patrick.net

PeopleUnited says

Did you know there were leftist instigators (Antifa types) as well as federal undercover agents in the mostly peaceful crowd that day? What happened should not have happened and I condemn the violence of that day.

I agree it shouldnt have happened. But blaming Antifa for Jan 6 is pretty rich. This was Trump and Trump supporters.

PeopleUnited says

So who is responsible for the anti police riots all over the country? The crowds or the mostly far left liberal politicians and activists like Maxine Waters who were using incendiary rhetoric?

OK this is a fair comment and deserves a fair response. I am blaming Trump for Jan 6, and saying the politician is responsible for whipping up the crowd, spinning a narrative that encourages division and violence, because of the way he talked and encouraged people to behave, knowing what the outcome would be. I also hold him responsible for not doing enough to stop the situation from escalating. The same can certainly be said about politicians on the left when riots in the streets were breaking out. The stuff going on in Seattle and Portland was just nonsense. Should we blame the crowd? or the politicians who supported the narrative that drove people to riot? I think you've got a fair point here. I wont defend those riots or the people spinning the narrative that supported them.

PeopleUnited says

By the way there was a peaceful transfer of power. Trump moved out of the White House without incident and the new potatus was installed behind a barbed wire fence surrounded by 20,000 soldiers. Not a shot was fired, not a slap in the face was made, nobody even spit on anyone.

Here I dont agree. Once there has been violence (which Trump caused on Jan 6), it is not a peaceful transition anymore. Id say you dont get to claim Trump did a peaceful handoff because of how he manipulated a crowd to violence on Jan 6. Even if on Jan 20 everything was handshakes and moving vans... you still don't get to claim it was a peaceful transition.

DeficitHawk says

I wont defend those riots or the people spinning the narrative that supported them.

Will you condemn them?

DeficitHawk says

OK Mell, I have to ask you to cite the Hipaa regulation that prevents me from asking someone if they have a disease or were vaccinated for it.

I do not believe it exists, but if you cite it I will change my opinion.

As far as I know, Hipaa places restrictions on the doctors/medical providers that they can not release information without the patients consent. It does not place restriction on me from asking about someone's health or vaccine status, nor does it place restriction on their response.

You can ask anyone if they are vaccinated but they don't have to tell you. If you don't like their answer you don't have. to let them into your home. With the exception of specific healthcare/nursing home settings it used to be a violation to ask an employee any vaccination status, and the employee didn't need to disclose it, and certainly would have won pretty much any wrongful termination lawsuit revolving around a cold/flu vaccine. Same goes for asking if they have hiv/aids and other crap. That was before covid. They simply redefined that privacy and excluded covid. But it is unconstitutional and hence was struck down by SCOTUS, with the exception of federal workplaces and certain Healthcare settings. The liberties and laws which apply to you as a private person are very different than the liberties and laws applying to employers/employees. Amd since the mran crapnwass completely under-tested and experimental, and deaths and SAEs were purposefully hidden, what the current administration attempted here was no different than what mengele did under the reign of the nazis.

Onvacation says

Will you condemn them?

Yes. I condemn the violence and vandalism at those riots, while supporting peoples right to peaceful protest. And I vote against individuals who I perceive to be fanning those flames. In fact, I did vote for and against several state/local candidates for this exact reason in the recent election.

mell says

You can ask anyone if they are vaccinated but they don't have to tell you.

Oh yes, of course. This all has nothing to do with HIPAA. I thought you were saying HIPAA has relevant restrictions.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

You can ask anyone if they are vaccinated but they don't have to tell you.

Oh yes, of course. This all has nothing to do with HIPAA. I thought you were saying HIPAA has relevant restrictions.

Yes it was imprecise by me. Hippa is more for releasing health care info to other parties or to other health care settings. You usually have to sign your acceptance and can refuse. It's a violation by the employer to ask or demand that info from you, with exceptions for certain settings. Or let's say it always has been pre-covid, and asking an employee to take a common cold/flu jab or let go would have been unthinkable. SCOTUS should have gone farther in the strike down but at least they mostly rectified it.

DeficitHawk says

If somebody wants to live in the boonies and not be vaccinated that's their business. But if they want to come to my house, they better not bring polio.

What are you talking about? No one can stop Covid. No vaccine. It's an airborne virus that mutates. It's here to stay in some variant until we're all dead from other issues. You will get covid. You will get sick. If you're fat and in ill health, good luck. 99.9% of people will take 3-6 days off, rest and hydrate IF, big IF, they get a bad case. This ain't polio dude.

Sorry you knew someone that died WITH covid virus in their system. It's a mathematical impossibility they died FROM covid. You somehow knew the 1 person out of millions that was struck dead by a cold bug. Not buying it. Sorry. I myself like anecdotal evidence. I also understand it needs to be filtered and not a 1 in millions scenario.

I'm guessing if you tell the truth, your co-worker that passed was fat and unhealthy? Also, was he vaccinated? Having witnessed side effects first hand from just the vaccine, I'd stay away from it. I know 100's (not hyperbole) of people positively tested or covid. Not one went to the doctor or hospital OR died.

A one off death is not evidence. I'm also not sure the comment about living in the boonies?? It's the smartest thing you can do. Your life expectancy is massively lower living in urban areas. Enjoy the homeless, trash, piss, shit, needles all you want. The boonies are where you want to be. The people aren't shit heads.

With disease, the vast majority of the populace is still in the Middle Ages where it is viewed as a divine punishment and their reactions are superstitious. I suppose that's why the Globalists chose it as a perfect herding and fear technique. Most of the general populace are impossible to educate out of their ignorance, and Dems, with their pretenses of intellectual superiority, are often the worst.

I do wonder, though, at the streak of common sense in certain people to know automatically that they are being had. It doesn't seem to have much to do with nominal 'education'.

WookieMan says

I'm also not sure the comment about living in the boonies??

Wookie, I love the boonies and would live in the boonies if I could. But I cant because of my job. I do not disparage the boonies. I want to retire to the boonies. In fact, I bought the lot of property I want to build a house on to retire. Its way out in Trump country :-) The street where I live now does have trash, piss, needles, etc. Its true. (Im in SF bay area). Im not an urbanite at heart... I just live in a denser area to be close to my job.

Covid can not be stopped, its true. it will mutate. vaccines will be out of date nearly as quickly as they get introduced.

It's a mathematical impossibility they died FROM covid.

I do not agree with your characterization of the severity of the disease itself. Lots of people died of this disease. I only know one directly, but know several through 1 degree of separation. Age and weight were factors in some but not all. I would not have guessed my coworker was in a high risk factor category.

The truth is a lot of people were dying FROM covid in the early days of the infection, when the earliest strain was circulating, treatment protocols were not understood, and there were no vaccines. vaccines did lower the death rate after they were introduced... especially if you look at the older people who were dropping like flies early on. The ratio of deaths to infections in the initial waves vs subsequent waves (after vaccine) is telling. Then, Omicron seems to be less harmful in itself than the original strains, and treatment protocols got better as people discovered steroid treatments and other treatments were working better than ventilators. Now, the death rate has got quite low because of those factors.

But it is not true to say this disease was not killing people. It was.

Here is the CDC chart of deaths from all causes. The deaths above the typical trendline are additional extra deaths of people who would not have otherwise died. These are people who died FROM covid. not just people who died while having covid.

DeficitHawk says

vaccines did lower the death rate after they were introduced.

Absolutely false. Even the CDC had to admit that the Covid shot (you are misleading when you call it a vaccine) does not stop anyone from catching, carrying, or spreading Covid. What would have loered the deaths would have been not to force ventilators and allow doctors to treat with HCQ and Ivermectin. Also, don't you find it strange that flu deaths plummeted from 25,000 to 5,000 when Covid came out, as if flu deaths were being called Covid deaths?

Fake test for a fake disease promulgated by paid publicity fiat (fake news MSM with staged theatrics presented as truth) and overriding genuine authoritative sources, and reinforced with fake theater and fake statistics that are slowly being rolled back after the bribes were digested. Fake medicine propped up by a corrupt system of bribed and browbeaten so called peer review.

Fake vaccine designed for purposes not even remotely associated with health care, but to pursue agendas of democide, genocide, transhumanist modification and social control. Pharma and Globalists want us to be 'habituated' to the ritual of plunging shit into our arms voluntarily in the sheep pens.

It's all a dismal magic trick designed to use the cattle and sheep as ongoing profit centers. Worse comes to worse, sell them addiction, the gift that keeps on giving to the dealers.

Of course, Satan smiles at the contempt and disregard for the slaves.

DeficitHawk says

Patrick,

I checked out this article you linked, but it has nothing to do with election fraud. It is about improper storage of election worker personal data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html

Did I miss something?

I know it's about stolen election worker personal data.

Why would you say that that "has nothing to do with election fraud"?

Don't you think people implementing election fraud would be interested in the personal data of the election workers?

DeficitHawk says

But even what we call mandates are not requirements to get a vaccine... they are merely are requirement IF you want to be employed at a particular place or attend a particular school. If you dont do those things, you dont have to get a vaccine.

You're saying that being ordered to do something, and being punished if you don't, is somehow not a requirement?

Being fired or expelled is clearly a severe punishment, usually reserved for serious wrongdoing.

So, by your reasoning, I can point a gun at someone's head and demand their money, but I have not imposed a requirement that they give me their money. It's merely a requirement IF they want to continue living.

Correct?

DeficitHawk says

But if I want someone to have a vaccine before coming to my house, that up to me. people dont have to come to my house.

Correct, people don't have to go to your house, but it is quite mean-spirited to deliberately exclude people who have a legitimate worry about an experimental drug with literally no long-term safety record, and which has been proven to be utterly ineffective at even slowing, much less stopping, a particular disease.

Why would you impose that on anyone? Why does the United States still impose that on incoming foreigners?

You know that literally every public figure demanding the shot was subsequently infected with the virus and got the disease, right? Biden, Fauci, Bourla, Walensky...

DeficitHawk says

vaccines did lower the death rate after they were introduced...

Actually, the big spike in death happened after the vax rollout started:

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

But even what we call mandates are not requirements to get a vaccine... they are merely are requirement IF you want to be employed at a particular place or attend a particular school. If you dont do those things, you dont have to get a vaccine.

You're saying that being ordered to do something, and being punished if you don't, is somehow not a requirement?

Being fired or expelled is clearly a severe punishment, usually reserved for serious wrongdoing.

So, by your reasoning, I can point a gun at someone's head and demand their money, but I have not imposed a requirement that they give me their money. It's merely a requirement IF they want to continue living.

Correct?

Thanks Patrick for great analogy. This reflects the fundamental commie way of controlling and stealing from the innocents.

DeficitHawk says

These are people who died FROM covid. not just people who died while having covid.

Actually, those spikes in death are mostly old people who DID have comorbidities.

Blue says

Thanks Patrick for great analogy.

Actually I kind of regret taking it to the logical extreme now.

It's more like this: "No one is required to follow any law. They are required only if they don't want to be punished for breaking the law."

Patrick,

I think I laid out my opinions on mandates above.. I think it has to be decided case by case as a function of the impact of the underlying disease itself, and the efficacy and safety of the virus. I dont think covid should have vaccine mandates for school or work, but I understand why some people do. You disagree and think there should be no mandates no matter what. That's ok, you are entitled your opinion, and we dont have to agree. BUT I also think this is a matter for elected officials to decide, and they will decide in a way that represents the majority opinion. Our recourse if we disagree with them is to vote them out and replace them. You want to hang those elected officials. That's where I'd say you are not entitled to advocate that course of action. Thats not right. I think you are advocating political violence with that sort of statement.

I also think there are some pretty fundamental disagreements in facts that are coloring peoples different opinions and reactions. Maybe we can start by checking which facts we agree or don't agree on. please feel free to weigh in on these three areas so we can understand why our views diverge so much. maybe then we can take a closer look where we differ or agree.

1) The impact of the disease itself: I think there is an actual disease that is real and was killing people per the CDC chart I showed above. Other people think there is no disease, or the disease does not really kill people or that the death rate of the disease is much lower than implied by the CDC chart. Thats a basic fact that we are not aligned on.

2)The efficacy of the vaccine. It think it helps reduce death rate by a lot and infection rate by a little per double blind studies done, but its efficacy is lower on mutation variants and the mutation rate is fairly high, so the efficacy will go down with time or need constant updates like flu shots. Other people think the vaccine has virtually no benefit at all.

3) The side effects: I think the vaccine is new and a novel type, and people are reasonable to view it as unproven and without a long track record of use. I think the actual documented side effects are much lower than the actual documented benefits. Other people think the side effects are high rates of death and giving the vaccine is akin to murdering someone.

I think it will be hard to find a lot of common ground on covid and vaccines until we find common ground on the facts we are using to make decisions.

Let me know where you stand on the three items.

DeficitHawk says

3) The side effects: I think the vaccine is new and a novel type, and people are reasonable to view it as unproven and without a long track record of use. I think the actual documented side effects are much lower than the actual documented benefits. Other people think the side effects are high rates of death and giving the vaccine is akin to murdering someone.

The problem is that this is not a matter of what one thinks. The math has the facts and it doesn't lie. It just is. And it says clearly that excess deaths have ramped up significantly more than a year into covid, when covid became milder and milder, and when people started to receive the clot shots. The excess deaths from covid on the other hand for the whole year, 15 months before, were hardly visible! And that's because the majority of people did not die of covid, but with covid, and would have died anyways around that time frame. You cannot argue against math.

DeficitHawk says

The efficacy of the vaccine. It think it helps reduce death rate by a lot and infection rate by a little per double blind studies done,

Do you have links to these studies or did you just hear about it on the news?

You may have missed the recent admission by a Pfizer representative that the vax was never tested for stopping transmission.

I have a friend, triple vaxxed, who got covid last year. He coded (heart stopped) seven times while in the hospital and said it would have been worse if he had not been vaxxed. He is now recovering from his second heart surgery since his covid hospitalization. I'm not saying the vax caused his heart attacks but the vax did not stop him from contracting severe Wuhan.

DeficitHawk says

Onvacation says

Will you condemn them?

Yes. I condemn the violence and vandalism at those riots, while supporting peoples right to peaceful protest. And I vote against individuals who I perceive to be fanning those flames. In fact, I did vote for and against several state/local candidates for this exact reason in the recent election.

Ceffer says

Fake test for a fake disease promulgated by paid publicity fiat (fake news MSM with staged theatrics presented as truth) and overriding genuine authoritative sources, and reinforced with fake theater and fake statistics that are slowly being rolled back after the bribes were digested. Fake medicine propped up by a corrupt system of bribed and browbeaten so called peer review.

Fake vaccine designed for purposes not even remotely associated with health care, but to pursue agendas of democide, genocide, transhumanist modification and social control. Pharma and Globalists want us to be 'habituated' to the ritual of plunging shit into our arms voluntarily in the sheep pens.

It's all a dismal magic trick designed to use the cattle and sheep as ongoing profit centers. Worse comes to worse, sell them addiction, the gift that keeps on giving to the dealers.

Of course, Satan smiles at the contempt and disregard for the slaves.

It was orchestrated mass murder. I'm reposting these from other threads to make it more convenient for DH to access:

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-the-cia-and-national#play

https://rumble.com/v1s0jd6-neil-oliver-they-want-us-to-do-what-pandemic-amnesty.html

Malone's presentation makes the point that indeed this is a Mengele-type worldwide human experiment, and explains why those who have pushed the clot shot have done so. Neil Oliver's video is spot fucking on about the ongoing coverup of the crimes. I encourage DH to review both of these.

Robert Malone invented the mRNA tech that is in the clot shot. He is by far one of the most qualified people in the world to weigh in on whether or not the clot shot was moral or ethical, let alone effective.

I would also encourage people to read Peter and Ginger Breggin's book COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey. There used to be a free PDF floating around, but it's been taken down.

Onvacation says

Do you have links to these studies or did you just hear about it on the news?

These studies have been publicly available. there are lots of them you can just google double blind covid vaccine study. Ive been reading them since they started phase 1 studies in 2020. They did much larger statistical studies in 2021. They are available for pfizer, moderna, jansson, etc.

heres one for astra zeneca for example:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D8110C00001/a07258a5-fe26-409c-a940-ae25552c538b/7e743468-f278-44fe-9148-a50e0477e4f3/D8110C00001_Clinical_Study_Report_Synopsis_Redacted-v1.pdf

They generally include efficacy against critical illness, symptomatic illness, and incidence rates of adverse effects.

For data on covid mortaltiy rates by vaccine status, there were lots of studies done on this in the fall 2021 timeframe

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm#T1_down
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

Studies showed significantly lower mortality for people in vaccinated groups than unvaccinated. I didnt really see any studies that reached a different conclusion.

This is the sort of data I am referring to when I say I believe vaccines lowered fatality rates from COVID

mell says

The excess deaths from covid on the other hand for the whole year, 15 months before, were hardly visible!

Really? I can see them quite clearly on this chart!

DeficitHawk says

Onvacation says

Do you have links to these studies or did you just hear about it on the news?

These studies have been publicly available. there are lots of them you can just google double blind covid vaccine study. Ive been reading them since they started phase 1 studies in 2020. They did much larger statistical studies in 2021. They are available for pfizer, moderna, jansson, etc.

heres one for astra zeneca for example:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D8110C00001/a07258a5-fe26-409c-a940-ae25552c538b/7e743468-f278-44fe-9148-a50e0477e4f3/D8110C00001_Clinical_Study_Report_Synopsis_Redacted-v1.pdf

They generally include ...

If you read the study you posted it shows zero efficacy. Their endpoints are antibodies and covid infection cases within 90 days which are meaningless. It is established that most jabs elicit a short lived immune response just long enough for the duration of the study, thus reducing the number of symptomatic covid infections. However after 3-4 months that effect is gone and protection goes negative and risk of severe illness or events rises dramatically, subsequent jabs damage the immune system further until the patient literally will become severely ill or die. And even if you take the 90 days in the study only, the number of serious events/deaths in the jab vs placebo group are equal! The jab DOES NOT WORK!

DeficitHawk says

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D8110C00001/a07258a5-fe26-409c-a940-ae25552c538b/7e743468-f278-44fe-9148-a50e0477e4f3/D8110C00001_Clinical_Study_Report_Synopsis_Redacted-v1.pdf

Why are parts regarding "efficacy" redacted?
DeficitHawk says

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm#T1_down
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

From your study:

Why do you suppose the biggest peak in Wuhan deaths occurred after vaxxing started?

The cognitive dissonance hurts at first but don't give up on facts.

mell says

If you read the study you posted it shows zero efficacy.

This is NOT the conclusion of the paper. If you dont like the methodology of this report, find one you like better. there are lots of them available from the 2020-2021 time period.

Onvacation says

Why are parts regarding "efficacy" redacted?

They have to do that because the Clintons killed some of the subjects.

Onvacation says

Why do you suppose the biggest peak in Wuhan deaths occurred after vaxxing started?

The cognitive dissonance hurts at first but don't give up on facts.

No matter the overall infection rate going on at the time, the death rate of vaccinated people is significantly lower than non vaccinated. so even if there was a big wave at that time, the relative mortality rate shows that the vaccine was lowering death rates compared to unvaccinated groups.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

If you read the study you posted it shows zero efficacy.

This is NOT the conclusion of the paper. If you dont like the methodology of this report, find one you like better. there are lots of them available from the 2020-2021 time period.

Their conclusion is irrelevant, if you give a jab and you have the same outcomes for the placebo group as for the treatment arm, then it has no efficacy. You could inject yourself with the needle all day to prevent the thousands of strains of cold and flu viruses that go around, but you would eventually die from the jabs, either from their brutal side effects or from ADE. And your likelihood to never get seriously ill from any of those viruses is 99.99%. There is a reason we never have attempted to create vaccines for all the highly mutating common cold and flu viruses, because ADE will eventually kill the vaccinated. Again, the math said 7 serious outcomes in both groups, so it's not effective, and the long term side effects are of course unknown with such a short study duration.

You guys are seriously debating the 2020 election? Because a senile pedophile getting more votes than Obama is so realistic. Because pipes bursting at the exact time votes need to be counted, then a huge swing for one party happens all the time. Because we routinely see videos of Democrat voting monitors posting live that they are being prevented from over-seeing the vote counting(Pennsylvania). Because boarding up all the windows so no one can see what your doing is super routine.

I'm not against debate, but if you are this in denial of the truth two years later, I'd say it's pointless. Why not pick a now topic like how Democrats have become the Neo-Cons they always hated.

Mell, maybe you will like the methodology of this report better.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017

It did a better job documenting the incidence of severe illness in the placebo vs vaccine groups over a longer period.

If you dont like that one, there are more, but I will invite you to search for them. there are ones with the fatality counts, illness counts, etc from the initil phase 1 studies, etc. As I was reading them in 2021 I got the the point of feeling it was becoming unethical to have placebo groups in these studies, because the study participants who got placebo were dying.

DeficitHawk says

Mell, maybe you will like the methodology of this report better.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017

It did a better job documenting the incidence of severe illness in the placebo vs vaccine groups over a longer period.

If you dont like that one, there are more, but I will invite you to search for them. there are ones with the fatality counts, illness counts, etc from the initil phase 1 studies, etc. As I was reading them in 2021 I got the the point of feeling it was becoming unethical to have placebo groups in these studies, because the study participants who got placebo were dying.

They enrolled 30k participants, and noted 6 (!) severe covid infections in the placebo group.vs 1 in the mrna group, 0 deaths. The amount of side effects (mild, moderate, serious) was at the minimum doubled in the mrma group. With less than 0.3% serious illness in all participants and no deaths, how can anyone conclude any statistically significance effcacy from that? There is no efficacy.

DeficitHawk says

Studies showed significantly lower mortality for people in vaccinated groups than unvaccinated. I didnt really see any studies that reached a different conclusion.

This is the sort of data I am referring to when I say I believe vaccines lowered fatality rates from COVID

You don't get it yet do you?

We just went through a "pandemic" of which there was a death rate around 0.02% while small companies (only) were forcibly shut down, and we were told the vaccines would end transmission.

They don't have any credibility anymore. You can no longer trust "studies". These people, in a study, over-medicated a test group with hydroxycholoriquine knowing it would kill them, published the study in The Lancet, and had it pulled. They purposely killed people.

People still pointing to obviously compromised authorities haven't done the work to realize they are compromised. A great deal of people here have spent the time and effort. If you want to take the vaccine, go ahead, but it makes no difference to you if anybody is vaccinated, they still pass on the disease. The risk is exclusively with the person that takes the injection.

This is obvious at this point. You can argue that it's to a person's benefit to trust the authorities still, but there's people going beyond that and demanding they get the shot, and they don't have a leg to stand on. The authorities lied. They have permanently lost their credibility with a great number of people. If you still trust them, that's on you.

Honestly, at this point, I hope people like you continue to trust the authorities. It would be nice to live in a world without a bunch of clueless sheeplike Karen's for a few years.

mell says

noted 6 (!) severe covid infections in the placebo group.vs 1 in the mrna

Not sure we read the same report: I see 2 in the mrna group and 106 in placebo group.

Vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0 to 94.8), with 55 confirmed cases in the mRNA-1273 group (9.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 7.2 to 12.5) and 744 in the placebo group (136.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 127.0 to 146.8). The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group,

richwicks says

You can no longer trust "studies".

Oh ok. I think maybe this is the sentiment that is causing dispute.. not different conclusions from the same study...

Well, I think I will stop spending time trying to find data for you all if you arent going to believe it anyway.

DeficitHawk says

richwicks says

You can no longer trust "studies".

Oh ok. I think maybe this is the sentiment that is causing dispute.. not different conclusions from the same study...

Well, I think I will stop spending time trying to find data for you all if you arent going to believe it anyway.

Look, try to convince us there was a pandemic.

That ought to be simple. I live in Silly Con Valley, there's PLENTY of homeless people here, I didn't see any dead bodies on the street.

There's a point where people just get sick of being lied to, and then beyond that, people get sick of the suckers that still don't realize they're being lied to.

We have direct data based on excess deaths on what happened with nations that ignored this "pandemic" and those that did lockdowns and forced vaccinations. You've taken an experimental injection for a disease that posed little or no risk to you, in my viewpoint that was foolish and naive of you, but it's YOUR decision. Where I drew the line is when many of you demanded I do the same.

You think you're wasting time with US, the truth is, we've wasted more than enough time with you. Trying to talk sense to fools, what's the point? Do whatever you want to do but do not impose what you've been relentlessly propagandized into believing through mass media on us. Is this unreasonable?

MRNA and DNA vaccines have been worked on for over 20 years, and FOUR companies MAGICALLY came up wit a solution in under a year, all at the same time. I work in high tech, this shit doesn't happen. I have no fucking idea what you were injected with, but I know pretty damned well, whatever it was, wasn't some breakthrough that happened concurrently with 4 corporations - 1 or 2 maybe, but not 4. Good luck.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

noted 6 (!) severe covid infections in the placebo group.vs 1 in the mrna

Not sure we read the same report: I see 2 in the mrna group and 106 in placebo group.

Vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0 to 94.8), with 55 confirmed cases in the mRNA-1273 group (9.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 7.2 to 12.5) and 744 in the placebo group (136.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 127.0 to 146.8). The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group,

I was looking at the intent to treat analysis mentioned at the end where it was 6 vs 1. I am not interested in their narrative spin, what matters is the math of the outcome, and that is as follows:
"A total of 32 deaths had occurred by completion of the blinded phase, with 16 deaths each (0.1%) in the placebo and mRNA-1273 groups; no deaths were considered to be related to injections of placebo or vaccine, and 4 were attributed to Covid-19 (3 in the placebo group and 1 in the mRNA-1273 group) (Tables S19 and S26)"

It doesn't matter what they attributed serious events or deaths to, then only thing that matters are the raw numbers at unblinking. Even if you believed 106 severe covid out of 15000 you will see their footnote saying that high risk factors such as obesity amd diabetes were very predominant amongst the severe cases. If you take the average healthy person in the study, they had virtually zero risk of death or severe covid infection. Again, after unblinding 16 were dead in each group, what dies that tell you?

DeficitHawk says

This was Trump and Trump supporters.

There certainly were some Trump supporters who broke the law. Trump however did not break the law, nor did he suggest that anyone should become violent. Quite the opposite in fact. Furthermore the vast majority of Trump supporters were peaceful. Trump himself was peaceful. Only a small fraction of people were out of line, and it is a fact that undercover government agents were there as well as other agitators not affiliated with the Trump crowd that influenced the mob to behave badly. The feds and leftists wanted violence in order to vilify Trump and his supporters. Unfortunately some fell into this obvious trap.

I’ve talked to a lot of Trump supporters and none of them would commit or support violence like what happened on J6. It is only a fringe element of people I would not associate with that could even consider violence, and in fact most Trump supporters don’t and didn’t go to Washington because they are not activists they are just people who want to live in peace and liberty.

What would you do if you believed your candidate won the election with historic numbers, and that districts and states run by the opposition party fudged the numbers in the dead of night to steal the election?