols, but that's only part of the puzzle. You can see even in the press release for this study (which is what you linked to, a press release, not the study itself) that they do acknowledge that the remainder of the aerosols are pushed to the sides. That's important because the mask is not the whole picture, it's mask+distance+hand washing. So if when you exhale the aerosols you exhale halo around you instead of six feet in front of you, you have decreased the probability of transmission over and above what is gained by merely stopping the emission of aerosols.

Combined Effects of Masking and Distance on Aerosol Exposure Potential

To quantify the efficacy of masking and “social distancing” on the transmission of airborne particles from a phantom aerosol source (simulating an inf…

www.sciencedirect.com

This being an actual publication and more important, conducted not by physicists but by medical researchers, they examined the impact of distance plus masks on total aerosol and particle transmission. It works. It's not a secret either, wearing a mask or face covering has been a part of the protective recommendations for not just healthcare workers in hospitals but parents in delivery rooms, EMTs on site, and ill people (primarily in east Asia where it is the polite thing to do to decrease the risk of passing on your illness to another).

But even if you think the Mayo clinic's researchers are shills for Big Textile trying to sell you masks, the press release you linked still confirms a reduced ability to spread disease while wearing a mask. If your takeaway is "it's not 100% so it doesn't work" then you might as well stop wearing a seatbelt, disable your airbags, and tell everyone you know to stop bothering with providing helmets and armor to our troops because they don't stop 100% of bullets.

 

[fwafwow]

Big Textile.

 

[TBHasler]

Nobody has ever said that vaccination is the only method of protection. Pre-vaccine, public health and pandemic response teams were very adamant about the importance of wearing a mask, minimizing travel and exposure, washing your hands, and avoiding large crowds to mitigate the spread. Each of those in turn was rejected by roughly a third of the country, and as a result we can watch how large political rallies or events that didn't require mask-wearing resulted in surges in infection. More infections means more chances for the virus to mutate, which means new variants of concern, and down the list we go.

We're in this spot because the administration in 2020 had defunded and ignored pandemic response efforts, turned not wearing a mask into a political statement, prioritized the economy over public safety. Then the vaccine conspiracy stuff, along with the companies refusing to release their vaccine formulations so that other countries could produce vaccines and limit the spread abroad. We are here because roughly half of the US and our neighbors decided that the things you do to limit the effect of a pandemic were actually a conspiracy, and each new and entirely predictable event is because we still have people refusing to wear a mask, wash their hands, and get a vaccine but insisting that all the medical research is wrong.

How bout we’re here because some evil folks have been monkeying around with bat viruses for the last decade. Then either intentionally or accidentally released it. After that, pretty much every action necessary to contain it’s spread was ignored - either through incompetence or on purpose.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

How bout we’re here because some evil folks have been monkeying around with bat viruses for the last decade. Then either intentionally or accidentally released it. After that, pretty much every action necessary to contain it’s spread was ignored - either through incompetence or on purpose.

I don't find the lab hypothesis compelling. I'm with you on the rest. This is more a function of continued expansion and accelerated travel. We're going to have more pandemics though and it would be great if we can manage to correctly tie our shoelaces and have a united pandemic response instead of trying to protect our precious stock market first and foremost.