ADVERTISEMENT

Coronavirus

Good news is some vaccine lots are much less worse than others. The "hot lots" doing most of the killing are nevertheless spread out, likely to disguise mRNA experimentation on the public.

Not every vaccine lot is the same.

"
Nearly every day there is a report of a young, fit individual, usually a man, who suffers unexplained sudden death now termed “sudden adult death syndrome.” Because COVID-19 vaccination is highly prevalent and linked to the development of heart inflammation and myocarditis, it is a conservative and reasonable conclusion that unless otherwise ruled out, sudden adult death syndrome is a consequence of myocarditis. The differential diagnosis could include other vaccine related serious adverse events including fatal pulmonary embolism, multisystem inflammatory disorder, and vaccine induced thrombocytopenic purpura. Unlike sudden death, most of the other conditions give patients and doctors a chance at making a diagnosis, hospitalization, and treatment. Because half or more of COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis is asymptomatic, the first manifestation can be collapse due to an abnormal heart rhythm and unless promptly resuscitated, the pathway to death is rapid and final.

With > 200 peer-reviewed manuscripts on the topic, there are some emerging patterns: 1) deaths do not occur randomly across vaccine manufacturing lots but rather tend to occur in “hot lots”

 
My recollection is that it was a term Biden's team (might have actually been attributed to him) came up with . . . I'd guess there was a focus group involved, lol. Whether that embodies Topsail is an unknown to me.
I assumed it was the alternate identity of a maga person. One who is a normal maga by day, but becomes ULTRA-MAGA at night and fights dems.
 
I assumed it was the alternate identity of a maga person. One who is a normal maga by day, but becomes ULTRA-MAGA at night and fights dems.
By scouring the internet for an abundance of confirmation bias!

"He's... Ultra-Maga-Man!"
 
"
“The major political and economic question of the 21st century will be: ‘What do we need humans for, or at least why do we need so many humans?'” said Harari, who serves as the right hand man of WEF Director Klaus Scwhab.

That was not the first time Harari said that. In an interview with TED head Chris Anderson in early August, Harari said: “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population.”

“The future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering,” said Harari at the time. “Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful. These technologies increasingly will make [people] redundant and will make it possible to replace the people.

So how will bioengineering "make it possible to replace the people"?

 
Original sources (and yes, I read the Pfizer study) but this should count as well.

Here's the FDA's junk science logic for authorizing Pfizer under an EAU, bolded in the paragraph, not title, added by me.

"
FDA Evaluation of Available Effectiveness Data

The effectiveness data to support the EUA include an analysis of 36,523 participants in the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled international study, the majority of whom are U.S. participants, who did not have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through seven days after the second dose. Among these participants, 18,198 received the vaccine and 18,325 received placebo. The vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease among these clinical trial participants with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group. Of these 170 COVID-19 cases, one in the vaccine group and three in the placebo group were classified as severe. At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person. "

Let's start at the bottom.

1. They had no evidence the vaccine prevents a vaccinated person from spreading Covid. That's pretty key since they now admit they had no evidence it stopped people from getting Covid, which negates the bogus 95% claim.

2, They have no evidence any benefit will last. Interesting to me is whether they thought it would last temporarily but enable people to handle higher viral loads and so help spread the pandemic.

3. Out of 36,523 people, only 170 cases were observed, meaning this is just statistical noise and to make any claims from this is just bogus if not fraud.

4. One could say 12.5% of vaccinated cases resulted in severe Covid whereas only 2 percent of the unvaccinated cases resulted in severe Covid, and so it's best not to get the vax. The relative risk shows the placebo provided 6.5 times more protection.

5. Point being the 95% number is a relative risk number that doesn't mean the vax gives someone 95% protection from Covid, and it's based so little data as to be statistical noise.

6. The study was international and so not weighted for geography and exposure to the virus, meaning the degree an area was being hit by Covid.

Considering the company's vested financial interest, there is little reason to accept the study as valid when it's not weighted for viral exposure in differing geographies.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...t this time, data are,2 from person to person.
 
" who did not have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through seven days after the second dose"

Additionally, one can see this as junk science because in order to determine whether taking the vaccine increases or lowers your risk of severe disease, there would need to be a comparison of the time period between taking the first shot and 7 days afterward after the second dose.

That is noticeably absent, and the data since then has shown much higher rates of people getting Covid right after taking the shot during this time period.

So the relative risk if one counts that could be it's 95% safer to avoid the shot. Who knows? Regardless, the FDA should have demanded that data and that data should have been included, and we still need that data.

Most likely the shots actually increased your chance of getting Covid, and severe illness and death from Covid.
 
More ways anyone can determine the CDC and others are outright lying to the public about the so-called vaccines.

" When people who have been vaccinated get COVID-19, they are much less likely to experience severe symptoms than people who are unvaccinated."

Except the Pfizer study the FDA relied on and quotes showed one in 8 vaccinated people who caught Covid suffered severe disease whereas only 2% of those unvaccinated did.

Of course, there is no such thing as a breakthrough infection because the vaccine was never designed and tested to prevent infections by Pfizer's own admission.

 
Original sources (and yes, I read the Pfizer study) but this should count as well.

Here's the FDA's junk science logic for authorizing Pfizer under an EAU, bolded in the paragraph, not title, added by me.

"
FDA Evaluation of Available Effectiveness Data

The effectiveness data to support the EUA include an analysis of 36,523 participants in the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled international study, the majority of whom are U.S. participants, who did not have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through seven days after the second dose. Among these participants, 18,198 received the vaccine and 18,325 received placebo. The vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease among these clinical trial participants with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group. Of these 170 COVID-19 cases, one in the vaccine group and three in the placebo group were classified as severe. At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person. "

Let's start at the bottom.

1. They had no evidence the vaccine prevents a vaccinated person from spreading Covid. That's pretty key since they now admit they had no evidence it stopped people from getting Covid, which negates the bogus 95% claim.

2, They have no evidence any benefit will last. Interesting to me is whether they thought it would last temporarily but enable people to handle higher viral loads and so help spread the pandemic.

3. Out of 36,523 people, only 170 cases were observed, meaning this is just statistical noise and to make any claims from this is just bogus if not fraud.

4. One could say 12.5% of vaccinated cases resulted in severe Covid whereas only 2 percent of the unvaccinated cases resulted in severe Covid, and so it's best not to get the vax. The relative risk shows the placebo provided 6.5 times more protection.

5. Point being the 95% number is a relative risk number that doesn't mean the vax gives someone 95% protection from Covid, and it's based so little data as to be statistical noise.

6. The study was international and so not weighted for geography and exposure to the virus, meaning the degree an area was being hit by Covid.

Considering the company's vested financial interest, there is little reason to accept the study as valid when it's not weighted for viral exposure in differing geographies.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19#:~:text=At this time, data are,2 from person to person.
I hear the Dutch are executing people who get vaxxed
 
Do you use the bedazzler or a hot glue gun for the rhinestones you have on the family t-shirts?

cb73cec0-7306-4c06-a73e-6b3d42d10fc8_text.gif
 
Covidians exposed. Only one in a 100 million chance Covid came from nature and not a lab, and that's just from this one analysis which doesn't factor in other evidence strongly proving it was a lab creation.

 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
Not that it changes what is true one way or another, but for the lemmings out there or just those looking for the truth, the US senate report says Covid came from a lab.

" In other words, all of us “conspiracy theorists” floating the idea of a lab leak just because of the totally coincidental fact that the virus showed up on a virology lab’s doorstep, have now been validated by the U.S. Senate."

 
"
“The federal Care Act encouraged this human disaster by offering all US hospitals up to 39,000 dollars for each ICU patient they put on respirators, despite the fact that early on it was obvious that the respirators were a major cause of death …
In addition, the hospitals received 12,000 dollars for each patient that was admitted to the ICU — explaining, in my opinion and others, why all federal medical bureaucracies (CDC, FDA, NIAID, NIH, etc) did all in their power to prevent life-saving early treatments. Letting patients deteriorate to the point they needed hospitalization, meant big money for all hospitals …
It has been noted that billions in Federal COVID aid is being used by these hospital giants to acquire these financially endangered hospitals, further increasing the power of corporate medicine over physician independence …
One must also keep in mind that this event never satisfied the criteria for a pandemic. The World Health Organization changed the criteria to make this a pandemic …
The draconian measures established to contain this contrived ‘pandemic’ have never been shown to be successful, such as masking the public, lockdowns, and social distancing. A number of carefully done studies during previous flu seasons demonstrated that masks, of any kind, had never prevented the spread of the virus among the public …”https://noqreport.com/2022/10/26/buried-fact-covid-deaths-rare-for-any-age-group/
 
Not that it changes what is true one way or another, but for the lemmings out there or just those looking for the truth, the US senate report says Covid came from a lab.

" In other words, all of us “conspiracy theorists” floating the idea of a lab leak just because of the totally coincidental fact that the virus showed up on a virology lab’s doorstep, have now been validated by the U.S. Senate."



Ends his thread with:

All in all, this report cherry picks data and in many cases makes assertions that completely contradict the scientific facts and data that are available.

It also provides no actual evidence for a lab origin of the virus (WIV just being in Wuhan is NOT real evidence of a lab leak) and contains plenty of political 'US vs China' discussion points (that imho obstruct the scientific search for the pandemic's origins).
 


Ends his thread with:

All in all, this report cherry picks data and in many cases makes assertions that completely contradict the scientific facts and data that are available.

It also provides no actual evidence for a lab origin of the virus (WIV just being in Wuhan is NOT real evidence of a lab leak) and contains plenty of political 'US vs China' discussion points (that imho obstruct the scientific search for the pandemic's origins).
It's a bipartisan investigation and report. The idea this just stems from Burr is not only wrong but questions why anyone would listen to someone that leads off with that falsehood.
 


Ends his thread with:

All in all, this report cherry picks data and in many cases makes assertions that completely contradict the scientific facts and data that are available.

It also provides no actual evidence for a lab origin of the virus (WIV just being in Wuhan is NOT real evidence of a lab leak) and contains plenty of political 'US vs China' discussion points (that imho obstruct the scientific search for the pandemic's origins).
Another intriguing analysis showed only 1 in 100,000,000 chance it stemmed from nature, and just based on this line of evidence. That alone disproves the natural origin theory without even getting into all the other evidence.

Did you read the study?

 


Ends his thread with:

All in all, this report cherry picks data and in many cases makes assertions that completely contradict the scientific facts and data that are available.

It also provides no actual evidence for a lab origin of the virus (WIV just being in Wuhan is NOT real evidence of a lab leak) and contains plenty of political 'US vs China' discussion points (that imho obstruct the scientific search for the pandemic's origins).
Btw, one of the main reasons for sharing this with you is that since it is a bipartisan report, your side may require you to soon change your narrative and claims in respect to this issue.

They won't tell you that, of course, but to be kind, just want to give you a heads up on what you will soon be required to think and believe. :)
 
Btw, one of the main reasons for sharing this with you is that since it is a bipartisan report
It is an interim report, released by the minority oversight staff. It was not something bipartisan by the whole Committee staff.

This stuff is all fascinating and interesting, but apparently this report isn't very scientific and doesn't disprove the two recent paper's conclusions. But their conclusions weren't definitive just strongly leaning toward zoonotic.

For awhile people thought we'd never know the origin for sure....
 
Btw, one of the main reasons for sharing this with you is that since it is a bipartisan report, your side may require you to soon change your narrative and claims in respect to this issue.
"your side". The side of listening to scientists over politicians?

I find it funny that you blame the pandemic on politicians all this time as power-grabbing or population-controlling, but now your are parroting the findings from.... a politician!
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
For awhile people thought we'd never know the origin for sure....
I don't think it will ever be universally understood or believed as to where it started or how it started.

The thing has morphed a thousand times in two years. If a diseased bat, or pangolin, or whatever they grow in a wet market, can launch these things at any time, then we/they, somebody, needs to burn all those disease factories to the ground.

If they created it in a lab, with GOF intentions, then we'll never know that for sure. It will just continue to be speculation and obsession by Trump supporters who are PO'ed that Covid helped to dethrone their savior.
 


Ends his thread with:

All in all, this report cherry picks data and in many cases makes assertions that completely contradict the scientific facts and data that are available.

It also provides no actual evidence for a lab origin of the virus (WIV just being in Wuhan is NOT real evidence of a lab leak) and contains plenty of political 'US vs China' discussion points (that imho obstruct the scientific search for the pandemic's origins).
"It also provides no actual evidence for a lab origin of the virus (WIV just being in Wuhan is NOT real evidence of a lab leak) and contains plenty of political 'US vs China' discussion points (that imho obstruct the scientific search for the pandemic's origins)."

You want a smoking gun? A lab experimenting with exactly this kind of lab-produced virus which is in close proximity to the determined epicenter of the spread of the virus, with said epicenter being a place that lab people would very likely visit and which lends itself to contagion in several ways. You've got your smoking assault weapon and more bodies than you can count.

People have been convicted and sent to the beyond with less evidence than this. Of course, if you simply refuse to connect the dots that are so close they're bumping into each other, no gun will ever smoke enough.
 
"your side". The side of listening to scientists over politicians?

I find it funny that you blame the pandemic on politicians all this time as power-grabbing or population-controlling, but now your are parroting the findings from.... a politician!
You mistake Fauci, Mr I am the Science, for something other than a politician.

Real scientists from Yale, Stanford, Harvard and all over the world have always denounced the official narrative as lies, and they've been proven right time and time again.

No, you don't listen to real science. You follow political narratives that are sciency but are quite obviously flawed for anyone with a brain that takes the time to review the data.
 
You mistake Fauci, Mr I am the Science, for something other than a politician.

Real scientists from Yale, Stanford, Harvard and all over the world have always denounced the official narrative as lies, and they've been proven right time and time again.
The preponderance of evidence supports the argument that Covid originated in the Wuhan Lab. But Dems like blazers are experts at denying facts. The truth is the facts just don’t support their political agenda the vast majority of the time.
 
The preponderance of evidence supports the argument that Covid originated in the Wuhan Lab. But Dems like blazers are experts at denying facts. The truth is the facts just don’t support their political agenda the vast majority of the time.
Of course, I have my own opinion on this question, but that doesn't mean squat. The bottom line is that I don't think we will ever know 100% due to the politics of the entire covid experience. And even if we were generally united like a 9/11 moment, we can't discount that this came from China either way. To expect the CCP to be fully transparent and work towards this answer is foolhardy. The even bigger question to me is why were we working with them to begin with?
 
Of course, I have my own opinion on this question, but that doesn't mean squat. The bottom line is that I don't think we will ever know 100% due to the politics of the entire covid experience. And even if we were generally united like a 9/11 moment, we can't discount that this came from China either way. To expect the CCP to be fully transparent and work towards this answer is foolhardy. The even bigger question to me is why were we working with them to begin with?
" The even bigger question to me is why were we working with them to begin with?"

Exactly. No one defending Fauci ever answers that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
I know many won't like the "source" but read it for the information.


And here is some info on the referenced emails:

Would have been nice to see Rand Paul turned loose on their asses.
 
This is an excerpt from Top Secret military document or was Top Secret.

1. It shows that by April of 2020, Ivermectin and HCQ were know curatives of Covid.

2. It also states mRNA vaccines work poorly since they mimic the SYNTHETIC Covid virus spike protein.
ivermectin-link-veritas.jpg

Let that sink in. Covid is not of natural origin. The spike protein is synthetic, and mRNA vaccines duplicate the toxic synthetic spike protein.
 
This is an excerpt from Top Secret military document or was Top Secret.

1. It shows that by April of 2020, Ivermectin and HCQ were know curatives of Covid.

2. It also states mRNA vaccines work poorly since they mimic the SYNTHETIC Covid virus spike protein.
ivermectin-link-veritas.jpg

Let that sink in. Covid is not of natural origin. The spike protein is synthetic, and mRNA vaccines duplicate the toxic synthetic spike protein.
You can make your own hcq by boiling orange peels too. They don’t want you to know that.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT