« First « Previous Comments 186 - 225 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
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?
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.
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.
vaccines did lower the death rate after they were introduced...
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?
These are people who died FROM covid. not just people who died while having covid.
Thanks Patrick for great analogy.
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 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,
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.
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.
Do you have links to these studies or did you just hear about it on the news?
The excess deaths from covid on the other hand for the whole year, 15 months before, were hardly visible!
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 ...
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
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
If you read the study you posted it shows zero efficacy.
Why are parts regarding "efficacy" redacted?
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.
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.
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
noted 6 (!) severe covid infections in the placebo group.vs 1 in the mrna
You can no longer trust "studies".
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.
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,
This was Trump and Trump supporters.
Id say you dont get to claim Trump did a peaceful handoff because of how he manipulated a crowd to violence on Jan 6.
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 ment...
They have to do that because the Clintons killed some of the subjects.
OK. Honestly I dont see this really going anywhere, because we dont agree on even basic facts. Mell reads the same paper as I do and where I read 106 vs 2, he reads 6 vs 1. WE cant even agree how to interpret the exact same information. I will show Mell a chart of total mortality in USA from 2018 to now, mell will say "I cant see the bars above the line from may 2020 to may 2021" and richwicks will say 'there was no pandemic at all because I didnt see the corpses and you cant listen to studies'.
As near as I can tell, the prevailing view of the community here is that Trump won the election, covid doesnt kill people, and only vaccines kill people. And I dont agree with any of those statements.
So, this isnt really coming down to a discussion about "What vision do we each have for America, or what are the pros/cons of different policies etc" its just coming down to "I'll only accept facts an information from my side because I dont trust the sources where y...
OK. Honestly I dont see this really going anywhere, because we dont agree on even basic facts.
I wanted an argument, but all im getting is contradiction! :-)
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.
As near as I can tell, the prevailing view of the community here is that Trump won the election, covid doesnt kill people, and only vaccines kill people. And I dont agree with any of those statements.
I wanted an argument, but all im getting is contradiction! :-)
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.
« First « Previous Comments 186 - 225 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.